Russia outlines its vision of European missile shield

[Lankan Ranger]

Russia outlines its vision of European missile shield

Commander of Russian Space Forces Lt. Gen. Oleg Ostapenko outlined on Friday Russia's proposals for the future European missile defense network.

Russia and NATO agreed to cooperate on the so-called Euro missile shield during the Russia-NATO Council summit in Lisbon in November 2010. NATO insists there should be two independent systems that exchange information, while Russia favors a joint system with full-scale interoperability.

"We are ready to develop together with NATO experts on missile defense the architecture of this [joint] network, from the concept and selection of the best sites for the deployment of radars and interceptors to the set up and operation of joint data processing and control centers," Ostapenko said in an interview with Izvestia daily newspaper.

The general said it would be logical and efficient to create a network of "sector" defenses where each member state or group of states would assume responsibility for intercepting and destroying ballistic missiles over assigned territory.

Russia is ready to provide a "missile shield" over Eastern Europe, the Black Sea, the Barents Sea and the Baltic Sea, Ostapenko said, adding that a decision to deploy missile defenses must be coordinated by a joint command center on the basis of information provided by a joint data processing center.

"In order to ensure a reliable and uniform exchange of information it is necessary to set up a joint data processing center which would obtain, process and relay target data to a joint fire control center," he said.

Russian military specialists must be part of teams operating these centers on rotation basis, the general added.

Russia has retained staunch opposition to the planned deployment of U.S. missile defense systems near its borders, claiming they would be a security threat. NATO and the United States insist that the shield would defend NATO members against missiles from North Korea and Iran and would not be directed at Russia.

Ostapenko said a joint missile defense network would alleviate Russia's concerns over potential missile threats from NATO.

"In case of a joint missile defense network, there would be no need to place missile systems on the territory of the countries protected by the Russian missile umbrella," the general said.

In addition, cooperation in the framework of the European missile shield would allow all the participants to cut the expenses on the project because NATO will need to protect less territory on its own, Ostapenko said.

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110429/163762332.html

 

[HROBOS]

European missile defense system is directed against (more on priority)
1. Russia.
2. China.
3. India (in perspective)
4. The entire Muslim Middle East (in the future as they are not carriers).
It is a system of blackmail and pressure on the unwanted.
Imagine for a moment that Russia wants to deploy a similar system in Nicaragua or Cuba. What happens? Who does not have enough fantasy look chronicling the Cuban missile crisis. Where, in response to the deployment of U.S. missiles along the border of the Soviet Union, the union placed its missiles in Cuba.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

This whole Binladen chase is none sense, truth is USA / Nato only fear one Enemy and that is Russia / China together

This is why US is busy building , temporary checkposts in Afghanistan , this is why they put their forces in Iraq - to make sure Russia does not reaches the Middle east and cuts off oil supply to NATO / USA.

Becasue of Russia , US has armed up states with weapons...

Not long ago 1980 world remembers how they bycotted peaceful olympics in Russia

Even know US/Britain are always contemplating how to defame Russia

Not long ago when Russia went and attacked Georgia , British media started to spawn hateful views about Russia on internet

In any case Russia knows this they are not idiots they know whats going on

 

[anon45]

European missile defense system is directed against (more on priority)
1. Russia.
2. China.
3. India (in perspective)
4. The entire Muslim Middle East (in the future as they are not carriers).
It is a system of blackmail and pressure on the unwanted.
Imagine for a moment that Russia wants to deploy a similar system in Nicaragua or Cuba. What happens? Who does not have enough fantasy look chronicling the Cuban missile crisis. Where, in response to the deployment of U.S. missiles along the border of the Soviet Union, the union placed its missiles in Cuba.

Euro shield against China... You on crack?

 

[HROBOS]

Euro shield against China... You on crack?

Thank you for agreeing with the other three points.

China is the second largest nuclear nation-building after Russia.
I do not take into account the NATO countries for obvious reasons.
Try to explain the three examples.
1. Germany led all-out war of annihilation against the Soviet Union. Germany did not use chemical weapons. Chemical weapons, Germany could destroy any city (Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, etc.) or any other site of resistance. Just do not try to justify these decisions humanism. The population of Leningrad proposed to completely eliminate that and do it. The population of Stalingrad was nearly exterminated. All these goals have been achieved quite traditional ways with big losses for German soldiers. More efficient chemical weapons pylilos warehouses. The answer to this dilemma are huge stocks of chemical and bacteriological weapons, the Soviet Union. Bombing in 1941 in Berlin by Soviet aircraft has demonstrated the Germans them vulnerable to weapons of mass destruction.
2. Japan lost their main strike force - navy. Aviation was in a sorry state. Continental Japanese troops will be destroyed. Japan was cut off from the rest of the world.
Meaning the use of atomic weapons on two cities do not have significant military value?
Response.
Because Japan had nothing to say.
3. Why did the USSR was not hit with atomic weapons at the beginning of the Cold War?
Response.
First, reserves for guaranteed destruction of the Soviet Union was not enough.
Then it was too late (in Russia there its nuclear weapons).

The main task of nuclear weapons is deterrence.
About this desire to get yourself an advantage over others.
Therefore, the special joy than U.S. satellites over the construction of missile defense in the world is not observed.

 

[anon45]

Thank you for agreeing with the other three points.

China is the second largest nuclear nation-building after Russia.
I do not take into account the NATO countries for obvious reasons.
Try to explain the three examples.
1. Germany led all-out war of annihilation against the Soviet Union. Germany did not use chemical weapons. Chemical weapons, Germany could destroy any city (Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, etc.) or any other site of resistance. Just do not try to justify these decisions humanism. The population of Leningrad proposed to completely eliminate that and do it. The population of Stalingrad was nearly exterminated. All these goals have been achieved quite traditional ways with big losses for German soldiers. More efficient chemical weapons pylilos warehouses. The answer to this dilemma are huge stocks of chemical and bacteriological weapons, the Soviet Union. Bombing in 1941 in Berlin by Soviet aircraft has demonstrated the Germans them vulnerable to weapons of mass destruction.
2. Japan lost their main strike force - navy. Aviation was in a sorry state. Continental Japanese troops will be destroyed. Japan was cut off from the rest of the world.
Meaning the use of atomic weapons on two cities do not have significant military value?
Response.
Because Japan had nothing to say.
3. Why did the USSR was not hit with atomic weapons at the beginning of the Cold War?
Response.
First, reserves for guaranteed destruction of the Soviet Union was not enough.
Then it was too late (in Russia there its nuclear weapons).

The main task of nuclear weapons is deterrence.
About this desire to get yourself an advantage over others.
Therefore, the special joy than U.S. satellites over the construction of missile defense in the world is not observed.

Your examples have absolutely nothing to do with a Euro shield and who it is meant as a defense against. China is on the other side of the supercontinent, they can shoot over the Pacific if they're aiming for the US.

Also I didn't agree with the rest, India as a target is ludicrous, and the reason Russia is not a target has been explained far better than I could explain it by others on and off this site ad infinitum.

Middle-Eastern countries don't have nuclear programs (except for Iran/Israel), so it doesn't hold up. It is meant to be a shield against potential rogue states with a very low amount of nuclear missiles that can reach Europe or the US.

 

[Obambam]

The shield is basically protection for NATO against Africa, Middle-East and Asia. Every single country from those regions would be affected by it.

 

[HROBOS]

The shield is basically protection for NATO against Africa, Middle-East and Asia. Every single country from those regions would be affected by it.

Do not be offended. You made my conclusions based on the publications of the press? Or open a map? Should be located where anti-missile systems? In the Czech Republic and Poland or Turkey, Greece?

 

[HROBOS]

Your examples have absolutely nothing to do with a Euro shield and who it is meant as a defense against. China is on the other side of the supercontinent, they can shoot over the Pacific if they're aiming for the US.

If they want to put pressure on U.S. allies in Europe?

Also I didn't agree with the rest, India as a target is ludicrous, and the reason Russia is not a target has been explained far better than I could explain it by others on and off this site ad infinitum.

If you think that the boundaries of the Asian countries to serve for them a political ghetto.
Then you're right. If you think that these countries have the right to have an impact on world politics. Then the missile defense system in Europe is aimed against them. Nuclear weapons first and foremost political. Few countries can afford large arsenals.

Middle-Eastern countries don't have nuclear programs (except for Iran/Israel), so it doesn't hold up. It is meant to be a shield against potential rogue states with a very low amount of nuclear missiles that can reach Europe or the US.

Rogue countries - the notion of subjective.

 

[Obambam]

Do not be offended. You made my conclusions based on the publications of the press? Or open a map? Should be located where anti-missile systems? In the Czech Republic and Poland or Turkey, Greece?

No worries, I'm not offended at all.

I based my conclusion on the history of NATO and also the location of the shield.

NATO's existance as a defensive bloc was initially purely anti Soviet. Their existence was no longer needed since the collapse of the Soviet union in 1991. However, they continued to exist to safeguard its interests and to watch each others back against future threats coming outside of the Euro zone.
The fact of the matter that the shield was intended to be stationed in Eastern Europe says a lot about its intentions. Who besides the US, UK and France possesses nuke? It makes sense that their intention was to silent Russia's threat to the EU and further isolating it from the US.
If it wasn't intended to target Russia, then they should fully cooperate with Russia and answer to everyone of Russia's concerns. Any reluctancy to stay open with details and cooperation will say otherwise.

This defense shield are mainly aimed at Russia but to a lesser extent countries such as China, India, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran etc.
Since they don't belong to the Euro zone and aren't NATO countries, theoretically speaking, they are all affected by this be it directly or not.

I think all nuclear armed countries should seek understanding and NATO cooperation on this defense shield since it undermines the defense and security of all nations outside of the NATO and the EU.