Last updated on November 20th, 2015
Or Does it Mean, Ignoring History?
US, Poland OK missile defense base, riling Moscow Russia condemns US missile deal
I can agree with US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, for her statement, “Missile defence, of course, is aimed at no one. It is in our defence that we do this.” And it sounds plausible when you realise that the “defence” amounts to only 10 missiles, which carry no warhead and are designed to knock any object out of the sky by whacking into it at very high speed – a so-called kinetic weapon. 10 missiles for the whole of Western Europe! However, she is being very ignorant or choosing to ignore all the events of history if she expects that anyone would see this action as isolated and non-provocative. Notionally, the reason is to provide a shield against so-called rogue states like Iran firing missiles our way.
Now consider how the USA would react if The Bahamas, an independent sovereign state decided to site Russian missiles on it’s soil to counter a possible threat from over-flying drugs barons from Columbia! After all, Russia could quite rightfully claim that the missiles were for defence only.
I’ve purposely not mentioned Cuba – oops! However, jokes aside, it’s exactly the same. The missiles aren’t the problem – it’s who’s putting them in place that is the source of the antagonism. The fact that Russia has threatened to react and has said it will react means that it will react. In fact because of this, it’ll have to react. Despite the Democratic Ellen Tauscher towing the same line as Republican Rice, the Russians haven’t believed it. I can envisage a stack of “proper” weapons soon pointing our way again followed by US cries of “foul play!” and the installation in Poland and other nearby places of more “proper” weapons as a reasonably predictable future in the circumstances.. Then we will be back to pre-Reagan diplomacy (i.e. none) and the Republicans will have a real enemy to point the finger at and frighten and rabble-rouse the masses into a liberal hating frenzy. Putin will be using the same rhetoric likewise! He’s always hated Shevardnadze from Georgia who he saw as responsible for breaking the (Russian) Union, and took his chance to redefine allegiances. Bizarrely, Putin wants a union of states in some ways like the old USSR, but not all. The USA would like them all broken up, but not itself. But maybe that was the plan all along. Because logically, as Russia is in broad agreement with the US to limit the powers of what might be termed “rogue states” and also has several key economic links with the West, the USA/NATO should be using Russian missiles to protect against these common threats. After all, Russia is more exposed to them than the USA or even the UK and should have the same fears.
So it looks like The West does not want closer ties with Russia and Russia does not want closer ties with The West.
But maybe that was the plan all along. Because Article 5 of NATO, states that Poland, France, UK, Czech Republic etc etc are all mutually protected from agressive acts from another state, so if Iran attacked, we’d all be obliged to retaliate, 10 “protective” missiles notwithstanding. In other words, the 10 missiles aren’t needed, Iran should watch out. Maybe Iran senses that the states of the NATO alliance won’t react. They’ve said placid things but sent up demonstrable proof into the skies recently.
“Jaw, Jaw not War, War” said Churchill.
It’s the duty of all nations, national representatives and citizens
- to be less belligerent if they really want peace.
- to speak and act honourably without hippocracy
If the nation is destroyed and people’s homes are wiped out, then where can one flee for safety? If you care anything about your personal security, you should first of all pray for order and tranquillity throughout the four quarters of the land, should you not? – Nichiren Daishonin / On Establishing the Correct Teaching for the Peace of the Land – WND1, page 24