Return of the Cold War

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments (6)

  Page 1 of 1 pages

  Hmmm no mention of Putin threatening the Poles and Czechs with
  “If the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic take such a step ... the Strategic Missile Forces will be capable of targeting these facilities if a relevant decision is made,”

  Threatening your neighbors with imminent destruction........Now thats diplomacy.

  Posted by texasindependent on Feb 27, 2007 at 12:49 PM

  Those states ARE RIGHT ON HIS BORDER, BEANER FUCKFACE.
  Would the US have stood by while Mexico and Guatemala and Canada
  have joined the Warsaw Pact ? This proves NATO was never a defensive organization but an imperialist one, the Soviets were NEVER
  a threat. Only in the areas they defeated the Germans in. Never western
  Europe, never the US. See Noam Chomsky’s book on the Cold War,
  see Chalmers Johnson’s just published Nemesis on the coming fall of the US Empire and see DF Fleming’s magisterial 2 vol The Cold War And Its Origins, 1960. TexASS got brain poisoning from his loco Taco Bell.

  Posted by blondemike on Feb 27, 2007 at 6:59 PM

  Lets look at reality not left wing loons hucking a book.

  1. The Soviet Union was created by force. The citizens of Eastern Europe did not volunteer to join. After the defeat of Nazi Germany, Stalin’s troops simply rounded up anyone who dissented and formed a pro-Soviet government. Any rational European country had only three choices join NATO, join the Warsaw pact, or declare neutrality.

  2. A missle defense system is not an offensive weapon. Radar sites can not attack anything. Interceptor missles have a limited range and are designed to attack ballistic missles in near space trajectories. They have no offensive capabilities as surface to surface missles.

  3. The only possible reason for Russia’s outrage lies in the massive proliferation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems as enabled by Moscow. The new Iranian scud variants are fueled and guided by Russian technology. The Russians lost billions on arms sales to Saddam and stand to lose more as the futility of Iranian nuclear ambitions become clear. While a missle defense system offers limited protection from a single accidental launch it really offers no protection against a silo clearing nuclear strike. This simple fact as stated by Russian general staff has no bearing on Russian-American relations. So the introduction of a missle defense system has no bearing on the status quo of MAD.

  4. The question becomes why the outcry? Is it related to the loss of empire over Star Wars? If Poland were installing IRBM’s the issue would be clear. As it stands Putin seems like the guilty dog barking first.

  Posted by texasindependent on Mar 2, 2007 at 4:13 PM

  This is not much more than more rewards for the military-industrial-complex. A system that at best worked half the time under optimum conditions is closer to a bondoogle than a effective system. Boeing and others get to cash more paychecks written by our Congress which of course comes out of our wallets. For what? Something that might work half the time. What a scam and a rip-off of our taxes.

  If we used weaponry in Iraq that only worked half the time (at best under optimum conditions) the soldiers would practically mutiny, at the least major investigations would ensue. Could you imagine if their rifles only worked half the time? Or that the humvees couldn’t start half the time?

  But a half working missile defense system isn’t important because the likelihood of it actually being used is negligible. The importance of the system is only to the defense contractors, not that it works well, but that their contracts continue. The Bush Admin is just looking for places to put this half baked system in order to justify the billions stolen out of our wallets to build these nearly useless contraptions.

  Posted by Jon B on Mar 7, 2007 at 8:06 AM

  The USA was created by force as was the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Roman Empire. Of course, the East European states didn’t volunteer, they were Hitler allies and the Soviets rolled over them in the course of defeating the Germans. EVERY country in eastern Europe except Czechoslovakia was a fascist dictatorship before the Soviet takeover and while the Soviet takeover was a bad thing, the US has a much bigger and more brutal empire in Latin America. Guatemala
  alone has killed over 300,000 of its citizens since the US overthrow of its democracy in 1954. Just like in Iran withe Shah. The Soviets have a rational historical fear of being encircled and this has nothing to do with being leftist, I’m a hardcore libertarian, so as usual your wrong. These missile systems are NOT defensive and are set up to guarantee that the enemy could not respond to a first strike. SDI would have guaranteed a nuclear war which is why Nancy got Ron to call it off. With the demise of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE REASON FOR NATO. Its continued existence verifies the charges it was always a weapon of imperialism, not a defense pact. Imagine our reaction if the Russians tried to do the same with Mexico, etc. Even when the Soviets were in Cuba, we still had the biggest foreign base at GITMO, now infamous thanks to Rummy’s torture tactics. There was never a Soviet military threat to WESTERN Europe. They were never in western Europe to fight the Germans and the victory in WW2 in EUROPE was 90% a Soviet victory. US victory was in Asia against the Japs. Your false positing of the choices for Europe after WW2 is indicative of your plain stupidity in all historical matters. See David Horowitz’s (yes, THAT one) brilliant 1965 book The Free World Colossus for how the US was at fault for the Cold War, NOT the USSR. Also see the magisterial two volume The Cold War And Its Origins by DF Fleming, 1960. David based his work on Fleming. I have to warn you that Fleming’s is a two volume work with no pitchers, Tex, I know you folks down there aren’t big on book larnin.’

  Posted by blondemike on Mar 9, 2007 at 6:38 PM

  See rightwing libertarian Murray Rothbard’s For A New Liberty, chapter on foreign policy, for a demonstration of US aggression throughout the Cold War and the USSR’s conservative, pro-peace foreign policy. This does NOT gainsay their brutal domestic policy of course. But the UK had a very liberal, laissez-faire domestic policy in the 19th century while having a brutal empire all over the world. The US has been responsible for at least six million deaths since WW2 according to author William Blum. Given the US interference in Russian territories such as Georgia
  and several other Russian states, Putin’s paranoia is more than justified.

  Posted by blondemike on Mar 9, 2007 at 6:47 PM

  Page 1 of 1 pages

• register a new account »Posting Security

  To participate in our forums, please register for a free account.

  Username Password

    Remember me
  

  Retreive lost password »

Also by Tony Wesolowsky

• Return of the Cold War
  
• Europe Turns a Blind Eye to the CIA
  EU governments are ignoring the CIA's transportation of terror suspects to torture sites
• Fear of the Polish Plumber
  
• Low Exposure, High Risk
  E.U. study finds radiation riskier than previously thought
• Radio Free Roma
  Budapest station breaks down "gypsy" stereotypes