Don't know where you are, but while that's within the scope of the statements made, that's not the emphasis of media reports here in the UK. More GW Bush/fox news alarmism???

Vladimir Putin has warned Ukraine that if it were to join NATO, "Russia will have to point its warheads at Ukrainian territory." Not long before that, Mr. Putin cheerfully described a series of ballistic-missile flight tests as "pleasant and spectacular holiday fireworks."

This is from the Wall Street Journal, which may be the best new paper in the states. I think it is pretty bad journalism, and is indeed quite sensational. The two articals are more along the lines of editorials though, especially the second, which is an editorial.

BBC NEWS | Europe | Russia condemns US missile deal Here is a report from the BBC, if it is more to your likeing. It is certainly better journalism.

Is this what you mean? I'm just not sure it amounts to:



The more likely response would be to use state control of Gazprom to cut energy supplies - essentially speaking, economic sanctions - very serious for states further west - and that's about the whole of the EU.

I don't know why I should defer to news in britain, they have a different set of concerns/interests and aside from the BBC(which is damn good), the news isn't that great. As far as other coutries, most of them copy U.S. papers. As long as I stay away from fox news, I think we will be O.K. unless you only want to go by british news, in which case we have nothing to discuss until you provide some links as I don't know what the better news papers in britain are.
How about these?
Russia in nuclear threat to Poland - Times Online
Washington Times - U.S. signs Poland pact as Russia renews threats

A RUSSIAN general yesterday threatened to attack Poland as the crisis in Georgia showed no signs of easing.
The Kremlin's deputy chief of staff General Anatoly Nogovitsyn issued the chilling warning after Poland revealed it would host part of a US missile shield system.
He said: "By hosting these, Poland is making itself a target. This is 100 per cent certain.
"It becomes a target for attack. Such targets are destroyed as a first priority." - Russia in nuclear threat towards Poland - The Daily Record

I can't find sufficient documentation showing that the threat is nuclear per say, only military in general.

Ah, yes, it's not:

'build that defence shield and we will nuke you'

but

'build that defence shield and, if there's a nuclear war, we will nuke you.'

So really, Russia is just explaining the implications of Poland's decision.

I remember when I was a kid watching an animated film called 'When the Wind Blows' about two old people who survive the blast.

I remeber thinking two things:

1) If there were a nuclear war I'd want to get hit as directly as possible.

and,

2) human beings are f*cking insane!!!!

I have yet to find cause to change either opinion.

iconoclast.

What was the Cold War, essentially? It was an economic conflict between two superpowers.

But economic conflicts have always existed. And the threat of military action is just as traditional, as is the use of military force at the climax of an economic conflict. Most wars are economic.

I have no doubt that Russia will use military force if it feels military force to be the pragmatic option.

I can't believe the stupidity here. Its a frickin' missle defence system.

Russia is alone on this one if they actually think by cutting themselves off of NATO anyone else will join them. So why does Poland become a threat? They will come crawling back, . Russian envoy said it was temporary. (Yeah, pending the conditions, time persuing)

Because Russia hates it when the USA gains EU allies.

I thought that Russia would appreciate all that the US has done, idiocy of the Bush administration. They both have financial incentive to claiming oil. And the US has dedicated so much money to the war rather than alternative resources causing this economic crisis in the first place.

Sometimes I wish I could just take the first rocket that Iran can successfully gets into space and with the help of world technological support and effort, compact all the world's oil into it and send it into space. Then, every frickin' country sends all their nukes (if they have any) and targets and blows up all the !@#$%^& oil while in space. Not a bad global project, eh? Russia would be in the dumps, but tough luck, find something else to build an empire on, 'biggest country in the world'.

Or is it about an empire anymore, why should it ever have been? Thats the insanity. Its like our animals instinct is conveyed through a feudal essence, look at Darfur too!! In the end its about MONEY. MONEY and people's ignorance is the intrinsic factor of our prolonged, emphasized animal instincts. (Nothing wrong with some but for crying out loud!)

Here here.



And as such alters the calculus of Mutaully Assured Destruction that has maintained an uneasy, but peaceful balance of power for 60 years.

What is Russia to do? Build it's own missile defence shield - i.e. a new cold war, a new arms race, in which case see the GDP of the world funneled through arms dealers for the next century - or should Russia accept that its nuclear asrenal is useless?

That's what the fool you Americans twice voted into office has done.



and there.

iconoclast.

Aside from Vietnam, Korea, the mutual armament of most of Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia... not to mention all the puppet regimes and puppet insurgencies...

It was everything you see in actual war except for the front line.

Don't blame me for either one. :Cara_2:

That's what the fool you Americans twice voted into office has done. :whistling:

With less than an absolute 50% of the popular vote each time. Again, don't blame me. :nonooo:

Aedes,

You think that's bad? Gordon Brown, our Prime Minister has no democratic mandate - but took over when Tony Blair stood down 13 months ago. Tony Blair was voted into office in the general election of 2005:



political legitimacy is at issue.

iconoclast.