Comments on: US Nullifies INF Treaty http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:25:33 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Stanley Laham http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-12989 Stanley Laham Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:07:07 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/#comment-12989 Vassili, Never underestimate the limitless greed of American corporations and you must understand that the US government is at their service. What we have in effect today is a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy. Those of us who are familiar with Vietnamese and Latin American history can testify to how ruthless and bestial this plutocracy can be. Russia must be on constant guard against any move that would compromise its deterrent nuclear shield. She must not allow herself to be surounded by offensive weapons and must respond in kind. If Putin were to form new military-economic alliances with eager partners like Chavez of Venezuela, Morales of Bolivia, Ortega of Nicaragua and Castro in Cuba, while shutting up European leaders with the threat of a natural gas and oil embargo, would they start treating Russia like the great power that she is? Has economic strangulation not been the favorite tool of American foreign policy throughout the 20th century? Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, Iraq, just to name a few... What is good for the goose should be just as good for the gander! All it takes is the political will. I wish Putin a safe and successful visit to Iran. It is not above the NSA, CIA or Mossad to attempt to bring harm to him while blaming someone else. We have seen that many times before. ps check out my little book on amazon Vassili,

Never underestimate the limitless greed of American corporations and you must understand that the US government is at their service. What we have in effect today is a plutocracy masquerading as a democracy. Those of us who are familiar with Vietnamese and Latin American history can testify to how ruthless and bestial this plutocracy can be.

Russia must be on constant guard against any move that would compromise its deterrent nuclear shield. She must not allow herself to be surounded by offensive weapons and must respond in kind.

If Putin were to form new military-economic alliances with eager partners like Chavez of Venezuela, Morales of Bolivia, Ortega of Nicaragua and Castro in Cuba, while shutting up European leaders with the threat of a natural gas and oil embargo, would they start treating Russia like the great power that she is? Has economic strangulation not been the favorite tool of American foreign policy throughout the 20th century? Guatemala, Cuba, Chile, Iraq, just to name a few… What is good for the goose should be just as good for the gander! All it takes is the political will.

I wish Putin a safe and successful visit to Iran. It is not above the NSA, CIA or Mossad to attempt to bring harm to him while blaming someone else. We have seen that many times before.

ps check out my little book on amazon

]]> By: Tim R. http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-12985 Tim R. Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:52:16 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/#comment-12985 No Abraham, Communists are not evil. They just have a different point of view. Communists can be reasoned with. They can have a rational conversation. But the Islamic Fascists are radicals who don't operate based on reason. They think they are on a mission from their God to kill and maim and spread their religion. Therefore, they can't be reasoned with. Get it? No Abraham, Communists are not evil. They just have a different point of view. Communists can be reasoned with. They can have a rational conversation. But the Islamic Fascists are radicals who don’t operate based on reason. They think they are on a mission from their God to kill and maim and spread their religion. Therefore, they can’t be reasoned with. Get it?

]]> By: Vassili http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-12862 Vassili Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:39:08 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/#comment-12862 Stanley, I think you analysis of 1999 is 100% correct 8 years later. Although... the economical position of Russia have improved sinnificantly since then. And US economy is being bleeded by Iraq war. Indeed - Russian assets - raw resources are much less vulnerable to nuclear war then US assets: hi-tech devleopment, financial industry, entertainment content production and last but not least - anti-3rd word army. What would you say though about the "Big Game" theory - it is gaining popularity in Russia lately. According to the theory US/UK - Russia relationshps are indeed a love-hate relationship. I.e. they would try to do any sort of indirect damage to each other, but avoid direct conflict and would unite against some real 3rd party threat. It's not an accident that Russia kept all the nuclear weapons and US carefully took care of preventing any of that weapon left in the hands of trully anti-russian "countries", like Ukraine for example. Now, these "countries" are indeed (very unfortunate geographical location) some kind of pawns or rather global-chessboard squares. Another reason why I'm betting on Russia tactic victory in the next round of "The Game" is that US population is detoriated by unbounded immigration from the 3rd World. Of course that also carries a gross danger of actually loosing the context of "The Game" and doing a direct assult, that can result - well in a nuclear war :-) So, Kipling's words - "The Game would only end when everybody would be dead" - I hope it is not an exact short-term prophecy :-) Stanley,
I think you analysis of 1999 is 100% correct 8 years later.

Although… the economical position of Russia have improved sinnificantly since then. And US economy is being bleeded by Iraq war.

Indeed – Russian assets – raw resources are much less vulnerable to nuclear war then US assets: hi-tech devleopment, financial industry, entertainment content production and last but not least – anti-3rd word army.

What would you say though about the “Big Game” theory – it is gaining popularity in Russia lately. According to the theory US/UK – Russia relationshps are indeed a love-hate relationship. I.e. they would try to do any sort of indirect damage to each other, but avoid direct conflict and would unite against some real 3rd party threat. It’s not an accident that Russia kept all the nuclear weapons and US carefully took care of preventing any of that weapon left in the hands of trully anti-russian “countries”, like Ukraine for example. Now, these “countries” are indeed (very unfortunate geographical location) some kind of pawns or rather global-chessboard squares.

Another reason why I’m betting on Russia tactic victory in the next round of “The Game” is that US population is detoriated by unbounded immigration from the 3rd World. Of course that also carries a gross danger of actually loosing the context of “The Game” and doing a direct assult, that can result – well in a nuclear war :-)

So, Kipling’s words – “The Game would only end when everybody would be dead” – I hope it is not an exact short-term prophecy :-)

]]> By: justaguy http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-12861 justaguy Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:37:19 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/#comment-12861 Good post Peter C. and thanks for refreshing the history. Much real history has been lost in this oh so tribal revisionist world we live in. Good post Peter C. and thanks for refreshing the history. Much real history has been lost in this oh so tribal revisionist world we live in.

]]> By: Stanley Laham http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-12693 Stanley Laham Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:29:33 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/#comment-12693 Vassili, it is tgood that Russian people are finally awakening. Here is an article I wrote in 1997: The Cold War has been officially declared terminated. The winner by unanimous decision...The United States of America. The loser, the mighty Soviet Union, disintegrated, The true story of how this came about may never be fully known. We were told that it had something to do with the inability of communism to compete with free market economies and to enslave the minds of it's citizens. Freedom along with unemployment, poverty, crime, social discontent, economic chaos, and state bankruptcy have been the great rewards for Russia and the Russian people. It is very hard, indeed, to see any benefit from this act of self destruction committed by the Soviet Union. Yet, that was a country possessing an enormous arsenal of weapons, including twenty-three thousand nuclear warheads. Throughout history, countries with such power simply took what they needed for survival. That is why I say the true cause of these events may still be unpublished. Nevertheless, the benefits for the United States of America have been plenty. The feared Warsaw Pact, the only opponent of NATO, has gone to its grave. The East European countries that formed it have now become client states of the U.S. The former republics of the Soviet Union, such as Kazakstan, are now independent countries. Not satisfied with this state of affairs, the United States has launched what the Russians consider a very aggressive campaign against them. First in the West, they see the United States pushing for the incorporation of their former allies into NATO, bringing this formidable military alliance to their very border. In the North, similar protocols have been signed with the Baltic States. In the South, in oil rich Kazakstan and others, American oil companies are attempting to gradually replace the Russians in the exploration and exploitation of the gigantic oil reserves of the Caspian sea. There has even been talk of joint military exercises with the Kazak military. The same policy is being actively pursued with Azerbaijan and Georgia. The extraordinary support given by the U.S. to the Georgian president Eduard Shevarnadze who was the last foreign minister of the Soviet Union and an active participant in its dissolution may give us a hint of the untold story of this momentous event. In any case, it does not take a strategic genius to realize that these geopolitical moves are meant to secure the gigantic oil reserves of the Caspian Sea and a route for it to Turkey and the Black Sea. In this context, the devastating war unleashed on Yugoslavia can be seen as a prelude of future American policy in that strategic area. Help the separatist movements seeking autonomy from Russia under cover of helping the ethnic majorities just like the Kosovar Albanians. Kosovo and the new NATO doctrine of intervention has set the precedent and will unable the spinmeisters to manipulate public opinion. This is not a very wise policy, since it will only serve to radicalize Russia, a country that can not be taken for granted since it remains a potent nuclear power. There is deep concern in Russia about America's growing economic and military influence in the former Soviet Republics. The Russian military has just observed the U.S.'s willingness to use devastating force against Iraq to eradicate any threat to its oil interest in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In Grenada and Panama, violent assaults were severely executed to serve notice that the United States would not tolerate any challenge in an area it has traditionally considered its own backyard. Is it not only a question of time before Russia starts to assert itself with force when it feels that its vital interests in its traditional backyard are being threatened ? And now that more and more Russians are seeing the U.S. as this threat, isn't the possibility of a military confrontation between Russia and the U.S. becoming less and less inconceivable ? And the winner of such a confrontation will be the side that has little to lose and can muster the political will to carry on to the brink of global thermonuclear war. My guess is that the side with the great multinational corporations that have the most to lose will back down. I often wonder if our mediocre policy makers have ever taken this scenario into account. Vassili, it is tgood that Russian people are finally awakening. Here is an article I wrote in 1997:
The Cold War has been officially declared terminated. The winner by unanimous decision…The United States of America. The loser, the mighty Soviet Union, disintegrated, The true story of how this came about may never be fully known. We were told that it had something to do with the inability of communism to compete with free market economies and to enslave the minds of it’s citizens. Freedom along with unemployment, poverty, crime, social discontent, economic chaos, and state bankruptcy have been the great rewards for Russia and the Russian people. It is very hard, indeed, to see any benefit from this act of self destruction committed by the Soviet Union. Yet, that was a country possessing an enormous arsenal of weapons, including twenty-three thousand nuclear warheads. Throughout history, countries with such power simply took what they needed for survival. That is why I say the true cause of these events may still be unpublished.
Nevertheless, the benefits for the United States of America have been plenty. The feared Warsaw Pact, the only opponent of NATO, has gone to its grave. The East European countries that formed it have now become client states of the U.S. The former republics of the Soviet Union, such as Kazakstan, are now independent countries. Not satisfied with this state of affairs, the United States has launched what the Russians consider a very aggressive campaign against them. First in the West, they see the United States pushing for the incorporation of their former allies into NATO, bringing this formidable military alliance to their very border. In the North, similar protocols have been signed with the Baltic States. In the South, in oil rich Kazakstan and others, American oil companies are attempting to gradually replace the Russians in the exploration and exploitation of the gigantic oil reserves of the Caspian sea. There has even been talk of joint military exercises with the Kazak military. The same policy is being actively pursued with Azerbaijan and Georgia. The extraordinary support given by the U.S. to the Georgian president Eduard Shevarnadze who was the last foreign minister of the Soviet Union and an active participant in its dissolution may give us a hint of the untold story of this momentous event. In any case, it does not take a strategic genius to realize that these geopolitical moves are meant to secure the gigantic oil reserves of the Caspian Sea and a route for it to Turkey and the Black Sea. In this context, the devastating war unleashed on Yugoslavia can be seen as a prelude of future American policy in that strategic area. Help the separatist movements seeking autonomy from Russia under cover of helping the ethnic majorities just like the Kosovar Albanians. Kosovo and the new NATO doctrine of intervention has set the precedent and will unable the spinmeisters to manipulate public opinion.
This is not a very wise policy, since it will only serve to radicalize Russia, a country that can not be taken for granted since it remains a potent nuclear power. There is deep concern in Russia about America’s growing economic and military influence in the former Soviet Republics. The Russian military has just observed the U.S.’s willingness to use devastating force against Iraq to eradicate any threat to its oil interest in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. In Grenada and Panama, violent assaults were severely executed to serve notice that the United States would not tolerate any challenge in an area it has traditionally considered its own backyard. Is it not only a question of time before Russia starts to assert itself with force when it feels that its vital interests in its traditional backyard are being threatened ? And now that more and more Russians are seeing the U.S. as this threat, isn’t the possibility of a military confrontation between Russia and the U.S. becoming less and less inconceivable ? And the winner of such a confrontation will be the side that has little to lose and can muster the political will to carry on to the brink of global thermonuclear war. My guess is that the side with the great multinational corporations that have the most to lose will back down. I often wonder if our mediocre policy makers have ever taken this scenario into account.

]]> By: JIM http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-12605 JIM Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:43:24 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/#comment-12605 Vassili: Good observation... Yes, the strategic policy the U.S. is undertaking is called the "containment strategy." Of course, it is not the first time this policy has been used. As an American, I dislike the strategy because it costs the American people billions of dollars. A sensible diplomatic approach with a healthy respect for other nations' political systems is far better. Although, we must acknowledge one point: the Cold War between the U.S. and Russia never abated. It seemed that way, especially in the 90s' but it never ended.... Vassili: Good observation… Yes, the strategic policy the U.S. is undertaking is called the “containment strategy.”
Of course, it is not the first time this policy has been used. As an American, I dislike the strategy because it costs the American people billions of dollars. A sensible diplomatic approach with a healthy respect for other nations’ political systems is far better. Although, we must acknowledge one point: the Cold War between the U.S. and Russia never abated. It seemed that way, especially in the 90s’ but it never ended….

]]> By: Vassili http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-12602 Vassili Sun, 14 Oct 2007 21:02:24 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/#comment-12602 What about "Big Game" concept? England means US or UK. So, two last two cycles (with Napoleon and Hitler) fit within this algorithm: a) Russia rests and looses it's power b) English party gains more and more power as Russia looses it c) English Empire wastes inself in colonial efforts to control the World by "civilizing it" d) New Threat emerges, that England can not contain, and attacks England e) England does it's best to channel Threat towards Russia f) England and Russia get into an alliance against Threat g) Threat attacks Russia h) Russia fights the Threat and kills it, thus gaining even more power then Threat had initially i) Russia is NOT using it's superpower to attack England, but England is scared j) Russia rests and it's power goes away k) go back to step a) We're the in 3rd cycle/remake now, in the c-d stage. What about “Big Game” concept?
England means US or UK. So, two last two cycles (with Napoleon and Hitler) fit within this algorithm:

a) Russia rests and looses it’s power
b) English party gains more and more power as Russia looses it
c) English Empire wastes inself in colonial efforts to control the World by “civilizing it”
d) New Threat emerges, that England can not contain, and attacks England
e) England does it’s best to channel Threat towards Russia
f) England and Russia get into an alliance against Threat
g) Threat attacks Russia
h) Russia fights the Threat and kills it, thus gaining even more power then Threat had initially
i) Russia is NOT using it’s superpower to attack England, but England is scared
j) Russia rests and it’s power goes away
k) go back to step a)

We’re the in 3rd cycle/remake now, in the c-d stage.

]]> By: Vassili http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-12591 Vassili Sun, 14 Oct 2007 19:39:36 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/#comment-12591 So, due to desire to keep these countries - useless for anything, honestly, but military bases deployment - they were always on the Soviet Union payroll economically - due to this "desire" USA is objectively setting path for: 1) Giving Russia an incentive to invest into more nuclear armamements, better missiles, and better SD systems - and AFIK even in the 80s it was considered that the probability of Moscow region evading the nuclear strike in the full scale conflict was close to 98%. Placing SD in Kaliningrad, as an answer to placing SD in Poland. 2) give Russia an incentive to go into China co-orbit. Russia does not have the inherent incompatibility with Islam. So, by fending of Russia from the West USA is pushing things towards United EuroAsia - Russia, Iran, Pakistan, China, Kazahstan being the core. Thus it is very difficult to understand the significance of SD in Poland. Maybe I don't know something that Putin and Rice know. But, generally, US foreign policies are irrational, so ... US wants the United Eurasia, ok. Soviet time Russian joike, which sounds very appropriate after all: Optimists study English, Pessimists study Chineze, Realists study AK74M (Kalashnikov) So, due to desire to keep these countries – useless for anything, honestly, but military bases deployment – they were always on the Soviet Union payroll economically – due to this “desire” USA is objectively setting path for:

1) Giving Russia an incentive to invest into more nuclear armamements, better missiles, and better SD systems – and AFIK even in the 80s it was considered that the probability of Moscow region evading the nuclear strike in the full scale conflict was close to 98%. Placing SD in Kaliningrad, as an answer to placing SD in Poland.
2) give Russia an incentive to go into China co-orbit. Russia does not have the inherent incompatibility with Islam. So, by fending of Russia from the West USA is pushing things towards United EuroAsia – Russia, Iran, Pakistan, China, Kazahstan being the core.

Thus it is very difficult to understand the significance of SD in Poland. Maybe I don’t know something that Putin and Rice know. But, generally, US foreign policies are irrational, so … US wants the United Eurasia, ok.

Soviet time Russian joike, which sounds very appropriate after all:

Optimists study English,
Pessimists study Chineze,
Realists study AK74M (Kalashnikov)

]]> By: John Lowell http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-12584 John Lowell Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:42:53 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/#comment-12584 Peter C., If yours above isn't an apolgetic for Leninism the Holy Father isn't appointed to his ecclesial office by the College Of Cardinals. As I'd implied initially and will state now with greater emphasis, is was not my intention in bringing the Stalin Pravda interview to enter upon a disputation regarding the history of world socialism, your apparent personal need to do so notwithstanding. Rather it was hoped that in linking to the article a certain depth might be added to the question of Putin's suspicions of the American adventure in the Czech Republic. While I am loathe to enable what would now seem to be a rather blatant attempt on your part to hijack the discussion as it was originally posed, I would like nevertheless to offer something in the way of a corrective to a supposition you make in your comment: "As for socialism turning 'its energies against the very people it has always claimed to serve', I presume you are referring to the 1930s in the Soviet Union." Not so. Since your original concern largely had been with the events of the Civil War, my thoughts took in simply the Red Terror, the Kronstadt Mutiny, and other brilliancies of that period. But if we are to consider the later period of the purges, we'd not want causually to skip over the intervening period of collectivisation and the attendant famine which killed so many in Ukraine and which now seems to have been quite diliberate. As to the period of the Civil War, I'd point you to Orlando Figes's, A Peoples Tradgedy, The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924, its a masterpiece. John Lowell Peter C.,

If yours above isn’t an apolgetic for Leninism the Holy Father isn’t appointed to his ecclesial office by the College Of Cardinals. As I’d implied initially and will state now with greater emphasis, is was not my intention in bringing the Stalin Pravda interview to enter upon a disputation regarding the history of world socialism, your apparent personal need to do so notwithstanding. Rather it was hoped that in linking to the article a certain depth might be added to the question of Putin’s suspicions of the American adventure in the Czech Republic. While I am loathe to enable what would now seem to be a rather blatant attempt on your part to hijack the discussion as it was originally posed, I would like nevertheless to offer something in the way of a corrective to a supposition you make in your comment:

“As for socialism turning ‘its energies against the very people it has always claimed to serve’, I presume you are referring to the 1930s in the Soviet Union.”

Not so. Since your original concern largely had been with the events of the Civil War, my thoughts took in simply the Red Terror, the Kronstadt Mutiny, and other brilliancies of that period. But if we are to consider the later period of the purges, we’d not want causually to skip over the intervening period of collectivisation and the attendant famine which killed so many in Ukraine and which now seems to have been quite diliberate. As to the period of the Civil War, I’d point you to Orlando Figes’s, A Peoples Tradgedy, The Russian Revolution, 1891-1924, its a masterpiece.

John Lowell

]]> By: George Kurian , India http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-12581 George Kurian , India Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:17:22 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/#comment-12581 Thank you , Peter C, for all that additional information on Churchill. I am amazed that Churchill is held in such high esteem in Britain. He may have been instrumental in saving Britain from the Nazis but he was a racist who believed that Indians could not rule themselves and that the Arabs were "dog mangerish" to fight the presence of a "superior race" thrust upon them. Thank you , Peter C, for all that additional information on Churchill.
I am amazed that Churchill is held in such high esteem in Britain. He may have been instrumental in saving Britain from the Nazis but he was a racist who believed that Indians could not rule themselves and that the Arabs were “dog mangerish” to fight the presence of a “superior race” thrust upon them.

]]> By: Andrew P http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-12578 Andrew P Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:50:03 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/#comment-12578 I think the purpose of those missile defence bases is as stated by the US. The notion of nuclear war with Russia is absurd, the Russians simply have too many missiles and bombs. However, emerging powers don't start with very much. The purpose of the bases is to prepare for an eventual US / Israeli first strike on Iran, N-Korea, and any future Islamic Caliphate. The idea is to nip any emerging Islamic powers in the bud before they gain Soviet-scale or even Chinese-scale deterrence capability. This includes nuclear countries like Pakistan which is currently friendly, but could at any time be taken over by Al Qaeda. Obviously it is better to nip emerging powers in the bud through preemptive means like conventional bombing campaigns or special forces operations, but it is easier to hide things than to find them, and so a preemptive bombing campaign in Iran could eaily miss the "good stuff". The idea of placing the missile defences in Turkey or Israel is a non-starter - Turkey is becoming more Islamic and therefore less friendly to the US, and Israel will defend itself anyway. Furthermore, BMD systems on ships at sea would probably serve the US better in that part of the world. Placement in eastern europe is necessary to serve as a terminal defence for anything that other systems fail to hit, and it also helps to keep those countries in the US orbit. The latter is probably the real reason that the Russians are so upset. I think the purpose of those missile defence bases is as stated by the US. The notion of nuclear war with Russia is absurd, the Russians simply have too many missiles and bombs. However, emerging powers don’t start with very much. The purpose of the bases is to prepare for an eventual US / Israeli first strike on Iran, N-Korea, and any future Islamic Caliphate. The idea is to nip any emerging Islamic powers in the bud before they gain Soviet-scale or even Chinese-scale deterrence capability. This includes nuclear countries like Pakistan which is currently friendly, but could at any time be taken over by Al Qaeda. Obviously it is better to nip emerging powers in the bud through preemptive means like conventional bombing campaigns or special forces operations, but it is easier to hide things than to find them, and so a preemptive bombing campaign in Iran could eaily miss the “good stuff”. The idea of placing the missile defences in Turkey or Israel is a non-starter – Turkey is becoming more Islamic and therefore less friendly to the US, and Israel will defend itself anyway. Furthermore, BMD systems on ships at sea would probably serve the US better in that part of the world. Placement in eastern europe is necessary to serve as a terminal defence for anything that other systems fail to hit, and it also helps to keep those countries in the US orbit. The latter is probably the real reason that the Russians are so upset.

]]> By: Vassili http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/comment-page-1/#comment-12556 Vassili Sun, 14 Oct 2007 15:22:19 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/10/12/us-abrogates-inf-treaty/#comment-12556 My immediate familiy experience agrees with the numbers for Soviet Union deaths during Stalin rule - i.e. 7 million killed in the war (according to Stalin) and 1.7 milllion estimate. Namely: one of my grandfather and 3 husbands of my grandmother's sisters. One husband of one of my grandmother's sisters had to hide for half year in my grandfther's house, since there were attempts to arrest him during 1937. It was considered likely, that he would be killed had he been arrested. One of my grandmothers was denied voting rights and access to public school because of here "social background", since her father used to have employees. So, nobody from my relatives actually lost life, although repressions are undeniable. Therefore the ratio of 4 : 1 is close enough to 7 : 2, although apparently my family death toll from Stalin is 0, as opposed to 4 from the West. My immediate familiy experience agrees with the numbers for Soviet Union deaths during Stalin rule – i.e. 7 million killed in the war (according to Stalin) and 1.7 milllion estimate.

Namely: one of my grandfather and 3 husbands of my grandmother’s sisters. One husband of one of my grandmother’s sisters had to hide for half year in my grandfther’s house, since there were attempts to arrest him during 1937. It was considered likely, that he would be killed had he been arrested. One of my grandmothers was denied voting rights and access to public school because of here “social background”, since her father used to have employees.

So, nobody from my relatives actually lost life, although repressions are undeniable.

Therefore the ratio of 4 : 1 is close enough to 7 : 2, although apparently my family death toll from Stalin is 0, as opposed to 4 from the West.

]]>