All the countries that were "liberated" by Rusia know well what a bunch of savages they are, so will do anything to keep them away

Hi Valeri,

Not sure if you'll check back on this topic, but I'll reply anyway. :) I do not mean to say that I think the U.S. never does anything wrong.

My point that I hope to get across in my posts on U.S. matters is that, of course we do wrong things, like any country. When I say that if it isn't U.S. using it's influence in the way that it does today, it would be another country. In my opinion, I find it extremely hard to find examples of countries [...]

Read the full comment who always act with the utmost moral behavior, especially in the international arena. To me, this has been evident throughout history and to find examples of it occurring today is nothing new in how states interact with each other.

Mary
in my view the missles are meant as a levarage agaisnt Russia.
The US is bent on drawing the souther ex-Soviet republics the their sphere as means of cornering the vast energy reserves there.
Russia would like herself to be in that role, and as the Georgia events showed, they are far from playing dead.
The US is arming them, and others, placing missles around Russia to render Russia indefensible, in case of the forthcoming open confilc.
Very dangerous game, and I see Russia being forced into the role [...]

Read the full comment of a rogue state, by taking the only option available to them, that of supporting US enemies.
Not good.

Expat,
I didn't say that the US manufactures animosities. I said that they exploit them. Actually the hisoric hatred is used by the national governments in question to sell the missles to their electorates. The US just straight bribes the governments.

I don't think you can say that the US doesn't do anything wrong, but if it wasn't the US, it would be someone else.
It's like saying; " I didn't take it, besides I pit it back";)

This is all about oil and means to pressure Russia. [...]

Read the full comment Russia willbe a fool not to arm Iran.
The US for years has been supporting Muslim separatists/ terrorists against Russia, like the Chechens, and others, beacause of oil related geopolitics, Russia is almost obliged to do the same.

Hi,

I was just curious to see how this news is seen by others, not Romanians.Is the new system considered by others to be a threat to Russia? If yes, why? For my point of view, there is a happy scenario for Romania: the whole territory will be protected by the new anti-missile system. Protected against what/whom? - is the next question.

Waiting for your answers and comments,
Leca nochi

We'll agree to disagree on this one. :)

I will say though that these animosities were not fabricated out of thin air by the U.S., there are real reasons behind them. Very real reasons why one country can have very serious reservations about another. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, these breakaway countries were offered assistance from the west, some took it, others didn't. To say that we are 100% responsible is not accurate. You are certainly entitled to your thoughts, no doubt, and I am not trying to convince you otherwise. To me, it's [...]

Read the full comment not as simple as one side is wrong and the other side is right. All sides in international politics do wrong and right.

All these invasions we've partaken in, how many were at the behest of an international organization, such as the U.N.? I know a few were not, but not all.

Your position boils down to your dislike of the current U.S. international position in the world. You think we're arrogant and duplicitous in our blatant exertion of power around the world. Quite frankly, this is the way it is, like it or not. If it weren't the U.S., it would most definitely be someone else. All countries seek equilibrium and no one is beyond reproach.

I think that we'll soon be rid of a Democratically controlled Congress based on how disgusted Americans are with this 'president' and his ridiculous socialist ideas. He's a one-termer for sure. This current economic crisis is one of many we've endured, it's just the nature of things. Things are good, then, all h*ll breaks loose. Then, it's good again.

лека нощ!

Poles and Finns do have a history of domination by Russia, but no worse than any of us with the Turks, yet the US wouldn't support up aiming missiles against Turkey.
It's all about oil competition and I find it disgusting that the US is using ancient ethnic animosities to project their domination.
NATO is good for us in the Balkans as a peace broker.
The ugly role it plays is that it's also a tool for American domination, and that is a problem.
My hope with Obama is that soon enough [...]

Read the full comment he will run the US to the ground with unrestricted spending, and curtail their ability to destabilize our region.

The Hungarians were part of the invading force to Russia, as well. They too got off easy, after helping the Germans kill 28million Russians.
The Czechs, other than being forced into the Wasraw pact, and kept there against their will. Other than that, as involuntary part of Austro-Hungary, they have had little to do with the Russians.
If anything, as history seems to be the factor here, they should be directing those missiles against Germany, because the brutality they've suffered from that
directions is incomparable to anything the Russians might have done.
[...]

Read the full comment

We will not agree on the Georgia issue.
I place that 100% at the US door steps - the Americans have been encouraging and arming the Georgians, as they are still doing, preparing the next conflict there. The last one was a rash miscalculation on their president's part (US protege) and Georgia was the agressor. No two ways about it.
The only difference is that Putin took the US by surprise that he didn't just sit there and take it.
Between Russia and the US I see the US as the major threat to [...]

Read the full comment peace around the world - even just based on track record.
In the last two decades, supposedly after the end of the Cold War, America has invaded and punished ( bombed) more sovergn nations than Russia had in the previous 200 years, if you exclude WWII, which was technically Europe invading Russia, not the other way around.
Those same Romanians btw were part of the European (German) invasion force to Russia, last time they had any military dealings with the Russians.
The Romanians were entrusted with Odessa, and were planning to turn it into the capital of thier province of "Transnisteria" (misspelled).

Perhaps the Poles, Czechs, Finns, and Hungarians have different memories of Russian "interference".

Based on the statements issued by many countries after the Russian invasion of Georgia, it was quite clear that they are concerned about a post cold war resurgence of an imperialist, expansionist Russia who appears bent on pushing around it's former satellite countries. The real international concern of the Russian invasion of Georgia was the Russians choice to work outside the existing international institutional framework of dispute resolution, say the U.N. for example, of which Georgia is a member.

[...]

Read the full comment Russia can give excuses as well as any nation about why they invaded a sovereign nation. I am sure the Georgians are apt to see it from a different point of view. If Russia wants to support an ethnic minority enclave's right to self determination, perhaps they should show the same courtesy to the Chechens. They are supportive of such self-determination south of the Caucasus, why not elsewhere? Overall, Russia wants to enlarge and maintain what it believes to be its rightful sphere of influence in the Caucasus and Caspian Sea region. It obviously is trying to do the same by attempting to contain NATO in Eastern Europe by it's opposition to the defense shield.

In my post, I stated that it is not just Russia selling arms around the world. Do you honestly believe that selling arms to Iran right now is a very good idea?? It's not just the U.S. who has a problem with Iran's nuclear ambitions, particularly in light of their strong fundamentalist tendencies.

Do skoro!

the new american politician or capitalist is not changing, the common american citizin has such a struggle for life that he can occupie himself with foreign politics.
The foreign politic of the usa is planned a few yaers ahead so whatever president is elected he as
almost no influence on theire actions.
Now the files can be opened of 25
yaers ago they show us how sneaky,they
are mannipulating governments
unions, black and whites to disturb
legal voted democraties then I start to think and ask [...]

Read the full comment myself with
their secret actions now ???????

"Perhaps history is part of the underlying reason NATO is seeking their own missile defense system and some members are agreeing to bilateral arrangements with the U.S.?"

Sorry, but when did Russia attack Europe? All those countries are part of the EU and there is no reason to suppose that Russia has any aggressive intentions against their biggest trading partner the EU. Those missiles are surely designed as a leverage in oil delivery competition from the southern republics.

Russia has the right to sell arms to whoever they want. The US is [...]

Read the full comment certainly selling arms to their proteges in the area, like the Georgians, who have proven their aggressive intend towards Russia and attacked their allies. I think Russia should sell arms to Iran.

"If Russia has no offensive intentions (you know, invading a sovereign country....again) then they should have no problem with this shield."

That is a very cynical way to look at things. It's like saying: "If the US has no intent of attacking Iran, why is she against them developing nuclear weapons"? Russia has not invaded a sovereign country since Afghanistan - something the Americans are in the middle of it, as speak. The Georgian war was a provocation and Russia had to respond. Russia also pulled out, as soon as the Georgian aggression was repulsed. The US is continuing arming the Georgians effectively planting the seeds for the next conflict there.

How many countries has the US invaded, or bombed, since the Russians were in Afghanistan? At least 10 - 11. Shall we count?



Leka.

IS IT A MEAN TO SUSTAIN THE MILITARY INDUSTRY SECTOR ?

Well, I don't think that Russia will be mistaken for a liberal democracy any time soon. :)

Perhaps history is part of the underlying reason NATO is seeking their own missile defense system and some members are agreeing to bilateral arrangements with the U.S.? Or maybe they are nervous because Russia has possibly been selling arms to Iran? Could be several reasons. Now, of course, Russia is not alone in arms selling, all countries who can do it, are.

This is a defensive initiative on the part of NATO (which is composed [...]

Read the full comment of more than the U.S.). If Russia has no offensive intentions (you know, invading a sovereign country....again) then they should have no problem with this shield. Clearly though, they feel that they are the major power in Europe and they are trying to throw their weight around.

I am also not sure if all Russians consider themselves European, or if all Europeans consider Russia part of Europe. They don't seem to be very interested in European institutions.

"Why shouldn't NATO member countries decide between them what is in their best security interests without the approval or interference of the Russian Federation?"
Because if Russia places those same missiles in Central America or Mexico, it will certainly be seen as an act of war and it will solicit much more violent reaction in the US, than the soft reasoning we are seeing from supposedly undemocratic regime in Russia.

Russia is, and will be part of Europe, much more than the US. Don't assume that those "individual NATO members" are motivated purely by [...]

Read the full comment rational security concerns, and not by some ancient tradition of animosity, ala our esteem heirs of Alexander the Great over in the lower corner of the old Yugoslavia.

It is my understanding that NATO began discussing it's own Theater Missile Defense project since 2005. The U.S. system was seen as a potential complement to what NATO was already pursuing. NATO ally members frequently make bilateral security agreements with each other. Why shouldn't NATO member countries decide between them what is in their best security interests without the approval or interference of the Russian Federation?

Frankly, I can't stand our current 'Administration', yet he has some Europeans so snowed that they gave him the Noble Peace Prize, solely based on the words coming out of [...]

Read the full comment his mouth? Please. Pay closer attention to what this guy actually does, versus his ability to (sometimes) talk sweet from a teleprompter.

Hopefully, if the recent Massachusetts are any indication of things to come, we can just start impeachment proceedings after the elections later this year.

Wait!
I thought that America voted for "change"?
... the only change involved here will be the last change from their pockets, as that guy taxes and spends them firmly into the Third World state of affairs...

He is still antagonizing Russia and using historical animosities to create instability in our region, just like the other waste of air - Bush....
I wish the Americans stop meddling in our region...