...or if I am, it's in cahoots with The Guardian.
I've always felt the United States's insistence on an anti-ballistic missile shield to be unwise, especially one that covers Russia's neighbours but doesn't include Russia itself. For all the talk about the need to defend against Iran, it needlessly antagonizes the Kremlin, and forces them to respond.
I rarely find myself nodding in agreement when Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov speaks (although he's a nice man), but I did this time: "It brings tremendous change to the strategic balance in Europe, and to the world's strategic stability," he said in his interview with The Guardian. "We feel ourselves deceived. Potentially we will have to create alternatives to this."
3 comments:
How can the missle shield possibly cover Russia itself when the whole point is to protect others from Russian missiles?
Forcing the USSR to respond bankrupted and destroyed them. Wasn't that a good idea?
What better way would you suggest to show solidarity with those states who believe they are under threat from Russia, and to deter Russian aggression against them?
Ah yes, but no one in positions of power admits that the missile shield is directed against Russia...
Of course it is. What I'm saying is that treating Russia so obviously as an unstable enemy has only encoraged unstable and hostile behaviour.
I'm no fan of the current Kremlin. I'm just not sure that putting Russia into so obvious a corner is sound tactics.
Who cares what they admit. Facts are facts.
I don't hear any better suggestions. Perhaps the idea isn't as ill-conceived as you suggest.
Either we deal with Russia now, when it's relatively weak, or later when it might be stronger. Do you prefer the second option?
Post a Comment