By Padmini Arhant
The United States foreign policy in the twentieth and twenty first century viewed by allies and adversaries differently depending upon the U.S. engagement viz. modus operandi in the conflicts of the affected regions.
Throughout the twentieth century, the United States direct and indirect dominant role brought peace and chaos to the world order, ominously the Cuban crisis and the infamous Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos war combined with constant interventions in the Korean Peninsula, the Americas, the Middle East, Africa as well as South and South East Asia...
Remaining article @http://www.padminiarhant.com
Thank you.
Padmini Arhant
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8136918.stm
US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have reached an outline agreement to cut back their nations' stockpiles of nuclear weapons. The "joint understanding" signed in Moscow would see reductions of deployed nuclear warheads to below 1,700 each within seven years of a new treaty. The accord would replace the 1991 Start I treaty, which expires in December. Mr Obama said the two countries were both "committed to leaving behind the suspicion and the rivalry of the past". Separately, Russia also agreed to allow the US military to fly troops and weapons across its territory to Afghanistan, allowing it to avoid using supply routes through Pakistan that are attacked by militants. The two countries also will set up a joint commission to co-operate over energy, and fighting terrorism and drug-trafficking. Military co-operation, suspended since last year's conflict between Russia and Georgia, will be resumed. However, on the contentious issue of US plans to base parts of a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, the presidents merely said they had agreed to a joint study into ballistic missile threats and the creation of a data exchange centre. 'Reversing the drift'After three hours of talks at the Kremlin on Monday, Mr Obama and Mr Medvedev publicly signed a joint understanding to negotiate a new arms control treaty that would set lower levels of both nuclear warheads and delivery systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles and bombers. US-RUSSIA NUCLEAR DEAL Each country to cut deployed nuclear warheads to 1,500-1,675 (currently 1,700-2,200)Delivery systems to be within 500-1,000 range (currently 1,600)Reductions so be achieved within seven years of new treatyTreaty to be signed before Start I expires in December and include "effective" verification measures."Within seven years after this treaty comes into force, and in future, the limits for strategic delivery systems should be within the range of 500-1,100 units and for warheads linked to them within the range of 1,500-1,675 units," the document said. Under the 2002 Treaty of Moscow, each country is allowed between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed nuclear warheads and 1,600 delivery systems - meaning each side might only be required to decommission a further 25 warheads. Correspondents also point out that the proposed cuts would still leave the US and Russia able to destroy each other many times over. A White House statement said the new treaty would "include effective verification measures" and "enhance the security of both the US and Russia, as well as provide predictability and stability in strategic offensive forces". By setting low expectations for this summit, the US and Russian leaders have been able to appear to achieve more than had been hoped.The flurry of documents that has come out of this first day of discussions has been significant. President Obama sounded confident that a new strategic arms reduction treaty would be in place by the time the existing Start I agreement expires in December.There is a new framework for military-to-military co-operation. There is an extensive document on joint action related to Afghanistan, not least a transit agreement allowing lethal US military equipment and supplies to transit Russia on its way to the front line.The contentious issue of missile defence - where both leaders accepted there were still significant differences - was effectively "kicked into the long grass.Afterwards, Mr Medvedev said the talks had been "very frank and very sincere", but that they had been, "without any doubt, the meeting we had been waiting for in Russia and the United States". "I would like particularly to stress that our country would like to reach a level of co-operation with the United States that would really be worthy of the 21st Century, and which would ensure international peace and security," he said. The Russian leader called Monday's agreement a "reasonable compromise", but cautioned that there remained "differences on many issues", most notably on the proposed US missile defence shield. Mr Obama said he and Mr Medvedev were countering a "sense of drift" and were now resolved "to reset US-Russian relations so that we can co-operate more effectively in areas of common interest". "We've taken important steps forward to increase nuclear security and to stop the spread of nuclear weapons," he said. "This starts with the reduction of our own nuclear arsenal as the world's two leading nuclear powers the United States and Russia must lead by example, and that's what we're doing here today," he added. The US president said he was confident a legally binding disarmament treaty would be signed by the end of the year, when Start I expires. On Tuesday, Mr Obama will meet Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. He said last week that he thought the former Russian president had "one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new". "I think that it's important that even as we move forward with President Medvedev, that Putin understands that the old Cold War approaches to US-Russian relations is outdated, that it's time to move forward in a different direction," he told the Associated Press. Mr Putin responded: "We stand solidly on our own two feet and always look into the future." This summit is aimed at repairing strained US-Russian relations. Under the Bush Administration, ties between Washington and Moscow were considered almost as bad as during the Cold War. The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus, in the Russian capital, says that while the two countries have not put aside all the suspicions of recent years, they are creating mechanisms to enable a much more positive relationship in the future.
US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have reached an outline agreement to cut back their nations' stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
The "joint understanding" signed in Moscow would see reductions of deployed nuclear warheads to below 1,700 each within seven years of a new treaty.
The accord would replace the 1991 Start I treaty, which expires in December.
Mr Obama said the two countries were both "committed to leaving behind the suspicion and the rivalry of the past".
Separately, Russia also agreed to allow the US military to fly troops and weapons across its territory to Afghanistan, allowing it to avoid using supply routes through Pakistan that are attacked by militants.
The two countries also will set up a joint commission to co-operate over energy, and fighting terrorism and drug-trafficking. Military co-operation, suspended since last year's conflict between Russia and Georgia, will be resumed.
However, on the contentious issue of US plans to base parts of a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, the presidents merely said they had agreed to a joint study into ballistic missile threats and the creation of a data exchange centre.
'Reversing the drift'
After three hours of talks at the Kremlin on Monday, Mr Obama and Mr Medvedev publicly signed a joint understanding to negotiate a new arms control treaty that would set lower levels of both nuclear warheads and delivery systems, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles and bombers.
US-RUSSIA NUCLEAR DEAL Each country to cut deployed nuclear warheads to 1,500-1,675 (currently 1,700-2,200)Delivery systems to be within 500-1,000 range (currently 1,600)Reductions so be achieved within seven years of new treatyTreaty to be signed before Start I expires in December and include "effective" verification measures.
"Within seven years after this treaty comes into force, and in future, the limits for strategic delivery systems should be within the range of 500-1,100 units and for warheads linked to them within the range of 1,500-1,675 units," the document said.
Under the 2002 Treaty of Moscow, each country is allowed between 1,700 and 2,200 deployed nuclear warheads and 1,600 delivery systems - meaning each side might only be required to decommission a further 25 warheads.
Correspondents also point out that the proposed cuts would still leave the US and Russia able to destroy each other many times over.
A White House statement said the new treaty would "include effective verification measures" and "enhance the security of both the US and Russia, as well as provide predictability and stability in strategic offensive forces".
By setting low expectations for this summit, the US and Russian leaders have been able to appear to achieve more than had been hoped.
The flurry of documents that has come out of this first day of discussions has been significant. President Obama sounded confident that a new strategic arms reduction treaty would be in place by the time the existing Start I agreement expires in December.
There is a new framework for military-to-military co-operation. There is an extensive document on joint action related to Afghanistan, not least a transit agreement allowing lethal US military equipment and supplies to transit Russia on its way to the front line.
The contentious issue of missile defence - where both leaders accepted there were still significant differences - was effectively "kicked into the long grass.
Afterwards, Mr Medvedev said the talks had been "very frank and very sincere", but that they had been, "without any doubt, the meeting we had been waiting for in Russia and the United States".
"I would like particularly to stress that our country would like to reach a level of co-operation with the United States that would really be worthy of the 21st Century, and which would ensure international peace and security," he said.
The Russian leader called Monday's agreement a "reasonable compromise", but cautioned that there remained "differences on many issues", most notably on the proposed US missile defence shield.
Mr Obama said he and Mr Medvedev were countering a "sense of drift" and were now resolved "to reset US-Russian relations so that we can co-operate more effectively in areas of common interest".
"We've taken important steps forward to increase nuclear security and to stop the spread of nuclear weapons," he said.
"This starts with the reduction of our own nuclear arsenal as the world's two leading nuclear powers the United States and Russia must lead by example, and that's what we're doing here today," he added.
The US president said he was confident a legally binding disarmament treaty would be signed by the end of the year, when Start I expires.
On Tuesday, Mr Obama will meet Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
He said last week that he thought the former Russian president had "one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new".
"I think that it's important that even as we move forward with President Medvedev, that Putin understands that the old Cold War approaches to US-Russian relations is outdated, that it's time to move forward in a different direction," he told the Associated Press.
Mr Putin responded: "We stand solidly on our own two feet and always look into the future."
This summit is aimed at repairing strained US-Russian relations. Under the Bush Administration, ties between Washington and Moscow were considered almost as bad as during the Cold War.
The BBC's diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus, in the Russian capital, says that while the two countries have not put aside all the suspicions of recent years, they are creating mechanisms to enable a much more positive relationship in the future.
Henry M
Courtesy: www.padminiarhant.com
It is one hundred days since the new administration under President Obama took office on January 20, 2009.
Precisely, around that time the nation was in a precarious situation specifically with the economy in severe recession heading towards a possible depression. It required urgent policy decisions to avert the serous economic crisis contributing to the crumbling housing market, potential bankruptcies of the auto industry, tremendous job losses, failing financial institutions and volatile stock market.
Even though, the crises are far from over, the administration demonstrated diligence with the legislation of the $787 billion stimulus bill through American Recovery and Reinvestment Act accompanied by various strategies to reform and revive the financial institutions and housing market.
The financial bailouts were justifiably controversial and awaiting the stress test results due on May 4, 2009. Meanwhile, the alternative of inaction would have proven equally detrimental and exacerbated the liquidity crisis in the financial market.
In addition to the measures in stimulating the economy, the administration’s effort to sustain the existing jobs in different sectors particularly the auto industry is noteworthy. Further planning and policy decisions to create new jobs phrased, as ‘green jobs’ through vigorous environmental and energy programs is the right course of action to efficiently deal with the challenging issues of global warming and energy independence.
Other achievements in promoting science and technology such as the stem cell research within the realm of ethical code, proposal to digitalize medical records as one of many innovative solutions in the health care policy, coordinating with the environmental agencies in the protection of threatened and endangered species are impressive. However, the request from the environmental groups to rescind the rule that limits the protection of polar bears from the melting Arctic ice caused by climate change is pending approval.
In social programs, the signing of two major pieces of legislation into law – the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, ensuring equal pay for men and women and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that guarantees 11 million low-income children affordable health care are significant actions.
World health crisis in the wake of the ‘pandemic swine flu’ appropriately handled by the Obama administration thus far.
Despite the fragile economic conditions, the Obama administration’s response and reaction to most issues has been right on target. The anticipated legislation of the budget focused on education, energy and health care should accelerate the economic growth for rapid recovery from the existing crises.
The administration must strive hard to isolate investment from wasteful spending i.e. earmarks or pork barrel that often finds its way through major budgets and stimulus packages. Likewise, preventing the special interests and lobbyists’ continuous dominance should be part of the administration’s agenda.
With respect to transparency and accountability, the recent scandals involving legislators raises credibility issue for the majority party. It is important to maintain bipartisanship in legislative matters for national interest since future holds no guarantee with the majority rule. Moreover, divisive politics contributes to polarization jeopardizing national unity and ultimately election results.
In foreign policy matter, the recent participation in international summits appears promising with the exception of the boycotting of the Geneva conference on ‘racism.’ Please refer to the article on ‘Racism – The Durban II Geneva Conference’ @ www.padminiarhant.com.
Obviously, the rising tensions in the international arena from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea are few of the many challenges ahead. Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the form of two states solutions is paramount to attain permanent peace in the region. It would create a pathway for others sharing similar aspirations.
Combat troops withdrawal from Iraq and simultaneous deployment in Afghanistan deserve individual criteria and attention. Military operation always yields immense casualties and often precious lives are lost in the process.
President Obama’s initiative with Russia in the reduction of conventional weapons and other arsenal is praiseworthy. Nevertheless, it remains subject to the real statistics and the actual defense spending contraction by the geopolitical powers. The bold and audacious declaration of nuclear disarmament was music to ears, although the reality of it relies on the willingness and commitment by the other nuclear nations.
At the G-20 summit, the United States’ reluctance to support France’s proposal to force international financial institutions unveil the corporations using tax havens for tax evasions was disappointing. The unpopular yet meaningful recommendation contributed to a major disagreement between France and China leading to the mediation by the U.S. President Barack Obama. The international sources attributed China’s objection to the potential ramifications on the corporate investments in that nation.
In conclusion, the result oriented performance reflects President Obama’s admirable leadership skills and the administration’s ambitious goals in education, energy and health care is a step in the right direction.
I wish President Obama and the administration success in all endeavors.
The U.N. Security Council convened Sunday, just hours after the early-morning test, but took no action, despite calls for tighter sanctions against Pyongyang.
NATO's North Atlantic Council condemned the launch Thursday, saying it violated Security Council resolutions 1695 and 1718.
The resolutions demand that North Korea suspend actions related to its ballistic missile program. The council said the nation should re-commit to the moratorium on its missile
Sometimes we become wrapped so tight in our own world we forget how other look or feel towards us Americans. Since our economical troubles began late last September, just about every country has weighted in with both proposed solutions and/or condemnations or any combination there of, regarding what we have caused to the international community at large, but one country has been relatively silent over the economic burdens around the globe, and that country is Russia.
For me, this is rather amazing, since Russia’s economy has been performing very well over the past few years; so along came the international down turn, what’s their reaction?
A fellow blogger (Andrew) posted this interesting article, entitled: “Fresh Angle on US-Russia “New Era”” yesterday, which is primarily devoted to an editorial authored by Mark H Teeter, an American writer residing in Moscow, and Mark’s view of how the Russians are perceiving the world’s economy.
Here are some excerpts from Andrew’s posting:
Sometimes the Moscow Times opinion editorial columns can be a little overbearing. While undoubtedly well written and informative, they are almost universally po-faced. Amid this environment of solemn political analysis and grave social policy, Mark H Teeter brings a delightfully light touch and sharp wit to his keenly observed bi-weekly columns about life and news in Russia. Most weeks he addresses US-Russia relations through the prism of an American living in Moscow, and this week must have provided a bonanza for Teeter, as Barak Obama apparently “pressed the reset button” on US-Russia relations, and wants to reopen nuclear arms control talks with the Kremlin. (Note to self: I do wish the press wouldn’t refer to the pressing of any kind of button when it comes to nuclear arms. It causes a certain… frisson. NTS2: And speaking of uncouth Obama press coverage, when will they stop referring to the fiscal stimulus bill as Obama’s stimulus package? Anyway, back to Teeter: funny guy, sublime writer, irreverent vignettes on US-Russia relations and cultural differences through the eyes of a veteran American expat in Moscow. Today, Teeter has managed to trump every single one of the major op-eds and foreign policy wonk notes I’ve read on the start of a another new ‘new era’ of Russo-Yankee relations. Click here for an engaging read.
Sometimes the Moscow Times opinion editorial columns can be a little overbearing. While undoubtedly well written and informative, they are almost universally po-faced. Amid this environment of solemn political analysis and grave social policy, Mark H Teeter brings a delightfully light touch and sharp wit to his keenly observed bi-weekly columns about life and news in Russia.
Most weeks he addresses US-Russia relations through the prism of an American living in Moscow, and this week must have provided a bonanza for Teeter, as Barak Obama apparently “pressed the reset button” on US-Russia relations, and wants to reopen nuclear arms control talks with the Kremlin.
(Note to self: I do wish the press wouldn’t refer to the pressing of any kind of button when it comes to nuclear arms. It causes a certain… frisson. NTS2: And speaking of uncouth Obama press coverage, when will they stop referring to the fiscal stimulus bill as Obama’s stimulus package?
Anyway, back to Teeter: funny guy, sublime writer, irreverent vignettes on US-Russia relations and cultural differences through the eyes of a veteran American expat in Moscow.
Today, Teeter has managed to trump every single one of the major op-eds and foreign policy wonk notes I’ve read on the start of a another new ‘new era’ of Russo-Yankee relations.
Click here for an engaging read.
Today I listened to most of what Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and Putin of Russia said during their presentation at the World Economic Forum, in Davos, Switzerland, on CNN about the international community’s economic troubles and walked away upset.
Both squarely placed the blame on the US, which I hate to admit is true, but throughout both of their speeches neither rendered one constructive suggestion on methods to implement to resolve the economic, burdening problems. Instead, they were consistently positioning themselves and countries to have a stronger voice in the world’s economic community, which may be needed and fair, but the way they presented their arguments was totally uncalled for.
Here from the Washington Post and AP an article entitled “China’s Wen Guardedly Hopeful” (title misleading) are excerpts from what occurred at the meeting today.
Associated Press Thursday, January 29, 2009
DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan. 28 — Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao brought cautious optimism to the World Economic Forum on Wednesday, predicting that his country will achieve its target of 8 percent economic growth this year despite the global financial meltdown.
Remember China you’re manipulating your currency on us, as I stated in this posting here.
Wen called for enhanced U.S.-China cooperation to address the issue, even as he and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin obliquely criticized the United States, blaming a relentless pursuit of profits for the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Putin, who called the crisis a “perfect storm” that was wreaking destruction on all corners of the global economy, refrained from blaming the United States directly — but pointedly noted that just a year ago at Davos, American delegates emphasized the U.S. economy’s fundamental stability. People are “depressed and traumatized,” Rupert Murdoch, chief executive of News Corp., said on the first full day of the forum. He noted that worldwide about “$50 trillion of personal wealth” had vanished since the crisis worsened with the Sept. 15 collapse of the U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers.
Wen called for enhanced U.S.-China cooperation to address the issue, even as he and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin obliquely criticized the United States, blaming a relentless pursuit of profits for the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
Putin, who called the crisis a “perfect storm” that was wreaking destruction on all corners of the global economy, refrained from blaming the United States directly — but pointedly noted that just a year ago at Davos, American delegates emphasized the U.S. economy’s fundamental stability.
People are “depressed and traumatized,” Rupert Murdoch, chief executive of News Corp., said on the first full day of the forum. He noted that worldwide about “$50 trillion of personal wealth” had vanished since the crisis worsened with the Sept. 15 collapse of the U.S. investment bank Lehman Brothers.
Personally I don’t consider Mr. Murdoch a reliable source of reference on the situation at hand.
“The size of the problem confronting us today is larger than in the 1930s,” said billionaire philanthropist George Soros.
Additional blog postings by Tom Awtry may also be found here.
Russian-NATO Relations
Cold War Shivers
By ERIC WALBERG
2008 will be remembered as a turning point in Russia’s relations with the West. It was a tumultuous year, with Kosovo, missiles in Europe and NATO’s seemingly relentless march eastward like thunderclouds gathering on Russia’s horizon, which finally burst 8 August over South Ossetia, bringing tragedy to Georgians, triumph and tragedy to Ossetians and Russians, as the Russian army stopped short of Tbilisi in their defence of the plucky Ossetians.Poland, in a tizzy, quickly signed up for US Patriot missiles; the EU and NATO, in a snit, suspended relations with Russia and did their best to undermine Russia’s fragile economy. US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates made a grand tour of countries supposedly threatened by Russia (in addition to visiting his new friends in Kosovo), though only the woe-begone Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili bothered meeting him at the airport. This darling of the West – and Israel – suddenly found himself friendless after his disastrous altercation with his neighbour. Even Israel pulled in its horns, cutting off its lucrative arms sales out of fear of Russia............
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://www.counterpunch.org/walberg12242008.html
by Ramzy Baroud @ commondreams.org
The United States, Russia and China are sending a terrible message to the rest of the world by refusing to take part in the historic signing of a treaty that bans the production and use of cluster bombs. In a world that is plagued by war, military occupation and terrorism, the involvement of the great military powers in signing and ratifying the agreement would have signaled - if even symbolically - the willingness of these countries to spare civilians' unjustifiable deaths and the lasting scars of war.
Nonetheless, the incessant activism of many conscientious individuals and organizations came to fruition on December 3-4 when ninety-three countries signed a treaty in Oslo, Norway that bans the weapon, which has killed and maimed many thousands of civilians.
The accord was negotiated in May, and should go into effect in six months, once it is ratified by 30 countries. There is little doubt that the treaty will be ratified; in fact, many are eager to be a member of the elite group of 30. Unfortunately, albeit unsurprisingly, the US, Russia, China, Israel, India and Pakistan - a group that includes the biggest makers and users of the weapon - neither attended the Ireland negotiations, nor did they show any interest in signing the agreement.......
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/13-3
The Pickens Plan: For those who would like to become an active participant in a solution for our nations energy needs I urge you to join with T.Boone Pickens in his quest for a cleaner planet through alternative energy.
Also see Green Wave Energy: Green Wave was founded by Mark Holmes and was formulated for viable alternative energy solutions. Green Wave Energy is promoting state-of-the-art energy-saving products and services throughout the country.
Green Wave Energy understands alternative energy technology will become “main stream” when
Call 949.645.1701 for information on how Green Wave Energy can help you save the planet.
Alternative EnergySource: David Apperson
url: http://veterans.barackobama.com/page/community/tag/alternative-energy
Russia: Iran could not build A-bomb Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:05:48 GMT
from presstv
A senior Russian diplomat says that even if Iran sought to make a nuclear weapon, it does not have the necessary "means" to do so. "One cannot say today that Iran can create nuclear weapons," head of the Russian Foreign Ministry's department of European cooperation, Vladimir Voronkov, was quoted by ITAR-TASS news agency as saying Tuesday. Voronkov said Russian intelligence agencies confirm that Iran does not have the "means" to develop a military nuclear program. Russia, helping Iran construct a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in the southern city of Bushehr, has worked closely with Iran in the field of nuclear technology over the past decade. His remarks come shortly after US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday that Iran "is still pursuing quite clearly the technology that can lead to a nuclear weapon." Under the allegation that a nuclear Tehran would pose an existential threat to Israel; Washington and Tel Aviv have threatened Iran with the use of military action should the country continue its enrichment program........
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=77931§ionid=351020104
Opponents of cluster bombs speak out in Norway
Cluster bomb opponents say treaty to be finalized in Norway next week to shame non-signers
Nov 26, 2008 09:54 EST
Opponents of cluster bombs say a treaty expected to be finalized by more than 100 countries next week in Norway's capital could shame non-signers like the U.S., Russia and China into also shelving the weapons.
Cluster Munitions Coalition umbrella group coordinator Tom Nash says the treaty "will stigmatize the weapons," making them "morally unacceptable." Nash was speaking Wednesday before the Dec. 3-4 signing ceremony in Oslo.
Cluster bomblets are packed by the hundreds into artillery shells, bombs or missiles that scatter them over vast areas. Some fail to explode immediately. The unexploded bomblets can then lie dormant for years until they are disturbed, often by children attracted by their small size and bright colors.
___
On the Net - http://www.stopclustermunitions.org
SOURCE - http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=467455
from russiatoday.com
The S-300 is a long-range air defence system developed by the Soviet Union in late 1970s. Armed forces of several ex-Warsaw bloc countries including Russia, Ukraine, Belarus as well as NATO members Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Greece use the system. Part of this system is the 36D6 surveillance radar (or according to the NATO disambiguation – “Tin Shield”) that performs initial identification and tracking of aerial targets at a range of up to 360 km.Ukraine’s state arms exporter Ukrspetsexport supplied one such radar at the Pentagon’s request, reports Kommersant-Ukraine daily, citing an insider. The requested item was a modification of the 36D6 Tin Shield, which is produced locally in the city of Zaporozhye. No official comment by the company followed.Military experts believe the American military may have taken interest in the radar after Iranian Defence Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar announced last year that the Islamic nation could buy S-300 systems from Russia.
SOURCE - http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/33685
Georgia war hearing marred by angry exchanges
By Margarita Antidze and Matt Robinson
TBILISI (Reuters) - A Georgian parliament hearing into the country's war with Russia broke up in angry scenes on Tuesday when a commission member threw a pen at Tbilisi's ex-envoy to Moscow after he said Georgia had been the aggressor.
Russia says it intervened in ex-Soviet Georgia after Tbilisi began shelling the breakaway South Ossetia region. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili accused Russia of invading and thus starting the war.
Erosi Kitsmarishvili, Georgia's former ambassador to Russia, told the parliamentary commission he had received information "from high-ranking Georgian officials" that Tbilisi was preparing to "militarily storm" the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali.
"Russia was ready for this war, but the Georgian leadership started the military action first," he said..........
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE4AO7SL20081125
Will the president-elect of the United States start a new cold war with Russia? Given his public pronouncements, it's entirely possible.
During the presidential debates, Barack Obama agreed with John McCain that Russia must be confronted. He also repeated McCain's contention that Russia had invaded the former Soviet republic of Georgia, when in reality – and as Antiwar.com reported from the start – it was the Georgians who invaded (and the Russians who defended) the province of South Ossetia.
Obama has refused to say whether he'll continue the aggressive policies of George W. Bush, such as placing a missile "shield" in Poland that is clearly aimed at Russia. The Russians have responded by stationing missiles in their nearby territory. The arms-control agreements Ronald Reagan negotiated with Moscow are now defunct, and Obama hasn't pledged to restore them. Worst of all, Obama has come out in favor of expanding NATO up to Moscow's doorstep – a dangerous stance that puts peace at risk.
Posted by: Jason Bush @ businessweek.com
So much has happened in the last few weeks that the war between Russia and Georgia already seems like a distant memory. Today, it’s hard to remember that just three months ago, the world was worrying not about the future of the global economy, but about the bloodshed in the Caucasus and the possibility of a new Cold War.
But not everyone has forgotten about the war in Georgia. In the months since the conflict, international monitors, journalists and human rights activists have been quietly piecing together what really happened last August. And their conclusions offer a strikingly different interpretation of events from the one that was popular with most western commentators at the time.
Recent reports from the region suggest that as the dust settles and the true facts emerge, a far more nuanced understanding of events is now beginning to emerge.
In a hard-hitting television documentary, BBC journalist Tim Whewell visited South Ossetia to find out what really happened during the war. Eyewitnesses interviewed by Whewell allege that Georgian tanks and artillery deliberately fired on civilian apartments, and even attacked refugees attempting to flee the conflict. The BBC notes that if these allegations are true, such actions constitute war crimes and a violation of the Geneva Convention.....
ENTIRE POST - http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/europeinsight/archives/2008/11/the_russia-geor.html
