2012
World Blood Donor Day is on 14 June. The date is the birthday of Austrian physician and immunologist Karl Landsteiner, who won the 1930 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for developing the modern system of classification of blood groups.
14 June 2012
RIA-Novosti
Experts at the RAN Institute of the USA and Canada concluded that, for the foreseeable future, US Anti-Ballistic Missile Defences (PRO) wouldn’t be at a level sufficient to withstand a retaliatory strike by Russian strategic nuclear forces. Their report came out on the tenth anniversary of the Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the PRO Limitation Treaty. Since the Cold War, the maintenance of a global strategic balance involved not only with ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads, but also with PRO forces. Of course, the PRO Limitation Treaty, concluded between the USSR and the USA in 1972, was the cornerstone of that stability. Moscow and Washington agreed on a substantial limitation of strategic anti-ballistic missile defence systems, thereby maintaining a mutual vulnerability to nuclear-armed missile strikes. This approach ensured the inevitability of nuclear retaliation to a potential aggressor, which, in turn, made it possible to negotiate a reduction of strategic offensive arms. The agreement limited anti-ballistic missile defence interceptors to a hundred units at one fixed-position base.
However, in June 2002, the Bush administration decided that the treaty’s provisions wouldn’t be limit it, and unilaterally withdrew from the PRO Limitation Treaty. Since then, the anti-ballistic missile defence took centre stage, not only in US-Russian relations, but also in world politics. Washington explained its decision by citing a notional nuclear threat from third countries (Iran and North Korea). However, the authors of the RAN report emphasised that the US based its assessment of the opportunities and aspirations of these countries on a “worst-case scenario”. As a result, they declared a hypothetical as a direct and immediate threat. However, Washington’s actions caused understandable concern in Moscow. Deployment of PRO bases in Europe (in Romania, and, possibly, Poland), with radar sites in Turkey, and warships equipped with Aegis systems in Arctic waters… such dispositions don’t fit with the premises of the American explanation. Even if Iran actually launched a missile in the direction of Los Angeles, it wouldn’t fly over Norwegian territory.
A military expert, Colonel-General-Colonel Viktor Yesin, pointed up, “However, to date, Russia’s more concerned about Washington’s attitude, rather than the real threat it poses. Our analysis of the efforts that the Americans are expending to build a global PRO system showed that they’re experiencing considerable difficulty in establishing a strategic line of anti-ballistic missile defense. Even by 2020, it’ll have very little ability to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles and ballistic submarine-launched missiles. You shouldn’t exaggerate the ability of the Americans to degrade the deterrence potential of the Russian strategic nuclear forces”. Yet, we can’t view the American efforts to devise an effective PRO system as being totally guileless. Firstly, ten years on a strategic scale isn’t so long a time. Therefore, Moscow updates its nuclear forces to ensure that there’s no disruption in the strategic balance. Vladimir Evseyev, the director of the Centre for Political Studies, stated, “The persistence with which Washington is promoting its system leads to some reflection. If we assume that Russia does launch a first strike, then, from this point of view, of course, a missile defense system might not deflect it all. Another hypothetical question concerns a first strike against Russia. In this case, Russia would only have a limited number of strategic nuclear forces left to launch. However, this creates nothing but an illusion of invulnerability. They think that they can launch a first strike and that they’ll destroy what remains of Russian strategic assets through the use of PRO forces”.
The US Republican Party has made a PRO force one of its main priorities. If the Republicans were to win 2012 election, then, we could expect an increase in spending on missile defense. According to experts, a Republican administration could even withdraw the USA from the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms (START II). If Barack Obama wins re-election, a Democratic administration is likely to show more flexibility in negotiations with Russia.
13 June 2012
Voice of Russia World Service
http://rus.ruvr.ru/2012_06_13/77980906/
Editor’s Note:
Talk about North Korea and Iran is pure hokum and BS. No one expects any actual threat from them. The whole point of the American PRO system in Europe is an attempt to strike at Russian strategic assets soon after liftoff. That being so, the deployment of Iskander SRBMs against American PRO assets makes sense. It scares the Americans mightily. Due to the short time of its flight, the Iskander is invulnerable to the present PRO assets (and to any developed in the near future).
In any case, PRO has nothing to do with missile defence of the American heartland. Firstly, it’s been a gigantic cash cow for defence contractors. DoD has spent billions since the time of Slobberin’ Ronnie, and there’s NOTHING to show for it after thirty years. That being said, a PRO system could degrade a strike against forward NATO assets. Do note… there are no proposed PRO sites for the American mainland. NONE. It’s NOT for homeland defence. It’s to cover American assets in case of an aggressive war against Russia. Remember, the American proxy war in 2008 in South Ossetia went badly. The Republican Party has become the Party of War… and Mittens threatens Iran, China, and Russia.
If there were an Axis of Evil, its centre would be in Washington if Wafflin’ Willy becomes president. If you think that things are bad now… God spare us that, please.
BMD
Voices from Russia 
Putin sez Russia Ready to Respond to US Missile Defence
Tags: ABM, Korenovsk, Krasnodar Krai, Moscow, National missile defense, political commentary, politics, Putin, Russia, Russian, strategic weapons, United States, USA, Vladimir Putin
President Vladimir Putin (1952- ) speaking with personnel at the 393rd Air Base, Korenovsk (Krasnodar Krai, Southern Federal District) RF
______________________________
On Thursday, President Vladimir Putin said that Russia has the means to provide a proper response to the projected deployment of a US missile shield in Europe, although Moscow would prefer to see the American plans revised, saying to personnel at the 393rd Air Base in Krasnodar Krai, “We should look forward and give a response [to these plans] in a timely manner. Of course, our partners would better not do this [implement their missile shield plans], as this move would drive our response”. President Putin emphasised that whatever the rhetoric Western politicians use to describe their shield deployment plans, “this remains a part of the arms race. We have the means to provide a proper response”. In connection with this, Putin underlined the importance of timely implementation of state defence orders, saying, “We must implement state defence orders exactly on time, to an acceptable quality level, and at a reasonable price. If we do so, there’ll be no particular threat to us”.
14 June 2012
RIA-Novosti
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20120614/174030933.html
Editor’s Note:
Mittens makes blustery threats… VVP simply says, “We have the means to counter their threats”. In short, Mittens is a lying loud-mouthed bully, whereas Vova doesn’t have to shout… when you’re right, you don’t have to.
BMD