The American media has misconstrued what the Russians really intend. Here is the English, which has incorrectly mis-translated what Russia said.

"In this case Russia will be forced to react, and not only through diplomatic" channels, it said without elaborating.

Notice the quotation ends after "diplomatic." They eliminated a key word. Russia did not say "diplomatic channels," but it would use non-diplomatic options.

This has been misconstrued:

дипломатические демарши

Demarche [ демарши ] means pressure to achieve an outcome, it is not simply a diplomatic channel. One does size or shape of the container; it is what is in the container -- and it's potential to be used -- that is of concern. The West is focusing on the wrong aspect of Russia's language.

Russia is convinced NATO and the US plan to use the conventional capabilities of the Missile Shield. As with the DOJ OLC memos outlining the "option" to conduct illegal activity, the President reminded Russia that DOJ OLC and the President do not seek options unless they plan to use them, even illegally against innocent American civilians.

The Russians are emphasizing non-diplomatic options to achieve their objectives, and are not talking about simply using a different color of paper during negotiations.

Russia, in her view, doesn't need to elaborate; and all Russian efforts to elaborate Russia's internal security concerns have been ineffectual. NATO and Georgia ignored Russia's overt use of force in Georgia and still plan to use, what Russia views, as a conventional-missile support system in Poland. There is no confusion in the minds of Russia that NATO, the American President, and Congress know full well what Russia is concerned about; and what the American government is ignoring: Russia's internal security obligations.

They won't strike the emplacement, as we did not do so over Cuba. They will simply place it on a target list.

If, as planned, there are to be ten interceptor missiles at the one site, that will be easily confirmed. Such a small number is most useful as favor to contractors building it, to Poland for its support for Bush (hard cash coming in), and an intended insult to Russia. It is close to useless for even a single Iranian or Russian ICBM.

Russia simply points out an obvious consequence for Poland, that it is now a strategic target.

I am a bit mystified that our strategic "thinkers" can still play this game. Iran would never simply launch a single missile, only to be utterly destroyed, so the defense is moot. Ditto Russia. The difference is Russia would launch a crapload of missiles, so the defense is still meaningless.

But even this is not an issue, since Russia would not invite its own destruction. So it's an elaborate game of insults, and everyone hopes to get what they want without drawing swords, or worse, using them.

Really pisses me off. Poland is not the only place for this Potemkin defense. It is just the most insulting.

The Russians view the West-NATO-US as downplaying Russians concerns, and not taking Russia's security interests seriously.

Whether NATO does or doesn't deploy nuclear missile interceptors is only part of the Russian concern: They are concerned the sites could be used to deploy conventional, offensive missiles at Russia. A nuclear missile shield goes one step further: Effectively denies Russia of any chance of using nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

It's not certain what the Russian's "wont" do. The Russians have not taken this off the table:

They won't strike the emplacement, as we did not do so over Cuba.

The US didn't strike because the US and Russia agreed to a solution. The failure to agree prompted Russia to invade Georgia, NATO-US proxy against Russia.

T

Russia As Sovereign Power

Russia appears to reject the implicit American approach: That Russia, in the American view, is merely a fourth branch of the US government, one for the President and Congress to jointly roll over the judiciary, as Congress-President with with FISA and POW abuses. Russia is a sovereign power and can do what the Congress refuses to do: Confront the President.

A weapon system includes not only the missiles but, in this case, the radar system which collects information. Russia apears to be concerned that even if the missiles were removed, the forward deployed radar would look deeply into Russia, and forward this information to aerial platforms targeting Russia.

This does not mean that NATO should roll over. The question is whether Russia and NATO have adequately agreed on a timetable and/or plan to resolve the differences. In Russia's view, NATO-America has no plan to respect Russia's genuine security interests; there is no reason to pretend any hope exists for NATO to constructively engage with Russia, prompting Russia to withdraw from all NATO contact.

Russia observes the American government's approach to agreements -- in FISA, GEneva, or the US Constitution -- as a fair warning NATO-America would not fully respect agreements with Russia.

Operational Systems, Plans NATO Intends to Use Against Russia

This appears to downplay the concern Russia has: Poland is not merely on a target list, but part of an alliance that has weapons NATO intends to use against Russia:

"They will simply place it on a target list.. . Russia simply points out an obvious consequence for Poland, that it is now a strategic target."

Russia's actions in Georgia show Russia is not likely to stick with a passive "put that on the list"-approach, but implement operational military plans. Russia is implicitly saying, "We're not going to wait to be proven wrong. We're making decisions based on the interests of Russia. NATO doesn't respect Russia's interests."

NATO Does Not Seriously Consider Russia's Position, "No Deployment"

This narrowly looks at the Russian concerns in terms of the missiles in Poland, not the larger issue of the radar system in the Czech Republic. This incorrectly assumes Russia does not take action, before deployment, to thwart the use of the missile site:

Invalid deployment assumption "If, as planned, there are to be ten interceptor missiles at the one site, that will be easily confirmed."

Russia does not appear to plan to "confirm" or "not confirm" anything. Their position, for now, is: "There will be no deployment of this offensive weapon system along our border."

NATO has not adequately worked with Russia to constructively reassure Russia with actions, plans, or any cooperative effort to ensure the system is effectively constrained as an exclusive defensive system. Russia is reminded by the Israelis that the idea of 'defense' is to invade.

Whether a missile is "confirmed" as an interceptor, nuclear weapon, or a conventional missile misses the point: The Russians are signaling they have no plan to cooperate NATO-America deploy the system, much less activate any site.

Even if the site is activated, and the missiles are deployed without a Russian attack, the American-NATO approach to this system does not appear to effectively address Russian's concerns about compliance. Technically, it is not a simple issue of "confirming" anything as a weapon can be fabricated, as evidenced by the Russian inflatable subs designed to make NATO believe the Russian sub was still in port, while it was really far from home.

Unacceptable NATO Foothold

Russia views the personnel used (whether they are contractors or military) is secondary to the core concern: Once a small number of personnel or weapon systems are established, NATO could increase the numbers in one site, then expand the number of sites along Russia's European and Central Asian borders.

Intrusive Camel's Nose "Such a small number is most useful as favor to contractors building it, to Poland for its support for Bush (hard cash coming in), and an intended insult to Russia."

Iran is an interesting issue: Despite no evidedence Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, there's the myth that this system will counter-act Iranian missiles. Even if NATO were to counteract, with this system, the Iranians, NATO appears to not comprehend the Russian intention of defending Iran.

No Iranian Nuclear Weapons "It is close to useless for even a single Iranian or Russian ICBM."

If the system is "useless" as a defensive system, it would be reasonable to consider the Russian conclusion: It's an offensive-combat-support system.

It's incorrect to begin to (implicitly) point to the speculative Iranian "mushroom" cloud, especially given there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.

Iran appears to be a red herring: A convenient excuse NATO attempted to use to justify deploying a system in Europe. That makes no sense. Why not base the system within an American ally along Russia's southern border? The only reasonable answer, in Russia's view, is that the intended objective of the European-based missile shield is to confront Russia, not Iran.

This appears to assume Iran would act alone; and have no active support from other Russian-Chinese-friendly allies to jointly launch missiles:

"Iran would never simply launch a single missile, only to be utterly destroyed, so the defense is moot."

It's not certain that Iran, even if it were to attack a NATO-ally (under what conditions?) that Iran would be destroyed (by whom; and what consequences to that attacking country?).

Iran has allies, and the US approach to Iraq shows that the US is not able to completely destroy, but ignore a country's resolve.

This ignores the conventional aspect of Russia's concerns:

"Ditto Russia. The difference is Russia would launch a crapload of missiles, so the defense is still meaningless."

NATO At Risk of Collapsing

Things are not going well for NATO in Afghanistan. This needs to consider the issue from the perspective of NATO's defensive requirements for Europe:

"But even this is not an issue, since Russia would not invite its own destruction."

NATO, by ignoring Russia and deploying the missile shield, could be argued to be inviting its own destruction. In the Russian view, NATO is not about defense, but seeking, in the Russian view, a pretext -- as it did through Georgia -- of provoking Russia. That is not a defensive posture, but one that is bullying, confrontational, and hardly evidence of a "Post" cold war.

Russian Action in Georgia

Russia's actions in Georgia shows the Russians have moved beyond the insults, and are using their power to confront the President, Congress, and NATO:

"So it's an elaborate game of insults, and everyone hopes to get what they want without drawing swords, or worse, using them. Really pisses me off. Poland is not the only place for this Potemkin defense. It is just the most insulting."

Issues Americans, NATO, Russia Need to Resolve

Russia doesn't believe NATO is serious about resolving anything, but preparing for a confrontation with Russia. Except for missiles in Turkey, ground launched cruise missiles, and naval-based missiles, Russia during the Cold War didn't have to contend with a similar weapon system in Europe.

A few issues the Americans have not adequately addressed in public:

A. It seems odd, in the Russian view, that, despite the victory of the Cold war, NATO wants to deploy this potential offensive weapon-support system.

- What's changed to justify supporting this system as opposed to going back to the Cold War;

B. The timetable appears artificially driven, as was the case with the Iraq invasion.

- What's the urgency of deploying this system on the given timetable;

C. NATO-America, as with PNAC-Iraq, appears to have made a decision, and plans to achieve the outcome regardless its prudence or folly.

- Why is the United States not willing to accommodate the Russian security interests;

D. NATO combat forces are stretched:

- Despite the NATO setbacks in Afghanistan, what credible deterrent does NATO have for Europe;

E. NATO, in Russia's view, was surprised by the Russian neutralization of the Georgian command and control, suggesting NATO may have unrealistic assumptions about the equipment its NATO allies. It does not seem likely that NATO would hold more advanced systems in reserve and not fully use them in Afghanistan.

F. Russia is emboldened from Georgia's military defeat, and speedy command and control implosion:

- Why should anyone believe the former-USSR satellite states will have more modern command and control systems than the Russians neutralized in Georgia;

G. The Americans do not appear to be trustworthy. The American President detests the rule of law, international obligations under Geneva, and written agreements he had with the American public on FISA.

- What assurances can NATO-America provide despite the demonstrated defiance to written agreements?

H. If Iran were a real threat, as NATO says, NATO has not convinced Russia that NATO has developed a reasonable plan to engage with Iran.

- Why isn't this system being jointly deployed by NATO-Russia long the border with Iran;

I. NATO forces depend on American support, but the United States is stretched into Iraq and Afghanistan. Despite 9-11, the President is distracted in Iraq. A confrontation in Europe will complicate the NATO mission in Afghanistan.

- How does the United States, without a military draft, propose to provide defensive support to NATO in Europe while still deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan;

- If there are reserve NATO forces available to defend Europe, why weren't those reserves called immediately after 9-11 to swiftly resolve the issues in Afghanistan?

We do really need to take a deep breath ,and better understand the gravity of our current affairs with Russia - the analogy of "Warsaw Pact missiles in Mexico " is a very good analogy.
Further Russia was fully prepared to help us fight the extremist Islamist in all the 'stans' - but not only did we rebuff those efforts - we actively sought to undermine all Russian interest in what in effect is their Central America.
Taken in the full context of the last eight years of lies,and double speak gwb43 has engaged in with the Russians - Putin is fed up with bushcheney -and will do what he believes is in the best interest of Russia- including armed conflict with the West.
This is very , very unfortunate because the real enemy is Usama bin Laden is still in the field -- is still a threat to the civilized world .