Archive for the ‘missile shield’ Category

Russia: Won’t install missiles if no U.S. shield

February 6, 2009

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has made clear Moscow won’t install Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad if the United States does not deploy a missile shield in central Europe, Russia’s deputy prime minister said.

The previous U.S. administration of George W. Bush sealed deals last year to deploy 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic.

Reuters

The Bush administration said the shield was aimed at protecting Europe from “rogue states,” but Moscow sees it as a threat.

In response, it said it would install a missile system in Russia’s western outpost Kaliningrad, but Ivanov signaled on Friday that Russia was ready to reconsider that if Washington changed its missile shield plans.

President Medvedev from the very start said very clearly and unequivocally that if there are no interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic as was planned by the previous administration, clearly, there will be no Iskanders in Kaliningrad,” Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov told a security conference in Munich.

Ivanov said the U.S. missile shield was part of the United States’ strategic infrastructure and was aimed at deterring Russia’s nuclear missile potential.

“At the same time, we are eager to continue talks on that subject and hope it will yield some results,” he said.

Ivanov said Russia was open to a joint assessment of threats and if it was determined that they existed, to pursue a joint approach using Russian technology.

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090206/w
l_nm/us_security_russia_shield_3

Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons

February 4, 2009

President Obama will convene the most ambitious arms reduction talks with Russia for a generation, aiming to slash each country’s stockpile of nuclear weapons by 80 per cent.

The radical treaty would cut the number of nuclear warheads to 1,000 each, The Times has learnt. Key to the initiative is a review of the Bush Administration’s plan for a US missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, a project fiercely opposed by Moscow.

By

Mr Obama is to establish a non-proliferation office at the White House to oversee the talks, expected to be headed by Gary Samore, a non-proliferation negotiator in the Clinton Administration. The talks will be driven by Hillary Clinton’s State Department.

No final decision on the defence shield has been taken by Mr Obama. Yet merely delaying the placement of US missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic — which if deployed would cost the US $4 billion annually — removes what has been a major impediment to Russian co-operation on arms reduction.

Read the rest:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/
world/us_and_americas/article5654836.ece

Poland hopes Obama will back missile shield

January 12, 2009

Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said on Monday he hoped the administration of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama will press ahead with plans to install elements of a missile shield on Polish soil.

Warsaw agreed last August to station 10 ground missile interceptors as part of the global missile defense system Washington says will protect the United States and its allies from attacks by what it calls ‘rogue states’, notably Iran.

 

“I hope the new administration of President-elect Barack Obama, led by strategic security considerations, will continue the installation of missile defenses,” Sikorski told a ceremony to commemorate the 90th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Washington and Warsaw.

 

Obama, who is to be sworn in as president on January 20, has said he wants to be sure any missile defense system has been proven to work before it is deployed.

 

The plan, which also envisages a radar facility in the Czech Republic, faces stiff opposition from Russia, Poland’s Soviet-era overlord. Moscow regards the plan as a direct threat to its own security.

 

(Reporting by Gareth Jones and Gabriela Baczynska at Reuters)

Will US extend the ballistic missile shield to India?

January 8, 2009

Even as India prepares to test its own fledgling ballistic missile defence (BMD) system for the third time “within a month or so”, New Delhi and Washington are moving towards signing a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in the BMD arena.

The Times of India

Sources told TOI on Thursday that some rounds of talks on “possible collaboration on BMD or missile shield systems to enhance cooperative security and stability” have been held between India and US in recent times.

“Most of these discussions have taken place under the Joint Technical Group, a sub-group of the overall Indo-US Defence Policy Group architecture. The US is very keen to work with us in the missile defence arena. A formal MoU is now on the cards,” said a source.

But the MoU does not mean that India is signing up for a proposed American missile defence shield programme on the lines of Poland and the Czech Republic, which has led to a major diplomatic row between US and Russia in recent months.

Instead, the plan is to seek some missile defence technical know-how from the US. As part of this, Indian officials and scientists have already witnessed some simulations and a couple of live tests of the US missile defence system. The US, of course, has even offered to sell the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) system to India.

Read the rest:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Will_US_extend_the_ballistic_mi
ssile_shield_to_India/articleshow/3953112.cms

How To Pay For 21st Century Military

December 21, 2008

In recent weeks, this page has called for major changes in America’s armed forces: more ground forces, less reliance on the Reserves, new equipment and training to replace cold-war weapons systems and doctrines.

New York Times Editorial
.
Money will have to be found to pay for all of this, and the Pentagon can no longer be handed a blank check, as happened throughout the Bush years.

Since 2001, basic defense spending has risen by 40 percent in real post-inflation dollars. That is not counting the huge supplemental budgets passed — with little serious review or debate — each year to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such unquestioned largess has shielded the Pentagon from any real pressure to cut unneeded weapons systems and other wasteful expenses.

As a result, there is plenty of fat in the defense budget. Here is what we think can be cut back or canceled in order to pay for new equipment and other reforms that are truly essential to keep this country safe:

End production of the Air Force’s F-22. The F-22 was designed to ensure victory in air-to-air dogfights with the kind of futuristic fighters that the Soviet Union did not last long enough to build. The Air Force should instead rely on its version of the new high-performance F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which comes into production in 2012 and like the F-22 uses stealth technology to elude enemy radar.


F-22

Until then, it can use upgraded versions of the F-16, which can outperform anything now flown by any potential foe. The F-35 will provide a still larger margin of superiority. The net annual savings: about $3 billion.

Cancel the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyer. This is a stealthy blue water combat ship designed to fight the kind of midocean battles no other nation is preparing to wage. The Navy can rely on the existing DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyer, a powerful, well-armed ship that incorporates the advanced Aegis combat system for tracking and destroying multiple air, ship and submarine targets. The Navy has sharply cut back the number of Zumwalts on order from 32 to two.


Zumwalt destroyer

Cutting the last two could save more than $3 billion a year that should be used to buy more of the littoral combat ships that are really needed. Those ships can move quickly in shallow offshore waters and provide helicopter and other close-in support for far more likely ground combat operations.

Halt production of the Virginia class sub. Ten of these unneeded attack submarines — modeled on the cold-war-era Seawolf, whose mission was to counter Soviet attack and nuclear launch submarines — have already been built. The program is little more than a public works project to keep the Newport News, Va., and Groton, Conn., naval shipyards in business.

USS Virginia (SSN-774)
USS Virginia

The Navy can extend the operating lives of the existing fleet of Los Angeles class fast-attack nuclear submarines, which can capably perform all needed post-cold-war missions — from launching cruise missiles to countering China’s expanding but technologically inferior submarine fleet. Net savings: $2.5 billion.

Pull the plug on the Marine Corps’s V-22 Osprey. After 25 years of trying, this futuristic and unnecessary vertical takeoff and landing aircraft has yet to prove reliable or safe. The 80 already built are more than enough. Instead of adding 400 more, the Marine Corps should buy more of the proven H-92 and CH-53 helicopters. Net savings: $2 billion to 2.5 billion.

Halt premature deployment of missile defense. The Pentagon wants to spend roughly $9 billion on ballistic missile defense next year. That includes money to deploy additional interceptors in Alaska and build new installations in central Europe. After spending some $150 billion over the past 25 years, the Pentagon has yet to come up with a national missile defense system reliable enough to provide real security. The existing technology can be easily fooled by launching cheap metal decoys along with an incoming warhead.


Israel’s Arrow missile grew from U.S. missile defense program

We do not minimize the danger from ballistic missiles. We agree there should be continued testing and research on more feasible approaches. Since the most likely threat would come from Iran or North Korea, there should be serious discussions with the Russians about a possible joint missile defense program. (We know the system poses no threat to Russia, but it is time to take away the excuse.) A research program would cost about $5 billion annually, for a net savings of nearly $5 billion.

Read the rest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21sun1.html?_r=1

Pentagon’s Overarching Influence Is Bad For America, World

December 21, 2008

We no longer have a civilian-led government. It is hard for a lifelong Republican and son of a retired Air Force colonel to say this, but the most unnerving legacy of the Bush administration is the encroachment of the Department of Defense into a striking number of aspects of civilian government. Our Constitution is at risk. 

By Thomas A. Schweich
Washington Post
Sunday, December 21, 2008; Page B01

President-elect Barack Obama‘s selections of James L. Jones, a retired four-star Marine general, to be his national security adviser and, it appears, retired Navy Adm. Dennis C. Blair to be his director of national intelligence present the incoming administration with an important opportunity — and a major risk. These appointments could pave the way for these respected military officers to reverse the current trend of Pentagon encroachment upon civilian government functions, or they could complete the silent military coup d’etat that has been steadily gaining ground below the radar screen of most Americans and the media.

While serving the State Department in several senior capacities over the past four years, I witnessed firsthand the quiet, de facto military takeover of much of the U.S. government. The first assault on civilian government occurred in faraway places — Iraq and Afghanistan — and was, in theory, justified by the exigencies of war.

The White House, which basically let the Defense Department call the budgetary shots, vastly underfunded efforts by the State Department, the Justice Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to train civilian police forces, build functioning judicial systems and provide basic development services to those war-torn countries. For example, after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Justice Department and the State Department said that they needed at least 6,000 police trainers in the country. Pentagon officials told some of my former staffers that they doubted so many would be needed. The civilians’ recommendation “was quickly reduced to 1,500 [trainers] by powers-that-be above our pay grade,” Gerald F. Burke, a retired major in the Massachusetts State Police who trained Iraqi cops from 2003 to 2006, told Congress last April. Just a few hundred trainers ultimately wound up being fielded, according to Burke’s testimony.

Until this year, the State Department received an average of about $40 million a year for rule-of-law programs in Afghanistan, according to the department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs — in stark contrast to the billions that the Pentagon got to train the Afghan army. Under then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the Defense Department failed to provide even basic security for the meager force of civilian police mentors, rule-of-law advisers and aid workers from other U.S. agencies operating in Afghanistan and Iraq, driving policymakers to turn to such contracting firms as Blackwater Worldwide. After having set the rest of the U.S. government up for failure, military authorities then declared that the other agencies’ unsuccessful police-training efforts required military leadership and took them over — after brutal interagency battles at the White House.

The result of letting the Pentagon take such thorough charge of the programs to create local police forces is that these units, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, have been unnecessarily militarized — producing police officers who look more like militia members than ordinary beat cops. These forces now risk becoming paramilitary groups, well armed with U.S. equipment, that could run roughshod over Iraq and Afghanistan’s nascent democracies once we leave.

Or consider another problem with the rising influence of the Pentagon: the failure to address the ongoing plague of poppy farming and heroin production in Afghanistan. This fiasco was in large part the result of the work of non-expert military personnel, who discounted the corrosive effects of the Afghan heroin trade on our efforts to rebuild the country and failed to support civilian-run….

Related:
Condoleezza Rice takes responsibility for Iraq
occupation woes; absolves Rumsfeld

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2008/12/19/AR2008121902748.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Russia, Obama and the Strategic Chess Tournament

December 19, 2008

Within hours of Barack Obama’s election as President of the United States a kind of Slavic chess tournament opened in the Kremlin to defeat the new American president.  Whether it is because he is Black or for whatever reason (and we might not know the Russian reason exactly for some time) Russian President Dmitry Medvev and his predecessor, mentor and Foreign Minister Vladimir Putin, began to pressure, cajole and coerce Mr. Obama.

The chess pieces include the U.S. missile defense plan for Europe, which includes ten or so interceptor missiles and a radar site, both in Poland and the Czech Republic.  Russia wants to checkmate these and get them off the European (and Kremlin) chessboard.

Putin and Medvev have as kings nuclear weapons of their own.  The day after Obama’s election, in an opening move, Medvedev offered to really provide a geographic move of short range nuclear-tipped Iskander missiles closer to Eastern Europe.

The U.S. yawned.

Medvedev backed off this idea largely due to world-wide condemnation at his dangerous bluster.

Today Russia says it will stop developing “some” strategic nuclear weapons if the U.S. halts it European missile shield plan.

This seems to us at Peace and Freedom to be a play by Russia to guarantee future Russian superpower status.  Eastern European (and former Soviet) nations like the Czech Republic and Georgia are gravitating toward the West and NATO, and Russia cannot accept their loss.  That’s why Russia invaded Georgia and South Ossetia last summer….

Related:
Russians Say Medvedev, Obama to Meet “Soon After Jan 20 Inauguration”

*********************

Vladimir Putin is a world-class chess master at getting what he wants.  The former KGB man now  seems poised to return to the presidency of Russia for another term in a few years and he seems to have convinced many, by deception, that missile defenses in Europe are a threat to Russia.

What Putin wants is control of Russia — and a Russia of long term dominance on the world stage.

Conceived way back during the Ronald Reagan presidency and often derisively called “Star Wars” or the missile shield, U.S. missile defense is no threat to Russia or anyone else.  Like a defensive basketball or football player, missile defense is designed and used to block destructive attacking missiles from reaching their goals.

Russia has manipulated the world media for almost two decades to create the illusion that missile defense is some threat to Russians.  In fact, no missile defense missile has the capability of harming Russia or Russians: the “kill mechanism” of a missile defense interceptor is the kinetic energy or crashing into the attacking missile.  The missile defense missile has no warhead — unlike intercontinental ballistic missiles that can carry 10 or so nuclear warheads, each capable of annihilating millions of people and entire cities.

The U.S. missile defense effort for Europe has been a long and painstaking discussion going back two decades.  Along with thousands of others, I participated myself in these discussions, forums and conferences, in the early 1990s, on two levels: first as co-chairman of a NATO study (one of several) to determine the efficacy and implications of a European missile defense to stop missiles like those being developed by Iran targeted on Europe; and then on U.S. government missions to Moscow to show with credible evidence that a U.S. missile defense was no threat to Russia — or anybody.

By the middle 1990s, the Russians seemed to agree that U.S. missile defenses, even in Europe, were no threat to Russia or Russians.

In 2002, the United States, after years of notification to Russia and discussions with Russia, withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty which had been made with the Soviet Union.  This action was necessary to permit testing of U.S. missile defenses — which had targets and interceptors that could have posed an international legal discussion vis-a-vis the treaty.

Then an interesting thing happened.  Vladimir Putin in Russia decided that he wanted a resurgent Russia with renewed superpower status, like that enjoyed during the Cold War Soviet era.  As Russia developed its oil reserves, exports gave him the financial clout he needed despite an aging and creaky military machine.  But an expert at media and public manipulation, Putin went to work to achieve his goals and to stifle U.S. objectives on many fronts.

Putin Medvedev
.
Above: Vladimir Putin speaks with his presidential successor, Dmitry Medvedev, in parliament May 8, 2008. Putin brought Medvedev from the post of Charman of Gazprom, Russia’s oil giant, to become his chief of staff and later preident.  Now Medvedev has proposed a longer term for Russia’s president and it is no secret that Putin wants to come back as President of Russia.  Photo: Sergei Chirikov AFP/Getty Images

The suave, handsome and articulate Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev are also quick to reveal clumsy bluster and intimidation — which is what the recent threat to move Iskander missiles closer to Poland seems to have been.

Russia also attacked neighbors in Georgia and South Ossetia — quickly turning ignored intimidation into acts of war.

Russia continues a very aggressive trade relationship with Iran, which continues to develop more capable ballistic missiles, nuclear technology (with Russian help) and sends verbal assaults at least weekly at Israel and the U.S. (”Israel should be wiped from the map,” said Iran’s President Ahmadinejad).

Efforts to slow or stop Iran’s nuclear development in the United Nations are routinely thwarted by Russia and China.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks at the Natanz uranium ... 
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks at the Natanz uranium enrichment facility.(AFP/File/Atta Kenare)

Now a global media tired of George W. Bush and enamored by Barack Obama has absolutely no time for the truth of the missile defense situation.  This weekend Agence France-Presse (AFP) wrote a photograph caption on a picture of French President Sarkozy and Russian President Medvedev which read, “Sarkozy urged Russia and the United States to stop threatening each other with missiles and missile shields.” (see below)

The fact is that U.S. missile defense threatens nobody — with missiles incabale of landing on Russian targets and without warheads.  The U.S. has even offered Russia the opportunity to place Russian inspectors at U.S. missile defense sites, 24 hours a day and 365 days a year to ensure no sneaky bad guys alter these defensive systems for attack.  The difficulty of converting a missile defense system for attack is, well, like secretly and quickly rerouting the Space Shuttle from a mission to the International Space Station and then attempting a manned landing on Mars.  Russia knows this is a crazy notion — but many in the media and others have swallowed this brainless Russian borscht.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy (L) speaks with President of ... 
French President Nicolas Sarkozy (L) speaks with President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev, before the Europe-Russia finance reform summit in Nice southern France. Sarkozy urged Russia and the United States to stop threatening each other with missiles and missile shields Friday and called for talks on Europe’s future security. (AFP/Valery Hache)
.
NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer called the Russian remarks on moving missiles in Europe unsolicited, unnecessary and unhelpful.

Russia has also said that a missile defense system in Europe will “negate” its thousands of nuclear armed missiles.  But the European missile defense system is only intended to have 10 interceptors — which would be easily and quickly overwhelmed by a Russian attack.

Russia's "Iskander" missile system on display ... 
Russia’s “Iskander” missile system on display at a military exhibition in the Siberian town of Nizhny Tagil in 2005. President Dmitry Medvedev has said Russia will place short-range missile systems on the EU’s eastern border to counter planned US missile defence installations in Eastern Europe.(AFP/VEDOMOSTI/File/Evgeny Stetsko)

Threating people in Europe with nuclear destruction is a gossly over the top Russian act of instigation and intimidation — and it makes no sense in the post-Cold War world.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Ribert Gates said the threat from Russia, made just after the U.S. election of President-elect Barack Obama, was “hardly the welcome a new American administration deserves. Such provocative remarks are unnecessary and misguided.”

“Quite frankly I’m not clear what the missiles would be for in Kaliningrad, after all the only real emerging threat on Russia’s periphery is in Iran and I don’t think the Iskander missile has the range to get there from Kaliningrad,” Gates added. “Why they would threaten to point missiles at European nations seems quite puzzling to me.”
.
Medevev and supposedly Putin have now backed away from their threat to move Iskander missiles but they have created an incredible fog of lies in the air — which many in the international media and elsewhere have swollowed.

U.S. missile defense, and the European effort with Poland and the Czech Republic, is no threat to Russia or anybody else.  It is a system to bat down incoming nuclear warheads from long-range missiles, like those Iran continues to test.

By John E. Carey
Wakefield Chapel, Virginia

Russia Testing Obama: Says No To U.S. Missile Defense & Offers To Stop “Some” Rus Weapons

December 19, 2008

Russia has again made an offer, a kind of coercion really in true Slavic style, that would agree to certain Russian weapons moves in exchange for the U.S. to shelve its missile defense system in Europe.

Within hours of Barack Obama’s election last November, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said unless the U.S. stopped its missile defense program that includes Poland and the Czech Repulic, he’d move nuclear tipped Iskander missiles into Eastern Europe.  Now the Kremlin says when the U.S. halts missile defense, Russia will stop building ‘some’ of its new class of intercontinental strategic nuclear missiles….

This looks to us at Peace and Freedom to be more “testing” of Barack Obama from Russia, just as John Rood of the State Department predicted earlier this week…

A Russian Topol-M ICBM intercontinental ballistic missile is ... 
A Russian Topol-M ICBM intercontinental ballistic missile is driven across Red Square in a Victory Day Parade in Moscow, May 2008. Russia’s armed forces will be equipped with new nuclear-capable missiles by 2020 that can overcome defensive measures like the controversial US missile shield, a top military official said on Wednesday.(AFP/File/Yuri Kadobnov)

*****

Related:
 Russia’s Putin Warns Foes: Don’t Mess With Russia

Russia, Obama and the Slavic Chess Tournament

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia will stop developing some strategic weapons if the United States drops plans for a missile shield in Europe, Interfax news agency quoted the commander of Russia’s strategic missile forces as saying on Friday.

“If Americans give up plans to deploy the third positioning region and other elements of the strategic missile defense system then certainly we will adequately respond to it,” said Colonel-General Nikolai Solovtsov.

“We will simply not need a number of expensive programs,” he added. The U.S. missile shield plan includes interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic.

(Writing by James Kilner)

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visits a ballistic missile ...
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visits a ballistic missile site in Russia in October. Russia is developing missiles designed to avoid being hit by space-based missile defence systems that could be deployed by the United States, a top Russian general was quoted as saying Monday.
(AFP/Pool/File/Dmitry Astakhov)

Russia to deploy new missile systems ‘by 2020’

December 17, 2008

Russia’s armed forces will be equipped with new nuclear-capable missiles by 2020 that can overcome defensive measures like the controversial US missile shield, a top military official said on Wednesday.

The comments by the overall commander of Russia’s missile forces indicate Russia is planning a far-reaching refurbishment of its intercontinental missile arsenal where Soviet-era warhorses still play an important role.

“By 2015-2020 the Russian strategic rocket forces will have new complete missile systems with improved combat characteristics,” General Nikolai Solovtsov told reporters at a briefing in the Moscow region.

“They will be capable of carrying out any tasks, including in conditions where an enemy uses anti-missile defence measures,” Solovtsov said, quoted by Russian news agencies.

By Stuart Williams
AFP

Russian officials have expressed fury at the US plan to install missile defence facilities in Central Europe, despite US assurances that the system is not directed against Russia.

Washington plans to put an anti-missile radar facility in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland, both ex-Eastern bloc countries which are now NATO members.

President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have urged US president-elect Barack Obama to drop the system, which was devised by the outgoing administration of George W. Bush.

A Russian Topol-M ICBM intercontinental ballistic missile is ... 
A Russian Topol-M ICBM intercontinental ballistic missile is driven across Red Square in a Victory Day Parade in Moscow, May 2008. Russia’s armed forces will be equipped with new nuclear-capable missiles by 2020 that can overcome defensive measures like the controversial US missile shield, a top military official said on Wednesday.(AFP/File/Yuri Kadobnov)

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Wednesday he expected the Obama administration to “constructively cooperate with us” on arms control issues, the Interfax news agency reported.

However despite the expressions of optimism from Moscow, Obama has yet to give any details about his intentions.

Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081217/wl_afp/russia
militarymissileus_081217151516

Czech Republic Missile Defense Update

December 16, 2008

Democrats will not stop the development of anti-missile systems, but they will stress the defence against short and middle-range missiles, Daniel Anyz writes about the prospects of the U.S. radar on Czech soil in Hospodarske noviny.
.

The Czech radar that is to be able to communicate with the systems may be part of the plans.

The emphasis on the systems opens a door to the real “Natoization” of the anti-missile defence, Anyz writes.

This means that Prague’s tacit assumption that a U.S. radar might give it special relations with the USA and its security commitments will probably not be fulfilled, he adds.

On the other hand, the consent to the project both in the Czech Republic and in Europe may become more within reach, Anylz writes.

 

The result of the elections that would allow to the opposition Social Democrats to rule alone may be an obstacle to the grand coalition, Alexandr Mitrofanov writes about the idea that the Social Democrats and the Civic Democratic Party (ODS) may form the alliance in Pravo.

Ilustračni snimek radaru XBR (na nedatovaném archivnim snimku poskytnutém Velvyslanectvim USA v ČR), který je součásti systému protiraketové obrany USA. - ilustračni foto
One of the phased array radar faces

Absolute power is connected with sole responsibility. If the Social Democrats ruled without partners, they could not blame anyone also for their failures.

This will be double true at the time when the global crisis continues as they will need to share the weight of the task with some partners, Mitrofanov writes.

Social Democrat leader Jiri Paroubek would certainly prefer a coalition with the Christian Democrats and the Greens. However, it may happen that neither of the parties will cross the five-percent threshold necessary to enter the Chamber of Deputies, he adds.

It cannot be ruled out that the lower house will only consist of the deputies for the ODS, the Social Democrats and the Communists, Mitrofanov writes.

Read the rest:
http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=350239