No in any other language is still no. The so called missile shield was not cancelled due to Russian opposition
“The United States has effectively cancelled the final phase of a Europe-based missile defense system that was fiercely opposed by Russia and cited repeatedly by the Kremlin as a major obstacle to cooperation on nuclear arms reductions and other issues"
Russian officials here have so far declined to comment on the announcement.
"Effectively cancelled" what does this actually mean? Well it really means altered or changed.
But if the missile defense had been cancelled, really cancelled, the above sentence would have read
"The US has cancelled the final phase....." That is not what is being stated.
Frozen Arctic landscape.....
So, what actually happened?
The US simply moved the placement of the interceptors to Alaska. Somehow, I suspect that some of these interceptors might find themselves in Canada....but, those are just my own suspicions. For now.
US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said Friday that 14 more interceptors would be stationed in Alaska increasing by almost half the 30 already deployed along the western coastline.
And what does Russia have to say about this placement that the NYT's claims was done to appease Russia?
Russia said today it saw “no concession” in the US decision to abandon the final phase of its missile shield for Europe while deploying new interceptors against a possible attack from North Korea.
“This is not a concession to Russia and we do not see it as such,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said. “Our objections remain.”
Russia does not see a "concession" because there is no concession.
Ryabkov said that Russia believed that extra US interceptors in Alaska “significantly expand US capabilities in the area of missile defence.”"We are not experiencing any euphoria about this,” he added.
Another article points out that the 'reshuffle' of missile interceptors has nothing to do with North Korea as was claimed in the NYT's article. That is obvious enough. What does this piece suggest to us?
Control over resources. Typical.
The primary goal of the US plans to bolster missile defense in Alaska isn’t about tackling a North Korean threat, but putting a claim on the natural resources of the Arctic, former MI5 intelligence officer, Annie Machon, explained in an interview RT“What we’re looking at – at this point – is North Korea being the ‘useful idiot’, a pretext for America to defend a resource-rich part of the world. When I was in MI5, the one thing we were always taught in terms of assessing the threat from any sort of source or a country: one – do they have the capability; two – do they have the intention. Now, of course, North Korea has very loudly said that they have the intention to try and attack America, but certainly doesn’t have the capability at this point.”
"Defend a resource rich part of the world"? Defend from who? Or whom?
“ America, by having these defenses in Alaska, will be very well-placed to protect its economic interest in that area.”Defend? Protect?
The above piece mentions China. I agree completely. China would be one of the countries the US would want to keep out of the Arctic. But, China is not the only country.
Let's go back to an older post I put up December 2011
Who controls the Arctic, controls vast resources
The Arctic, resource rich and largely under the control of Russia
The Arctic North end of Russia is believed to hold as much as a quarter of all the world's oil deposits - an utterly monstrous economic prize.
Some of the world's richest reserves of the stuff are buried beneath the beds of the Berents sea, North of Russia and well into the Arctic Circle. It's estimated that this area holds somewhere around a quarter of all the oil reserves in the world.Look at the map. Then tell me if the US caved to Russia by placing additional interceptors in Alaska?
I don't think so. Do you?