Russia as a neighboring country to the Baltic states with a large unit weight of common language platform with the population of these countries (Russian as a mother language, % of the population: Latvia 50%; Estonia 20%; Lithuania 20%) cannot ignore this humiliation of people. This small issue for G8 but vital important for Russian-speaking people is a barrier in the development of constructive partnership between the world leaders because Russia, however, is not part of EU, is tackling the appointed problem in the Baltic States by putting some pressure on the nationalistic governing parties in the Baltic States. But at the same time these nationalistic governing parties are misinterpreting the existing problem to the EU and to USA and misinterpret the efforts of Russia to tackle the problem.
This is example, where shared principle and values of EU and Russia exist, but the concrete action is taken only by one side, which, objectively, has much less authority on resolving internal EU matters.

Oleg, Riga,

“shared principles and shared values” by Mr. Blair.

- Indeed, Russia and Europe have a great number of things in common. I believe that the rest of G8 countries do realize this and look at Russia as an intelligent partner on resolving world threats and challenges as well as other issues.
From my point of view, as one of but not least barrier to the development of the partnership relationships in many ways plays Russophobe attitude of the governing groups of people in Baltic States. Indeed, nationalistic group in particular in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania due to violation of human rights of Russian speaking population in these countries are promoting and enjoying their nationalistic policies, which are in breach of EU values.
EU must not ignore the violation of human rights in these countries as it is a threat to the promotion of the EU values.

Oleg, Riga,

Hey, folks! A really intersting offer suggested by russian president, isn't it? The only thing is that Russia is setting up a bit China with that radar which is covering also this country with some others like Iran. As it's written in the article, Russia doesn't really share the idea when east-european countries choose american technologies, first of all military technologies and weapons. And China is the biggest importer of russian arms. Will China be so upset by that decisions and what's gonna be chinese reactions on it - time will see.

Anyway, I don't think that Russia should worsen relations with her neighbouring eastern tiger. I don't know Chinese, but I'm eager to find out under what headlines are issued the newspapers in China this morning ;-)

Alex, Moscow, Russia

Living in the Noth West of England, near Boughton were they make Airbus and BAE and other defence industry parts - (note I said parts they put the parts togeather to make an item else where)

If we were to share this new technology with Russia,,
sure the 50% 50% join venture involving UK and USA would become 33% 33% 33% venture,,or bypass the UK all togeather...

In the North West a very large part of engineering jobs (well paid) come from the defense industry

Surly these jobs need protecting

My personal view on USA - Russia defence is its a complete waste of money - it always has been. But I do not want it to effect the engineering industry in my area, as this wasted money is actually well spent in the North West of England.

How do you share a technology thats only purpose is to direct a major necleur attack where 70% of are population are certain to be vapourised or incinerated,, we are talking about electronically killing millions here,
not handshakes with people

Nicholas Iles, Oswestry, Shropshire

From the point of view of intercept scenarios, a radar in the Caucasus makes much better sense than one in Poland. Considering the shortest trajectory, that is a great circle,the latter would mean an intercept over the Black Sea or Ukraine and debris falling near the trajectory's plane ,in Ukraine or Belarus or Poland.
Upper stages have already reached the ground, in at least one case through a house's roof. The payload is an envelope of high resistance alloy around an explosive charge and nuclear material. It has a high probability of surviving reentry even if damaged, reaching the ground, a potential "dirty bomb".
Neither option would be effective against a missile fired from North Korea , either toward Europe or the United States.

Michel BODIANSKY, Paris, France

Saying the people of Hong Kong wished to be part of China is untrue, from speaking to a family living there the word is they dislike the Chinese and are scared of them. They are uncomfortable, losing their jobs and miss the security that UK government gave them but then took away from them.

MR T, Cornwall, UK

Neat footwork by Putin. I agree with Jim P, this is what should be happening; and we'll see if Bush ducks out on it, or not. Hope it wasn't that that has made him sick to his stomach, now.

H. Grattan, Johannesburg, South Africa

What a brilliant idea, and move, by the Russians!
it makes so much more sense to have the missile shield away from Europe and much nearer to Iran. The offer of collaboration by Russia with US (by implication against Iran) is highly significant, marking for the first time a shift in support away from Iran. Hallelujah!
If the US had to reject this, and stick to their plans, it could be seen as being outrageously provocative and would merit an aggressive response from the Russians.
The ball is truly in the US's court. I'm surprised this is not front page headlines. It is a huge breakthrough.

Alice, Moscow,

I can't agree with BS Goh on the subject of Taiwan. He may as well say that Singapore should become part of Mainland China, because Singaporeans are also ethnic Chinese. The difference between Hong Kong and Taiwan, is that the people of Hong Kong all wanted to be part of the mother country, whereas the Taiwanese see themselves as fundamentally different in the way they govern themselves and wish to remain so. Does Uncle Sam have a mandate to interfere as suggested? I don't think so, and it would contradict the idealist democratic agenda of the USA.

Tony Gold, Chiang Mai, Thailand

I would be more than happy for my country to share control of a radar system and defensive missile system WITH the Soviets... oops, I mean, Russians. If we can play this together and both come out more secure, why not? I don't want my country rattling sabers at any country, even inadvertantly. In this day and age we are done with having Russia as an adversary. We need a friendship and an economic bridge that binds our two countries. If we can work this deal with Moscow and show a benefit for both them and Washington, everybody wins. This alliance would weaken any "rogue" nations' resolve at making a missile strike against the west, too.

Who knows, perhaps, in the near future, we can put our two country's technologies and budgets together and fund a REAL space program and get ourselves to the Moon and Mars on a permanent basis.

Jim P, Sacramento, California

The unexpected offer from Putin to work with NATO and place the proposed antimissile system in Azerbaijan is an important development is this issue of the antimissile system in Europe. NATO must repond seriously and positively to this offer.

On the other side of the world the USA should pressure Taiwan to join China the way HK had successfully joined the Mainland. After 10 years it is very clear that HK had greatly benefited from being part of the Mainland China.

If USA commits to this strategic outcome on the Taiwan issue China can invite USA to base its antimissile system on the Shandong or Liaoning province in China and provide an antimissile shield for Japan, South Korea and also China and even the USA against the North Korean missiles.
The world will be a lot safer if the big three, USA, Russia and China can cooperate on global strategic military issues in the way they are cooperating to fight global terrorism and risks from a bird flu pandemic.

BS Goh, Perth, Australia