ziadel

It seems to me as though the Ruskies are asking for...something. What, I'm not exactly sure. In case you did'nt hear, they are developing new ICBM's in response to our missile shield, they've stuck a flag in the Arctic ala Izzard and they are withdrawing from a lot of treaties. They're poisoning people left and right. But why? They have to know at this point that they're not a superpower. So what is the motivation? Anyone have any thoughts on what the hell they're about? It really is kinda making me nervous.

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

blade02

Old habbits die hard? Personally I'm not really too concerned. If you're country X and country Y makes your missiles obsololete the only reasonable thing to do is build more or better missiles. Besides, for people in my industry, having military rivals is a good thing since it helps us obtain developement dollars. The only downside to Russia being perceived as a threat again, would be that it would distract people from the real threats. But if it takes people being afraid of the Russians, so we can get funding for our projects which are made to defeat China, then so be it.

As far as the treaties go, treaties left over from the Cold War are kind of like Affirmitive Action laws left over from the Civil Rights Movement. They had a time and place, they aren't needed anymore, and their existence simply points out the lack trust between both parties. The Cold War treaties in particular were more about trying to save money and make the other guy spend more money. (Limit research or building of one area that they're just now getting good at, and all of the sudden they have to spend money in another area to work around the treaty.)

aKula

I see it as a return to the great power posturing that was common in Europe pre-WW2.

The NATO alligned states must react to it steadfastly on a case-by-case basis. By that I mean not backing down. Churchill even said that you must show strength to the russians. Being overly paranoid as to their motives isn't helpful either. It's natural for states to pursue their national interest. Though the west examines foreign policy through morality (particular on the surface and when not dealing with matters especially critical to the state) the russian state has recently adopted a more power based approach.

While on critical matters to do with the strategic integrity and security of the state the west stays with the traditional realist approach, over it lies a moral aspect missing in the actions of great powers such as Russia and China. Look at China's engagement with Africa compared to Europe's and the United States' as an example of this.

In the end too much paranoia can lead to response lacking the requisite subtlety necessary for success. Recognition that other states will assert themselves is key.

As for the arctic it's an interesting situation with treaties establishing economic zones which are agreed upon by the relevant actors. Any expansion that does not include all the interested parties will probably be decided by the power spread from the barrel of the gun. By that I mean by the willingness or lack thereof to use military power to take control.

Let's not forget the dispute between Canada and Denmark over Hans Island.

__________________
"I am the wrath of God. The earth I pass will see me and tremble." -Klaus Kinski as Don Lope de Aguirre

ObieX

If i were the leader of Russia I'd probably be pretty damn worried too with Bush in office. He's pretty much single handedly destabilized an already shaky region/planet and is pissing Russia off by interfering with a lot of countries.. and regions that want to become countries.. that Russia has direct ties to in one way or another.

With declining oil reserves digging into everyone's wellbeing I'm not shocked they're making their own grabs at various oil regions of the world. The middle east is taken already so they had to go someplace. They may stain some ice up there a nasty brown.. but at least they wont have to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

thingstodo

Maybe if we go back to the cold war it will replace the terrorist stuff like the terrosist stuff replaced the cold war. America just needs an enemy so we can keep the military industrial machine running smoothly. And Dick C. can pay for his heart medical care.

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

analog

Nimetic

It's nationalistic stuff for the home audience.

But then too - with all the stuff the US is doing, I think a little opposition is a good thing. I'm sure that many others around the globe will also have a laugh.

It's not like the US is sticking to the non-proliferation treaty, or the anti-ballistic missile treaty. Heck, seems to me that Bush wants to go it alone generally, so he's got to expect a little conflict and/or dissent.

Really though, the Russian flag thing is fairly meaningless. But who're you going to call. The UN?

xepherys

I posed much the same in Tilted Politics in this thread. It would indeed seem as though something is brewing. Perhaps they're just unhappy that we are undoing so much of the devastation they left behind in Afghanistan. *shrug* Of course, I doubt that, but they have turned out to be pretty petty of late.

__________________
The prospect of achieving a peace agreement with the extremist group of MILF is almost impossible...
-- Emmanuel Pinol, Governor of Cotobato

My Homepage

MSD

Putin and his KGB cronies are nostalgic for the good old days, and they're trying to gain political and economic leverage in order to make Russia relevant in world politics. That's why they're pulling this crap with claiming the north pole.