Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)
-   -   on russia (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/139559-russia.html)

roachboy 08-27-2008 03:35 AM
on russia
 
Quote:
Russia: we are ready for a new cold war
Relations with the west plummet as Kremlin recognises breakaway states

Russia's relations with the west plunged to their most critical point in a generation yesterday when the Kremlin built on its military rout of Georgia by recognising the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states.

Declaring that if his decision meant a new cold war, then so be it, President Dmitri Medvedev signed a decree conferring Russian recognition on Georgia's two secessionist regions. The move flouted UN security council resolutions and dismissed western insistence during the crisis of the past three weeks on respecting Georgia's territorial integrity and international borders.

Last night, Medvedev accused Washington of shipping arms to Georgia under the guise of humanitarian aid.

The Kremlin's unilateral decision to redraw the map of the strategically vital region on the Black Sea surprised and alarmed the west, and raised the stakes in the Caucasus crisis. Moscow challenged Europe and the US to respond, while calculating that western divisions over policy towards Russia would dilute any damage.

Washington condemned the move. Britain called for a European coalition against Russian "aggression". Sweden said Russia had opted for a path of confrontation with the west, and international organisations denounced Medvedev's move as illegitimate and unacceptable.

"We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a new cold war," Medvedev said. "Russia is a state which has to ensure its interests along the whole length of its border. This is absolutely clear."

While Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, accused the US, a strong backer of President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, of gunboat diplomacy by using its airforce and naval vessels to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia, Medvedev last night went further.

He said Russian forces were not blockading Georgia's Black Sea port of Poti. "There is no blockade. Any ship can get in, American and others are bringing in humanitarian cargoes. And what the Americans call humanitarian cargoes - of course, they are bringing in weapons," he told the BBC.

Last night a source close to the US embassy in Tbilisi said US warships had abandoned a plan to deliver supplies to the port. The USS McFaul had been due to arrive in Poti tomorrow after unloading supplies in the Georgian port of Batumi.

The Nato secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, said: "Russia's actions in recent weeks call into question Russia's commitment to peace and stability in the Caucasus."

But Moscow oozed confidence that the western response would be mostly bark and little bite, restricted to sharp words and some tolerable diplomatic sanctions. "I don't think we should be afraid of isolation. I don't believe isolation is looming," said Lavrov. "This should not really be a doomsday scenario."

The Kremlin decision, prepared on Monday by the Russian parliament's unanimous vote in favour of independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, is widely seen as presaging Russian annexation at least of South Ossetia, a poor, crime-ridden mountain region of only 70,000 people which has little prospect of becoming a viable state.

South Ossetia was the spark that ignited the crisis this month after Saakashvili launched a disastrous attempt to recapture the region and met a Russian invasion which crippled his country.

"Russia's actions are an attempt to militarily annex a sovereign nation ...in direct violation of international law," Saakashvili said last night. "The Russian Federation is seeking to validate the use of violence, direct military aggression, and ethnic cleansing to forcibly change the borders of a neighbouring state."

But senior Russian officials, from Medvedev down, launched a concerted attack on Saakashvili, accusing him of "genocide", of seeking to "exterminate" the people of South Ossetia, and of leaving Russia no alternative.

"This is not an easy choice to make, but it represents the only possibility to save human lives," said Medvedev. "Saakashvili opted for genocide to accomplish his political objectives. By doing so, he himself dashed all the hopes for the peaceful coexistence of Ossetians, Abkhazians and Georgians in a single state."

Lavrov said Russia's decision was "absolutely inevitable, short of losing our dignity as a nation".

Dmitri Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to Nato, likened the international climate to the summer of 1914 before the first world war, and compared the Georgian leader to Gavrilo Princip, the Balkan assassin who shot the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne in Sarajevo.

Russia's decision to recognise the two regions effectively killed off the ceasefire and peace plan negotiated a fortnight ago by France's President Nicolas Sarkozy on behalf of the European Union.

Exasperated by Russia's refusal to observe the terms of the truce, Sarkozy has already called an emergency EU summit for Monday in Brussels. The meeting was supposed to chart a common EU position on Russia, but is as likely to expose Europe's dilemmas and divisions over how to deal with an increasingly assertive Kremlin.

David Miliband, Britain's foreign secretary, said he wanted to forge "the widest possible coalition against Russian aggression in Georgia. We fully support Georgia's independence and territorial integrity, which cannot be changed by decree from Moscow."

But Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, while denouncing the Russian move as "absolutely unacceptable", said she wanted to keep dialogue running with Moscow.

Miliband is due to fly to Kiev today to express British support for the Ukrainian government, which fears it could be next in line for Russian pressure aimed at thwarting its efforts to join Nato.

Miliband is due to meet Ukraine's president, Viktor Yushchenko, and its prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, whose government is in a precarious position: seeking membership of Nato and the EU in the face of determined opposition from the country's Russian minority.

Under a lease agreement, Russia's Black Sea fleet is based on Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, increasing Russian sensitivity to Ukraine's westward trajectory and Ukrainian vulnerability to pressure from Moscow.

Miliband will make a speech today to a university audience in Kiev, in which he will laud Ukrainian democracy and warn Russia that its actions will cause long-term harm to its standing on the world stage.
Russia: we are ready for a new cold war | World news | The Guardian

while the collective attention was being directed to the olympics then the next sporting events in the political nomination rituals, things have continued to play out around georgia, south ossetia, abkhazia--and poland.

it seems pretty obvious that the signing of the "defense" deal with poland is a far more significant factor than is being acknowledged here in the land of mediated superficiality. this article from 15 august outlines the deal and russian objections to it:

Quote:
Russia Lashes Out on Missile Deal
By THOM SHANKER and NICHOLAS KULISH

WASHINGTON — The United States and Poland reached a long-stalled deal on Thursday to place an American missile defense base on Polish territory, in the strongest reaction so far to Russia’s military operation in Georgia.

Russia reacted angrily, saying that the move would worsen relations with the United States that have already been strained severely in the week since Russian troops entered separatist enclaves in Georgia, a close American ally. At a news conference on Friday, a senior Russian defense official, Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, suggested that Poland was making itself a target by agreeing to host the anti-missile system. Such an action “cannot go unpunished,” he said.

The deal reflected growing alarm in a range of countries that had been part of the Soviet sphere about a newly rich and powerful Russia’s intentions in its former cold war sphere of power. In fact, negotiations dragged on for 18 months — but were completed only as old memories and new fears surfaced in recent days.

Those fears were codified to some degree in what Polish and American officials characterized as unusual aspects of the final deal: that at least temporarily American soldiers would staff air defense sites in Poland oriented toward Russia, and that the United States would be obliged to defend Poland in case of an attack with greater speed than required under NATO, of which Poland is a member.

Polish officials said the agreement would strengthen the mutual commitment of the United States to defend Poland, and vice versa. “Poland and the Poles do not want to be in alliances in which assistance comes at some point later — it is no good when assistance comes to dead people,” the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, said on Polish television. “Poland wants to be in alliances where assistance comes in the very first hours of — knock on wood — any possible conflict.”

A sense of deepened suspicions — and the more darkly drawn lines between countries in the region — were also apparent in the emotional reaction from Russia.

“It is this kind of agreement, not the split between Russia and United States over the problem of South Ossetia, that may have a greater impact on the growth in tensions in Russian-American relations,” Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Russian Parliament, told the Interfax news agency on Thursday in Moscow.

South Ossetia is the pro-Russian enclave inside Georgia where Russia sent troops last week, following a military crackdown by the pro-Western government in Georgia.

The missile defense deal was announced by Polish officials and confirmed by the White House. Under it, Poland would host an American base with 10 interceptors designed to shoot down a limited number of ballistic missiles, in theory launched by a future adversary such as Iran. A tracking radar system would be based in the Czech Republic. The system is expected to be in place by 2012.

In exchange for providing the base, Poland would get what the two sides called “enhanced security cooperation,” notably a top-of-the-line Patriot air defense system that can shoot down shorter-range missiles or attacking fighters or bombers.

A senior Pentagon official described an unusual part of this quid pro quo: an American Patriot battery would be moved from Germany to Poland, where it would be operated by a crew of about 100 American military personnel members. The expenses would be shared by both nations. American troops would join the Polish military, at least temporarily, at the front lines — facing east toward Russia.

Russia has long opposed the deal, saying the United States was violating post-cold-war agreements not to base its troops in former Soviet bloc states and devising a Trojan Horse system designed to counter Russia’s nuclear arsenal, not an attack by Iran or another adversary.

Stop-and-start negotiations over the arrangement that was sealed Thursday had been under way for almost two years, with the Polish government reluctant to press the deal in the face of strong opposition — and retaliatory threats — from Moscow.

For its part, Washington had balked at some of Poland’s demands, in particular the sale of advanced air defense systems that were unrelated to shooting down ballistic missiles.

But in a sign of the widening repercussions of the conflict in Georgia, those concerns were cast aside, as the offensive by Russia’s military across its borders was viewed around the world as a sign of Moscow’s determination to reimpose its influence across the old Soviet bloc.

Polish officials, in announcing the agreement, said it would be presented to the National Legislature, although it remained unclear whether the American base would require a vote of approval.

The other half of the American missile defense system in Europe would be an advanced radar in the Czech Republic for tracking specific targets and then precisely guiding an interceptor to destroy a warhead. Likewise, that deal has been signed by the country’s leaders, and is awaiting debate in the Czech Parliament.

At the White House, the press secretary, Dana M. Perino, confirmed that senior officials had initialed the agreement. “In no way is the president’s plan for missile defense aimed at Russia,” she said. “In fact, it’s just not even logically possible for it to be aimed at Russia, given how Russia could overwhelm it. The purpose of missile defense is to protect our European allies from any rogue threats, such as a missile from Iran.”

The Bush administration, in an attempt to prove its sincerity and transparency, had invited Moscow to join as a partner in a continentwide missile defense system, sharing information and technology with NATO allies.

While Russian and American experts have discussed cooperation, senior officials in Moscow have kept up a nonstop stream of complaints about the system.

The agreement also poses potential political problems for Democratic critics of missile defense who would be fighting to cut financing for the program in the face of the specific request from Poland and in light of the Russian offensive into Georgia.

There is no such ambivalence on Russia’s periphery, where Moscow’s attack signaled danger, and offered logic for closer ties with Washington and NATO.

In Poland, the war in Georgia has dominated the front pages of newspapers, where it has been starkly characterized as Russian invaders attacking Georgia. For Poles, Russia’s actions also come as a vindication of Poland’s distrust of its former conqueror and was a warning about issues like energy security, one of the primary areas in which a resurgent Russia first began to exert itself.

“We are worried that we are facing, under the strong arm of Russia, a situation where some kind of understanding would be reached that Russia would be given a free hand in the region,” said Eugeniusz Smolar, director of the Center for International Relations, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research group in Warsaw.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/wo...3E&oref=slogin

so first off, as much as i dislike putin, i have to say that i do not blame his government for reacting as it has to the poland deal---i think the parallel might well be the attempt of the soviets to put missles in cuba in 1962....

beyond selling expensive missle systems to poland, however, i am at a loss as to what rationale there could possibly be for this agreement apart from setting something like this into motion with russia---not the situation in georgia---but rather the "we are ready for a new cold war"

typically, the bush people felt no particular need to address this question around the 20th--i saw a press conference in which a question "what do you think the implications of signing this deal now?" was greeted with "we were working on this before"....

what do you think is going on here?
what do you make of the russian reactions?
who is driving this devolution? (this not in a conspiracy theory sense, but rather --- how do you explain this and where is this heading?)

Sun Tzu 08-27-2008 06:18 AM
It seems like its difficult to speculate without sounding like conspiracy. It really seeems backwards to me. The Cuban missle crisis is a good analogy. The verbiage Rice keeps blurting out is concerning to me. Can we afford to be pushing like this?

Daval 08-27-2008 07:32 AM
I think the world is very quickly going to hell again. Putin and his puppet president is making bolder and bolder moves and a new cold war is upon our doorstep. The timing of all of this just all works beautifully into Putins hands with the Olympics and US presidential race.

Baraka_Guru 08-27-2008 07:34 AM
I think history is just repeating itself, no? This is a game the Russians know (and play) very well.

Russia's been fairly docile recently with that whole "democracy" thing and the economic troubles. But corruption is still running rampant and now Russia has the means and the will to protect their interests. Since the turn of the millennium, Russia has been the fastest growing economy in the G8. Economic recovery can post those kinds of results.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...veit_Union.PNG

And now, with that, they have these concerns about their integrity as a nation, both in terms of economy and security. They don't want these sorts of things to undermine their power, and so they take action.

Doesn't the U.S. do this sort of thing too, only on a much larger scale?

I think this is heading to another cold war, unless NATO can get its act together. Moreover, the U.S. needs to be careful; they don't need to have Russia turn completely against them when it comes to the mess in the Middle East and the looming Iranian issue.

Rekna 08-27-2008 08:38 AM
I would rather not be in a war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, and Iran.... We need diplomatic solutions fast, our country cannot handle a military solution to all of these problems.

roachboy 08-27-2008 08:48 AM
i'll have more to say about all this later, but for the time being:

if you assume a "new cold war" is now a possibility--and a cold war is a matter of pure logistics---then would it not be a form of diplomatic "solution" for putin in particular and for the united states more generally?

a "cold war" plays to the benefit of weak authoritarian regimes, yes? what could be better than a situation which provides stabilization of power relations and an Enemy to provide the pretext for it? and after 7 years of a "war on terror" the americans are not in a position to complain about the move...

also, a "cold war" is great for business, particularly if your economy is set up around an extensive military-based patron/client system.

but this is all cynical, yes?
on the other hand, how else to parse what the bush people were thinking in offering this deal to poland in the first place?

Baraka_Guru 08-27-2008 09:11 AM
The Poland deal was either idiotic or a provocation (or both) on the part of the U.S. The diplomatic thing to do would have been to delay the signing of it.

As far as cold wars go, yes there is a benefit to the powers involved. You have heightened economic activity, nationalist propaganda as thought control, and "simplified" relations with each other. You don't get the war weariness you tend to see in democratic countries engaged in hot wars.

Thinking about this more, it seems much like a Russian game—one that it has historically liked to play. Russia is trying to position itself as a power player in the mode it knows best. It can't conduct this business in the same mode as, say, the U.S., Japan, and China. It does what it can with what it has.

How else would we expect Russia to handle its concerns about security? That is, without being idealistic.

Willravel 08-27-2008 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2513900)
so first off, as much as i dislike putin, i have to say that i do not blame his government for reacting as it has to the poland deal---i think the parallel might well be the attempt of the soviets to put missles in cuba in 1962....
You read my mind! This is the next logical conclusion after the GWOT, which isn't quite making enough money right now. The cold war was responsible for the military industrial complex, and in the eyes of war profiteers it's quite frankly the best thing that's ever happened.

The US has tried to antagonize China, but it seems that falling into the old relationship with the USSR... erm Russia is the next logical fallback for military buildup. If they can set in motion this cold war before a Democrat sits in the oval office, it will be much more difficult for the left to slow military spending. Maybe even 8 years; long enough for the ptb to line up another profiteer for the presidency.

I also think that Putin is a horrible leader, reminiscent of Russian days gone by, but I find that faulting his reaction is difficult.

pan6467 08-27-2008 10:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2514039)
i'll have more to say about all this later, but for the time being:

if you assume a "new cold war" is now a possibility--and a cold war is a matter of pure logistics---then would it not be a form of diplomatic "solution" for putin in particular and for the united states more generally?

a "cold war" plays to the benefit of weak authoritarian regimes, yes? what could be better than a situation which provides stabilization of power relations and an Enemy to provide the pretext for it? and after 7 years of a "war on terror" the americans are not in a position to complain about the move...

also, a "cold war" is great for business, particularly if your economy is set up around an extensive military-based patron/client system.

but this is all cynical, yes?
on the other hand, how else to parse what the bush people were thinking in offering this deal to poland in the first place?
This takes us back to Reagan.

What Reagan did was out spend the USSR, but in the process he also cut all that "expensive spending", think the ten thousand dollar screwdriver.

What that did was hurt our own companies and thus we lost Boeing, Marrion Martin and so on, even GE, the automakers and appliance companies felt the squeeze.

When Reagan stopped overpaying, these manufacturers started losing money and raising rices just leads to raising wages not necessarily profits.Thus some went under, some merged, some are on the verge of bankruptcy and some shipped everything overseas.

Our economy was based on our military spending, right or wrong it was. Reagan never took the initiative to move our economy into a different direction so the military cuts wouldn't be as harmful.

That brings us to today. Our economy is still in the shitter and getting worse, patrtiotism and our domestic situation is turbulent. To some the only answer to bring the country back up without it declining further is to create a "boogeyman". Terrorism didn't work. But the "Cold War" did very effectively and will again.

So, it begins. We start pumping back into the military, the economy booms again.

Now, this is also just a band aid and will not be effective forever. This time around, hopefully, they learned a lesson and diversify so that the economy isn't just built on military spending.

Leto 08-27-2008 10:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2514051)
How else would we expect Russia to handle its concerns about security? That is, without being idealistic.

Maybe the US could offer to sell some expensive missile programmes to Russia as well. Be egalitarian. That way the Poland sale wouldn't seem to be military posturing.

ottopilot 08-27-2008 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2514051)
How else would we expect Russia to handle its concerns about security? That is, without being idealistic.
Or... Poland still remembers how things used to really be under Moscow and had an "oh-shit" moment. They saw what Russia did to Georgia and signed the dotted line as fast they could. The Czechs aren't far behind.

roachboy 08-27-2008 02:33 PM
so by that logic, otto, if the russian were to sell elements of a missle defense shield to a country that has a past taste of the delights of american domination--say haiti--and said to the us, when "concerns were expressed"---"hey whaddya mean? it's in case iran does something"---you could expect the us to say "o...ok then. no problem."

you cannot possibly be serious.

this is an interesting little analysis in realpolitik terms that's been published in a few places over the past week--the one with the biggest print is on the japan focus website:

M K Bhadrakumar: War in the Caucasus and the Global Repositioning of China, Germany, Russia and the US - Russia,China,Russian,will,its,Moscow,missile defense,South Ossetia

but if you want some more interesting stuff, go here:

Géorgie-Russie, les enjeux de la crise

in french, though (can't seem to find anything as interesting in english...or at least i haven't yet---i don't think these are translated on le monde diplo's english page---http://mondediplo.com/)

o and then there's this new development:

Quote:
Russia Sees New Realm of Concern: Black Sea
By ANDREW E. KRAMER

MOSCOW — Russian commanders said Wednesday they were growing alarmed at the number of NATO warships sailing into the Black Sea, conceding that NATO vessels now outnumbered the ships in their fleet anchored off the western coast of Georgia.

As attention turned to the balance of naval power in the sea, the leader of the separatist region of Abkhazia said he would invite Russia to establish a naval base at his territory’s deep-water port of Sukhumi.

And in a move certain to anger Russia, Ukraine’s president, Viktor A. Yushchenko, said he would open negotiations with authorities in Moscow to raise the rent on the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, which is in Ukraine’s predominantly Russian province of Crimea. The United States is pursuing a delicate policy of delivering humanitarian aid on military transport planes and ships, to illustrate to the Russians they do not fully control Georgia’s airspace or coastline.

The policy has left American and Russian naval vessels maneuvering in close proximity off the western coast of Georgia, with the Americans concentrated near the southern port of Batumi and the Russians around the central port of Poti. It has also left the Kremlin deeply suspicious of American motives.

"What the Americans call humanitarian cargoes — of course, they are bringing in weapons," the Russian president Dmitri Medvedev, told the BBC in an interview on Tuesday, adding: "We’re not trying to prevent it."

The White House dismissed all assertions that the Pentagon is shipping weapons under the “guise” of humanitarian aid, calling them “ridiculous.”

Apparently testing Russian assurances that their forces have opened the port of Poti for humanitarian aid, the United States Embassy in Tbilisi said a Coast Guard cutter, the Dallas, would attempt to dock there on Wednesday, well within a zone controlled by the Russian military during the war.

The Dallas, however, docked instead at Batumi, to the south. It was carrying 34 tons of humanitarian aid. Georgian military officials said the other port may have been mined, The A.P. reported.

During the conflict with Georgia, Russian soldiers occupied the port and sank Georgian ships in the harbor. Russian officials have said their forces are now out of the city, but that they are still occupying positions at checkpoints just to the north. Russian ships are also patrolling off the coast.

In Moscow, the naval maneuvering was clearly raising alarms. Russian commanders said the buildup of NATO vessels in the Black Sea violated a 1936 treaty, the Convention of Montreux, they maintain limits to three weeks the time non-coastal countries can sail military vessels on the sea.

Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy head of the Russian general staff, told a briefing in Moscow that under the agreement, Turkey, which controls the straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles, must be notified 15 days in advance before military ships sail into the sea, and that warships cannot remain longer than 21 days.

“The convention stipulates a limited number of vessels,” he said. “That is, the same state cannot deploy a certain group without any limit.”

He said any sustained NATO deployment would require rotating ships through the straits.

It was unclear Wednesday how many NATO ships were currently in the Black Sea.

A spokesman at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe, in Mons, Belgium, said there were four NATO warships there on a previously scheduled exercise called Active Endeavor, for training in anti-terrorist and anti-pirate maneuvers. But he cautioned that other NATO countries could have ships in the sea not operating under NATO command.

“Obviously, there are other NATO-affiliated nations out doing things,” Lt. Col. Web Wright, the spokesman, said. “But I can’t speak for those nations.”

The United States guided missile destroyer McFaul, for example, docked over the weekend in Batumi to deliver humanitarian aid. A report on the Russian news agency Interfax cited this ship, along with three others, as operating in the sea though it was unclear whether it referred to vessels taking part in the previously scheduled exercise.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/wo...hp&oref=slogin

which of course, like the poland deal, was scheduled beforehand.

there's alot going on here:

problems generated by kosovo.
the relations between the eu, the united states and nato
the geopolitical situation more generally
putin's internal political situation
cowboy george's internal political situation
the needs of the american war economy at a moment of looming economic troubles, some of which are already here
the specific fumblings and bumblings of neocon foreign policy doctrine
and, of course: oil

jorgelito 08-27-2008 02:45 PM
Wow, there's a lot of Russian sympathizers here. They are a real threat and must be dealt with appropriately. Many of the ex-satellite states are wary of Russia and eager to join NATO. Poland was correct, I really don't see the problem there. Ukraine could be next in line. Russia created its own mess. Their own brand of ultra nationalism is tipping the scales. We are drawing down in Iraq and shifting to Afghanistan. No problem there. Next, prepare for Iran and remind the Russians to behave. Hopefully the money we save from Iraq and when the Iraqis pay us back, can go to increase our much needed military spending. Along with diplomacy of course. But you need to back up soft power with hard power.

roachboy 08-27-2008 03:06 PM
i dont think it's accurate to refer to folk as "russia supporters" because they are baffled by the actions of the bush administration in this particular situation.

a) the timing of the missle deal with poland could not have been worse.
b) putin's political situation is such that he kinda needs an Enemy to legitimate an increasingly autocratic order. i read several analyses (all in french because i was doing it in the context of a work project) the argued the transition out of the early 90s phase have been such that the entire idea of democracy has been undermined and replaced with a kind of neo-statist ideology, which meshes well with putin's more authoritarian style--but at the same time, he is in a shaky position in terms of legitimacy.
c) the foreign policy expressions of this situation have played out in a more or less straight line since last february (kosovo) and are outlined pretty well in the articles i posted above.
d) the interests of the neocons, who to my dismay continue to exercise power in the foreign policy context, seem to be heading toward a replacement Enemy for the "terrorist" ghost in order to justify both continued massive (and unnecessary) military expenditures on the part of the united states and to prop themselves up politically at the same time.

this just seems like a vast confederacy of dunces, all the way around.
dunces with nukes.
so no ordinary confederacy.

The_Dunedan 08-27-2008 04:18 PM
Quote:
They saw what Russia did to Georgia and signed the dotted line as fast they could. The Czechs aren't far behind.
Umm...no.

This deal has been in the works for some time. It's WILDLY unpopular in Poland and the Czech Republic, with the CR in particular being 65-90% opposed, with 80% opposed being the most reliable and frequently-quoted number. Various political and financial powerhouses (especially the Schwartzenberg family) within these two countries are after the deal for economic reasons, but the missile-defense system is extremely unpopular with the populace. They're a whole lot more worried about what Russia will do if the system -is- emplaced (turn off the gas in January, nuke Mlada Boleslav, or simply invade) than what Russia might do if the system stays a pipe-dream. They've dealt with Russians before, they don't wish to do so again, and they're well aware that the U.S. and NATO will be perfectly happy to let them twist in the radioactive wind. They don't trust NATO to do anything, but they damned sure trust Russia to back up their threats. Putin cut Russia's oil exports by 8% for one week back in Feb. of 07, and gasoline prices in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia shot up 15% overnight. Imagine if Russia turned off the tap altogether...in January. Living in Prague in January with no heating oil would -not- be pleasant, and most of central and eastern Europe has noplace else to -get- oil: what we aren't using, the Chinese are. These folks reap -zero- benefit from this system while becoming targets for a nuclear-armed superpower with an historically short temper and severe target-discrimination issues, and they know all this.


Russia's objections are multivalate:

1: NATO is breaking its' commitment not to expand. Not only has NATO expanded, it's expanded into the former Warsaw Pact.

2: Such a missile-defense system destroys nuclear parity, invalidates MAD, and radically and dangerously changes the nuclear worldwide balance of power.

3: The U.S. was offered the joint use of an Azeri radar station and airbase to house the system, with dual oversight and data-sharing with Russia. The Azeri station would have been in a better position to monitor Iran in any case, but the U.S. said no. This in particular is seen by Russia as a deliberate snub an a not-so-thinly-veiled threat in their direction.

4: These allegedly unarmed missiles could easily be replaced with medium-range ballistic missiles which would then be in ideal firing position against Russia.


For once, I find myself in full agreement with roachboy. A confederacy of nuclear dunces indeed.

Charlatan 08-27-2008 04:26 PM
I wonder what that rush was to bring Eastern Europe into NATO. Both Clinton and Bush ("W") pushed hard to bring the former eastern block countries into NATO knowing full well that Russia would never be invited to join and, more to the point, that Russia would see this as an aggressive stance.

Add to this, the fact that the IMF (and by extension the State Department) worked hard to destabilize the Russian economy during Yeltsin's time in power. Instead of pushing for democracy and something like Scandinavian socialism, the push was for an increasingly neoliberal economy of open markets at any cost. That cost was the very birth of democracy in Russia. It lead to Yeltsin attacking Russia's parliament, it lead to the war in Chechnya and it ultimately lead to Putin.

As usual we reap what we sow.

jorgelito 08-27-2008 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2514249)
i dont think it's accurate to refer to folk as "russia supporters" because they are baffled by the actions of the bush administration in this particular situation.

a) the timing of the missle deal with poland could not have been worse.
b) putin's political situation is such that he kinda needs an Enemy to legitimate an increasingly autocratic order. i read several analyses (all in french because i was doing it in the context of a work project) the argued the transition out of the early 90s phase have been such that the entire idea of democracy has been undermined and replaced with a kind of neo-statist ideology, which meshes well with putin's more authoritarian style--but at the same time, he is in a shaky position in terms of legitimacy.
c) the foreign policy expressions of this situation have played out in a more or less straight line since last february (kosovo) and are outlined pretty well in the articles i posted above.
d) the interests of the neocons, who to my dismay continue to exercise power in the foreign policy context, seem to be heading toward a replacement Enemy for the "terrorist" ghost in order to justify both continued massive (and unnecessary) military expenditures on the part of the united states and to prop themselves up politically at the same time.

this just seems like a vast confederacy of dunces, all the way around.
dunces with nukes.
so no ordinary confederacy.
Ok, I understand now I think. This I can agree with. Your post is well articulated, clear, and understandable.

With regards to Poland, I believe it was in the works for awhile. As such, the timing may have been unfortunate. Or deliberate - to send a message to Russia.
-----Added 27/8/2008 at 08 : 47 : 05-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2514277)
Umm...no.

This deal has been in the works for some time. It's WILDLY unpopular in Poland and the Czech Republic, with the CR in particular being 65-90% opposed, with 80% opposed being the most reliable and frequently-quoted number. Various political and financial powerhouses (especially the Schwartzenberg family) within these two countries are after the deal for economic reasons, but the missile-defense system is extremely unpopular with the populace. They're a whole lot more worried about what Russia will do if the system -is- emplaced (turn off the gas in January, nuke Mlada Boleslav, or simply invade) than what Russia might do if the system stays a pipe-dream. They've dealt with Russians before, they don't wish to do so again, and they're well aware that the U.S. and NATO will be perfectly happy to let them twist in the radioactive wind. They don't trust NATO to do anythiRussia's objections are multivalate:

1: NATO is breaking its' commitment not to expand. Not only has NATO expanded, it's expanded into the former Warsaw Pact.

2: Such a missile-defense system destroys nuclear parity, invalidates MAD, and radically and dangerously changes the nuclear worldwide balance of power.

3: The U.S. was offered the joint use of an Azeri radar station and airbase to house the system, with dual oversight and data-sharing with Russia. The Azeri station would have been in a better position to monitor Iran in any case, but the U.S. said no. This in particular is seen by Russia as a deliberate snub an a not-so-thinly-veiled threat in their direction.

4: These allegedly unarmed missiles could easily be replaced with medium-range ballistic missiles which would then be in ideal firing position against Russia.


For once, I find myself in full agreement with roachboy. A confederacy of nuclear dunces indeed.
Some good points here. This is good insight I have not thought of before.
-----Added 27/8/2008 at 08 : 47 : 52-----
Still, I am wary and cautious of Russia, especially Putin and his cadres. We should proceed with caution regardless.

ottopilot 08-27-2008 05:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan (Post 2514277)
Umm...no.

This deal has been in the works for some time.
Ummm...yes, it was in the works, but the push to close the agreement came immediately after Russia invaded Georgia.
-----Added 27/8/2008 at 09 : 59 : 37-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2514233)
so by that logic, otto, if the russian were to sell elements of a missle defense shield to a country that has a past taste of the delights of american domination--say haiti--and said to the us, when "concerns were expressed"---"hey whaddya mean? it's in case iran does something"---you could expect the us to say "o...ok then. no problem."

you cannot possibly be serious.
I don't accept your premise... your scenario doesn't even closely parallel the events in question.

The invasion appears to be a pre-planned and coordinated invasion of Georgia by the Russian Federation.

Events leading up to the invasion:
  • In early 2006, Russia began deporting thousands of Georgians due to "passport violations".
  • In April 2007, a village in Georgia-controlled Abhkazia was attacked by 3 Russian helicopters.
  • In August 2007, 2 Russian fighter jets penetrated Georgian airspace and fired a missile onto a village, the missile did not explode... a missile designed to deliver nuclear warheads. A subtle reminder to Georgia regarding who's really in charge?
  • In September 2007, at an informal gathering, the Russian Ambassador to Georgia was recorded as saying: the Georgian people are a "dying-out nation". He went on to say, "Russia is a large country, a huge country. It can digest this. You, the Georgians, will fail to digest this".
  • On April 20, 2008, a Georgian unmanned unarmed aerial vehicle (UAV) was shot down over the Abkhazian conflict zone. While Abkhazian separatists initially claimed responsibility, the Georgian authorities released the video that the UAV had been filming up to its downing. The video showed a Russian MiG-29 shooting down the UAV. This triggered harsh condemnation by the U.S., U.K., France, and Germany.
  • On April 28, 2008, Russia announced its buildup of its forces, or "peacekeepers" as it calls them, in Abkhazia.
  • After intense fighting on August 1, 2008, the Russians unilaterally sent in 5 batallions of the Russian 58th Army on the border of South Ossetia. The successive events could easily be described as a full-fledged Russian invasion of Georgia.
BTW - The inhabitants of South Ossetia were only very recently offered Russian passports, which they were "encouraged" to accept. This is where Russia claims it is simply defending "its people".

So why did Russia invade Georgia?
It was a shakedown... and a lesson needed to be taught to the upstarts in Georgia to set an example to the other old Soviet-satellite states.
  • After the Rose Revolution, Mikhail Saakashvili was democratically elected by the Georgian people... they're becoming more economically prosperous, police corruption was aggressively rehabilitated, citizens are enjoying democratic freedoms, and Georgia is becoming more friendly with the United States... one of Russia's greatest enemies? At least that's what the Russian government is selling to its people.
  • Georgia is seeking to join NATO. This is also at the core of the dispute. Russia must maintain control in the region! Despite Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov's assessment that "Georgia is a well-known American satellite", it has actually been a Russian satellite for most of its existence (and still largely controlled by the Russians).
  • Russia realizes that it can get away with almost anything in the region... especially with weakened U.S. resolve, not willing to intervene.
  • Georgia has some really great resources that are appealing to Putin, such as a major oil pipeline in competition with Russia's oil distribution and some nice strategic port cities (just to mention a few).
The other satellite nations, AKA the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), are watching this very carefully. If Georgia falls and Russia wins, then (perhaps) there goes all chances of democracy in Eastern Europe... a glaring incentive for the old Russian satellites to take protective measures, like say... Poland and Czechoslovakia signing pacts and installing defensive arms?
.

jorgelito 08-27-2008 09:50 PM
Looks like Moldova may be next now too.

tisonlyi 08-28-2008 05:43 AM
Otto, seems you're conveniently leaving out the part where Georgia launches an artillery bombardment of South Ossetia, leaving it's capital 'in ruins' and indiscriminately killing over 1000 civilians and Russian peacekeepers - in South Ossetia under an international mandate agreed following civil war in 1992.

"After intense fighting" is deceptive.

Timeline: Conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia | International | Reuters

there are others out there, as I'm sure you know.

-Georgia knew - must have known, it was reported and publicised - there was a massive Russian build up and 'exercise' on the other side of the border.
-Georgia attacked South Ossetia.
-Russia kicked Georgia back out of South Ossetia as it was obliged to do under an international peacekeeping agreement.

Are there other power plays in here between NATO/The US/The EU? Certainly.

I'm at a loss as to why Georgia would ever have assaulted South Ossetia without some guarantees from NATO and The US. Saakashvili has alluded to as much during many of his interviews, wondering angrily where was his support from The West.

Russia isn't an angel, but neither is it a devil. Certainly not in this case.

ottopilot 08-28-2008 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tisonlyi (Post 2514499)
Otto, seems you're conveniently leaving out the part where Georgia launches an artillery bombardment of South Ossetia, leaving it's capital 'in ruins' and indiscriminately killing over 1000 civilians and Russian peacekeepers - in South Ossetia under an international mandate agreed following civil war in 1992.

"After intense fighting" is deceptive.

Timeline: Conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia | International | Reuters

there are others out there, as I'm sure you know.

-Georgia knew - must have known, it was reported and publicised - there was a massive Russian build up and 'exercise' on the other side of the border.
-Georgia attacked South Ossetia.
-Russia kicked Georgia back out of South Ossetia as it was obliged to do under an international peacekeeping agreement.

Are there other power plays in here between NATO/The US/The EU? Certainly.

I'm at a loss as to why Georgia would ever have assaulted South Ossetia without some guarantees from NATO and The US. Saakashvili has alluded to as much during many of his interviews, wondering angrily where was his support from The West.

Russia isn't an angel, but neither is it a devil. Certainly not in this case.
Here is a recent account from Human Rights Watch disputing the thousand(s) killed by Georgia in South Ossetia. No one should have died, but it appears the count is in the dozens.

http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/new...=news_hot_news
Quote:
'Dozens' not thousands killed in South Ossetia, says rights group

Agence France-Presse
Page 5
2008-08-19 01:07 AM

The number of civilians killed in fighting in South Ossetia amounts to "dozens" rather than thousands as claimed by Russian officials in initial estimates, a leading human rights group said yesterday.

"Our estimate does not confirm the official figure. We believe we are talking about dozens rather than thousands," a researcher for Human Rights Watch, Anna Neistat said.

"We have a rough estimate based on hospital figures and eyewitness testimony in the worst affected areas."

Neistat, senior emergencies researcher for the New-York based organization, said she had been in South Ossetia, mainly around the regional capital Tskhinvali where fighting was concentrated, for a week.

"We keep hearing official statements of several thousands dead and this is not serious and is irresponsible. It does not help to bring clarity to what happened there and bring justice to the victims," she said.

Russia said 1,600 were killed in South Ossetia after a Georgian attempt on August 7 to seize control of the province, which broke away from Tbilisi in the early 1990s.

South Ossetian separatist authorities have put the toll at more than 2,000.

Neistat said she had uncovered evidence of shelling and the use of missiles in Tskhinvali and surrounding villages by Georgian forces.

She had also visited four ethnic Georgian villages and said persecution of the population had taken place, with five villages set on fire. Other areas of South Ossetia remain off-limits because of restrictions by the Russian army, she said.

Russia and Georgia have accused each other of "ethnic cleansing" in the conflict..
Bottom-line... I think there's too much conflicting information from biased/unbiased credible/non credible sources. I tend to agree with your assessment that neither parties are "angels".

roachboy 08-28-2008 02:09 PM
this really does not seem to be the most important grounds on which to talk about this simply because this phase of the conflict is already over effectively (this despite the "slow withdrawal" that might at some point become an occupation but who gets to decide this sort of thing?) and a new and rapidly evolving/devolving situation has taken shape in the wake of it. there were reports in the french press today that the general understanding of this situation that obtains in russia has little to do with how that same situation is being understood everywhere else, much in the same way that the understanding of the iraq debacle was not the same for alot of folk in the states as it was everywhere else on earth. in both cases, the result apparently is widespread support for what putin et al have put into motion. the allegations of nato and american ships floating about in the black sea for a "previously scheduled exercise" are alarming, as is the talk floating about europe today that some sort of sanctions regime should be imposed on russia, and this because it address only some of the situation, not all of it.

meanwhile, the missle deal in poland remains operative, despite intense internal opposition to it; the curious relation between this move on the part of the bush people and nato has not in any way been addressed, the idiotic recycling of the 1930s put into play by the bush people in the context of selling their "war on terror" is turning up again in the british government's demand that the eu "stand up to russia"---and at the same time, today putin argued that this whole situation was orchestrated by the bush administration in order to set up a new cold war scenario with the tactical objective of bolstering the mc-cain campaign and the strategic objective of bolstering its client network in the form of military contractors in the states.

so it's all quite confusing and quite alarming.
in a curious way, the fact that alot of americans are glued to their television watching the extension of sports which began with the olympics and now extends through the political conventions is a lovely allegory for much of the past 4 years, but that is another matter.

Willravel 08-28-2008 02:15 PM
Do we know, specifically, who came up with the Poland missile idea?

roachboy 08-28-2008 02:21 PM
the bush administration.

Willravel 08-28-2008 02:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2514783)
the bush administration.
No, I mean really specifically. For example, the Joint Chiefs of Staff came up with the Surge (as one of many options), though it was credited to the Bush Administration. Could this also be credited to the JCS?

roachboy 08-28-2008 02:37 PM
it was a campaign agenda item before the start of the bush travesty.
here's an article from the nyt, january 2001:

Quote:
January 27, 2001

Bush Repeats Call for Arms Reduction and Missile Shield

By STEVEN LEE MYERS

Susana Raab for The New York Times
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, in civilian clothes, inspected troops Friday at the Pentagon. With him were Gen. Henry H. Shelton, left, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Col. Thomas Jordan.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 — Treading into national security policy after a week devoted to education, abortion and tax cuts, President Bush said today that he intended to keep his campaign pledge to reduce the nation's nuclear weapons as he moved ahead with construction of a defense against ballistic missiles.

Mr. Bush repeated a proposal he made last spring and suggested he would proceed with reductions in nuclear warheads and the construction of a missile defense as a way to spur new arms-control negotiations with the Russians .

"I think it's important for us, commensurate with our ability to keep the peace, to reduce our nuclear arsenal on our own," Mr. Bush said after meeting at the White House with a bipartisan group of governors on his education proposals released this week. "And I'm going to fulfill that campaign promise. That may, you know — we'll see how that affects the possible arms talks."

Mr. Bush made his remarks, in response to a question, a day after receiving a letter from Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, outlining major issues facing both countries and calling for greater cooperation.

Mr. Bush said he had not responded to Mr. Putin's letter, though he planned to, joking that he had read about the letter, presumably in the media, "before it hit Washington." He made it clear, however, that he did not intend to back away from his commitment to build a missile defense, even though it is one of the most contentious issues between the United States and Russia today.

"My point is, is that I want America to lead the nation — lead the world — toward a more safe world when it comes to nuclear weaponry," he added, emphasizing his intent to build a missile shield and reduce nuclear warheads. "On the offensive side we can do so, and we can do so on the defensive side, as well."

While he has moved aggressively on issues of abortion, education and taxes, Mr. Bush and his national security advisers have moved more cautiously in matters of foreign affairs.

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell swept into the State Department with a flourish, greeting the diplomatic corps at two pep rallies this week but outlining few details of how he intends to sell the administration's policies, including missile defense, which is strongly opposed by Russia and China.

Across the Potomac, Donald H. Rumsfeld began his second tenure as secretary of defense, wrestling with the Pentagon's budget and reining in the armed services' lobbying for more money.

Neither General Powell nor Mr. Rumsfeld have appointed their senior aides — a point Mr. Rumsfeld noted when he made his first public appearances as President Bush's defense secretary today. Only today did Mr. Bush hold formal ceremonies at the White House to swear in General Powell and Mr. Rumsfeld, his two most important foreign policy advisers along with Vice President Dick Cheney and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice.

As of last year, the United States had 7,519 nuclear warheads on missiles, submarines or bombers, while Russia had 6,464. Under the second strategic arms control treaty, or Start II, both countries are supposed to reduce their arsenals to roughly 3,000 to 3,500 warheads.

Russia's Parliament ratified Start 2 last year, though with conditions that many Republicans in Congress say they oppose. The two countries have also agreed in principal to a third round of negotiations aimed at reducing the numbers to 2,000 to 2,500 warheads.

Asked today when the administration would begin negotiations with Mr. Putin, General Powell replied simply, "In due time."

Mr. Bush, as he did during the campaign, indicated that he was prepared, after a Pentagon review, to move ahead with reductions in the American arsenal unilaterally. Though he did not spell out his rationale today, he suggested in the campaign that such steps would clear the way for a new era in arms control and, possibly, Russian acceptance of an American missile defense.

At the Pentagon today, Mr. Rumsfeld restated his argument that the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, negotiated with the Soviet Union in 1972, was no longer relevant at a time when more countries were developing missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads and striking the United States.

"We're in a very different world," said Mr. Rumsfeld, who served as secretary of defense under President Gerald R. Ford. "The Soviet Union is gone. The principal threats facing the United States are not the fear of a strategic nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union."

Although he did not explicitly advocate withdrawing from the treaty, he added that he believed "it ought not inhibit a country, a president, an administration, a nation from fashioning offensive and defensive capabilities that will provide for our security in a notably different national security environment."

Mr. Rumsfeld declined to say how quickly the Pentagon would move ahead with development of a missile system, including whether to begin construction of a sophisticated new radar on Shemya Island, Alaska, this summer, a step certain to antagonize the Russians, the Chinese and even some allies. He did say it was among the issues he would focus on in meetings next week.

A senior adviser to Mr. Rumsfeld said today that lifting the constraints imposed by the A.B.M. treaty would allow the Pentagon to develop a limited ground-based system, like than the one being considered under President Bill Clinton, more quickly. The adviser also said officials could more quickly expand the defense to include sea-based missile interceptors.

The adviser said "the contours of something" could be ready within 60 days
Bush Repeats Call for Arms Reduction and Missile Shield

it is the logical sucessor to reagans nutty "star wars" idea...

but things that i've found so far point toward rumsfeld:

http://www.fpif.org/presentations/01...hartung01.html

Willravel 08-28-2008 03:17 PM
Yeah, this does stink of classic Rummy (as opposed to caffeine free, diet Rummy). This seems to be an important part of the larger, PNAC reformation of US policy.

What I find interesting more than anything else is how they can continue on the plan of the PNAC even after Iraq has turned into a quagmire of epic proportions that completely contradicted the expected result. The American people have been against the war now for several years, and the next president (Obama) will be withdrawing troops. By all accounts, it's a perfect failure, despite the fact that it's made a lot of profiteers money. Russia and China are now going to be stronger in the region (China just reached a $3b oil deal with Iraq), which will help to fuel them in what appears to be the sequel to the cold war.

BTW, I was born in 1983. Is there anything I should know going into this cold war that others might have learned the last time around?

Baraka_Guru 08-28-2008 08:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel (Post 2514807)
BTW, I was born in 1983. Is there anything I should know going into this cold war that others might have learned the last time around?
You're not going to need that bomb shelter. You might as well turn it into a darkroom.

Johnny Rotten 08-28-2008 09:24 PM
All I know is that I really wish we had something other than the Bush administration to handle this crisis. Because a new Cold War to me means yet another erosion of our privacy and civil liberties, and I believe this admin is all too eager to answer that call.

Willravel 08-28-2008 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2514943)
You're not going to need that bomb shelter. You might as well turn it into a darkroom.
I've been trying to turn it into a wine cellar for like 3 years now. I've found out that sealing an underground room from moisture is more difficult than one might expect. I've probably scrubbed it down a dozen times.

/winejack

roachboy 08-29-2008 06:10 AM
more geopolitical jockeying around georgia:

Quote:
Russia remains a Black Sea power
By M K Bhadrakumar

If the struggle in the Caucasus was ever over oil and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) agenda towards Central Asia, the United States suffered a colossal setback this week. Kazakhstan, the Caspian energy powerhouse and a key Central Asian player, has decided to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Russia over the conflict with Georgia, and Russia's de facto control over two major Black Sea ports has been consolidated.

At a meeting in the Tajik capital Dushanbe on Thursday on the sidelines of the summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Kazakh President Nurusultan Nazarbayev told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that Moscow could count on Astana's support in the present crisis.

In his press conference in Dushanbe, Medvedev underlined that



his SCO counterparts, including China, showed understanding of the Russian position. Moscow appears satisfied that the SCO summit also issued a statement on the Caucasus developments, which, inter alia, said, "The leaders of the SCO member states welcome the signing in Moscow of the six principles for regulating the South Ossetia conflict, and support Russia's active role in assisting peace and cooperation in the region." The SCO comprises China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

There were tell-tale signs that something was afoot when the Kazakh Foreign Ministry issued a statement on August 19 hinting at broad understanding for the Russian position. The statement called for an "unbiased and balanced assessment" of events and pointed out that an "attempt [was made] to resolve a complicated ethno-territorial issue by the use of force", which led to "grave consequences". The statement said Astana supported the "way the Russian leadership proposed to resolve the issue" within the framework of the United Nations charter, the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and international law.

The lengthy statement leaned toward the Russian position but offered a labored explanation for doing so.

Kazakhstan has since stepped out into the thick of the diplomatic sweepstakes and whole-heartedly endorsed the Russian position.
This has become a turning point for Russian diplomacy in the post-Soviet space. Nazarbayev said:

I am amazed that the West simply ignored the fact that Georgian armed forces attacked the peaceful city of Tskhinvali [in South Ossetia]. Therefore, my assessment is as follows: I think that it originally started with this. And Russia's response could either have been to keep silent or to protect their people and so on. I believe that all subsequent steps taken by Russia have been designed to stop bloodshed of ordinary residents of this long-suffering city. Of course, there are many refugees, many homeless.

Guided by out bilateral agreement on friendship and cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia, we have provided humanitarian aid: 100 tons have already been sent. We will continue to provide assistance together with you.

Of course, there was loss of life on the Georgian side - war is war. The resolution of the conflict with Georgia has now been shifted to some indeterminate time in the future. We have always had good relations with Georgia. Kazakhstan's companies have made substantial investments there. Of course, those that have done this want stability there. The conditions of the plan that you and [President of France Nicolas] Sarkozy drew up must be implemented, but some have begun to disavow certain points in the plan.

However, I think that negotiations will continue and that there will be peace - there is no other alternative. Therefore, Kazakhstan understands all the measures that have been taken, and Kazakhstan supports them. For our part, we will be ready to do everything to ensure that everyone returns to the negotiating table.

From Moscow's point of view, Nazarbayev's words are worth their weight in gold. Kazakhstan is the richest energy producer in Central Asia and is a regional heavyweight. It borders China. The entire US regional strategy in Central Asia ultimately aims at replacing Russia and China as Kazakhstan's number one partner. American oil majors began making a beeline to Kazakhstan immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 - including Chevron, with which US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was associated.

Unsurprisingly, Kazakhstan figured as a favorite destination for US Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W Bush has lavishly hosted Nazarbayev in the White House.

The US had gone the extra league in cultivating Nazarbayev, with the fervent hope that somehow Kazakhstan could be persuaded to commit its oil to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, whose viability is otherwise in doubt. The pipeline is a crucial component of the US's Caspian great game.

The US had gone to great lengths to realize the pipeline project against seemingly hopeless odds. In fact, Washington stage-managed the "color" revolution in Georgia in November 2003 (which catapulted Mikheil Saakashvili to power in Tbilisi) on the eve of the commissioning of the pipeline. The general idea behind the commotion in the South Caucasus was that the US should take control of Georgia through which the pipeline passes.

Besides, Kazakhstan shares a 7,500 kilometer border with Russia, which is the longest land border between any two countries in the world. It would be a nightmare for Russian security if NATO were to gain a foothold in Kazakhstan. Again, the US strategy had targeted Kazakhstan as the prize catch for NATO in Central Asia. The US aimed to make a pitch for Kazakhstan after getting Georgia inducted into NATO.

These American dreams have suffered a setback with the Kazakh leadership now closing ranks with Moscow. It seems Moscow outwitted Washington.

Belarus voices support
The other neighboring country sharing a common border with Russia, Belarus, has also expressed support for Moscow. Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko visited Medvedev in Sochi on August 19 to express his solidarity.

"Russia acted calmly, wisely and beautifully. This was a calm response. Peace has been established in the region - and it will last," he commented.

What is even more potent is that Russia and Belarus have decided to sign an agreement this autumn on creating a unified air defense system. This is hugely advantageous for Russia in the context of the recent US attempts to deploy missile defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic.

According to Russian media reports, Belarus has several S-300 air defense batteries - Russia's advanced system - on combat duty and is currently negotiating the latest S-400 systems from Russia, which will be made available by 2010.

Attention now shifts to the meeting of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which is scheduled to take place in Moscow on September 5. The CSTO's stance on the crisis in the Caucasus will be closely watched.

It appears that Moscow and Kazakhstan are closely cooperating in setting the agenda of CSTO, whose members are Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The big question is how the CSTO gears up to meet NATO's expansion plans. The emergent geopolitical reality is that with Russia's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Moscow has virtually checkmated the US strategy in the Black Sea region, defeating its plan to make the Black Sea an exclusive "NATO lake". In turn, NATO's expansion plans in the Caucasus have suffered a setback.

Not many analysts have understood the full military import of the Russian moves in recognizing the breakaway Georgian republics
Russia has now gained de facto control over two major Black Sea ports - Sukhumi and Poti. Even if the US-supported regime of Viktor Yushchenko in Ukraine creates obstacles for the Russian fleet based in the Crimean port of Sevastopol - in all probability, Moscow will shrug off any Ukrainian pressure tactic - the fleet now has access to alternative ports on the Black Sea. Poti, in particular, has excellent facilities dating to the Soviet era.

The swiftness with which Russia took control of Poti must have made the US livid with anger. Washington's fury stems from the realization that its game plan to eventually eliminate Russia's historical role as a "Black Sea power" has been rendered a pipe dream. Of course, without a Black Sea fleet, Russia would have



ceased to be a naval power in the Mediterranean. In turn, Russia's profile in the Middle East would have suffered. The Americans indeed had an ambitious game plan towards Russia.

There is every indication that Moscow intends to assert the strategic presence of its Black Sea Fleet. Talks have begun with Syria for the expansion of a Russian naval maintenance base at the Syrian port of Tartus. The Middle East media recently suggested in the context of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to Moscow that Russia might contemplate shifting its Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol to Syria. But this is an incorrect reading insofar as all that Russia needs is a supply and maintenance center for its warships, which operate missions in the Mediterranean. In fact, the Soviet navy's 5th Mediterranean Squadron had made use of Tartus port for such purpose.

China shows understanding
Moscow will approach the CSTO summit pleased with the SCO's backing, even it it was not without reservations. Medvedev said of the SCO meeting,

Of course, I had to tell our partners what had actually happened, since the picture painted by some of the Western media unfortunately differed from real facts as to who was the aggressor, who started all this, and who should bear the political, moral and ultimately the legal responsibility for what happened ...

Our colleagues gratefully received this information and during a series of conversations we concluded that such events certainly do not strengthen the world order, and that the party that unleashed the aggression should be responsible for its consequences ... I am very pleased to have been able to discuss this with our colleagues and to have received from them this kind of support for our efforts. We are confident that the position of the SCO member states will produce an appropriate resonance through the international security, and I hope this will give a serious signal to those who are trying to justify the aggression that was committed.

It must have come as a relief to Moscow that China agreed to line up behind such a positive formulation. On Thursday, the Russian Foreign Ministry in Moscow also seems to have had its first contact with the Chinese Embassy regarding the issue. Significantly, the Foreign Ministry statement said the meeting between Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexei Borodavkin and Chinese ambassador Liu Guchang took place at the Chinese initiative.

The statement claimed, "The Chinese side was informed of the political and legal motives behind Russia's decision and expressed an understanding of them." (Emphasis added.) It is highly unlikely that on such a sensitive issue, Moscow would have unilaterally staked a tall claim without some degree of prior tacit consent from the Chinese side, which is a usual diplomatic practice.

The official Russian news agency report went a step further and highlighted that "China had expressed its understanding of Russia's decision to recognize Georgia's breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia".

The favorable stance by Belarus, Kazakhstan and China significantly boosts Moscow's position. In real terms, the assurance that the three big countries that surround Russia will remain on friendly terms no matter the West's threat to unleash a new cold war, makes a huge difference to Moscow's capacity to maneuver. Any time now - possibly this weekend - we may expect Belarus to announce its recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Clearly, Moscow is disinterested to mount any diplomatic campaign to rally support from the world community for the sovereignty and independence of the two breakaway provinces. As a Moscow commentator put it, "Unlike in comrade Leonid Brezhnev's time, Moscow is not trying to press any countries into supporting it on this issue. If it did, it could find quite a few sympathizers, but who cares?"

It serves Moscow's purpose as long as the world community draws an analogy between Kosovo and the two breakaway provinces. In any case, the two provinces have been totally dependent on Russia for economic sustenance.

With the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, what matters critically for Moscow is that if the West now intends to erect any new Berlin Wall, such a wall will have to run zig-zag along the western coast of the Black Sea, while the Russian naval fleet will always stay put on the east coast and forever sail in and out of the Black Sea.

The Montreal Convention assures the free passage of Russian warships through the Straits of Bosphorous. Under the circumstances, NATO's grandiose schemes to occupy the Black Sea as its private lake seem outlandish now. There must be a lot of egg on the faces of the NATO brains in Brussels and their patrons in Washington and London.


Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.
Asia Times Online :: Central Asian News and current affairs, Russia, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan

Cynthetiq 08-29-2008 06:16 AM
based on what I've read in this thread, this article makes alot of sense to me as to the mechanics that appear to be happening in russia/georgia at the moment.

Quote:
View: How Reagan would've dealt with Georgia
Source: LATimes
posted with the TFP thread generator

How Reagan would've dealt with Georgia
How Reagan would've dealt with Georgia
When diplomacy isn't enough and force is too risky, a policy of conservative internationalism is best.
By Henry R. Nau
August 28, 2008
What is the right response to Russia's invasion of Georgia and the Duma's recognition this week of two breakaway enclaves within Georgia? A purely diplomatic response offers too little, and using force ratchets up the risks of wider conflict.

The question of whether diplomacy or the use of force is best to meet such foreign challenges and promote freedom is hardly new in American foreign policy. Two long-standing traditions offer some answers.

Liberal internationalism, which is identified with Woodrow Wilson, seeks to reduce the role of force by promoting peaceful diplomacy through multilateral institutions. It expects expanded trade and modernization to slowly defuse global tensions and advance freedom.

In contrast, the classical realist tradition, practiced most notably by Teddy Roosevelt, carries a big military stick, defends free countries by balancing foreign powers against each other and worries that modernization may not lessen tensions but rather strengthen adversaries that continue to oppose freedom.

The problem with both traditions is that they fail to integrate force and diplomacy.

The goals of liberal internationalism are the right ones for U.S. diplomacy, because Americans balk at using force unless it spreads freedom. Classical realism, on the other hand, is right to emphasize the use of military force. Tyrants exist, and because they use force against their people, they are more likely to retain it as a viable option in dealings with other countries.

There's a third tradition that pays more attention to combining force and diplomacy. Call it conservative internationalism. It's conservative because, like classical realism, it assigns a significant role to the use of force. It's internationalist because it seeks to spread freedom, a principal goal of liberal internationalism. Four U.S. presidents have successfully practiced conservative internationalism: Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk, Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan.

Conservative internationalism integrates force and diplomacy by prioritizing goals. The Wilsonian goal of ending tyranny around the globe is far too ambitious, especially when it may require the use of force. Freedom advances best, with the least human cost, on the borders of existing democracies, not in distant neighborhoods where few democracies exist.

Truman and Reagan understood this well. Truman deployed U.S. forces in Western Europe primarily to rally and nurture freedom on the continent after World War II. Reagan waged an arms race primarily to bring freedom to nearby Eastern Europe.

Today, as the Georgian conflict demonstrates, the primary frontier of freedom lies along Russia's border with the Baltic states, Ukraine and the Caucasus. Another is Turkey, which borders Europe's old democracies. Still another is India and Pakistan. For conservative internationalists, nurturing democracy in these countries is far more pressing than democratizing Iraq and Afghanistan, which reside in mostly despotic neighborhoods.

Conservative internationalism combines force and diplomacy in another way. It does not regard force as a last resort if diplomacy fails -- a weakness of liberal internationalism. Nor does it consider diplomacy a substitute for force, as some realists believe. Rather, conservative internationalism holds that force empowers diplomacy. A huge invasion force had to be assembled in the Persian Gulf in the fall of 2002 to get U.N. inspectors back into Iraq and create the diplomatic option of monitoring the country's weapons of mass destruction. Conversely, diplomacy validates the use of force; it wins the peace after force wins the war. The Bush administration had to learn this the hard way when it neglected diplomacy after successfully invading Iraq in 2003.

Jefferson and Polk were masters at joining force and diplomacy. Each time they used force, they strengthened their diplomatic hand. When the moment came to compromise, the two presidents did so from a position of strength. Jefferson led Napoleon to believe that if he went to war in Europe, the U.S. and England might align and seize Louisiana. So Napoleon sold Louisiana to the United States to deny it to England. Polk ended the Mexican-American War short of annexing the entire country because he repeatedly sent envoys to Mexico City and ultimately accepted a final compromise negotiated by one of them with whom he bitterly quarreled.

There is a third way that conservative internationalism integrates force and diplomacy. Unlike classical realism, it does not hold that a country's material resources define an outer limit to its conduct of foreign policy. Nor, like liberal internationalism, does it believe that international consensus ultimately constrains foreign policy.

Rather, it believes that the majority will of free peoples limits a country's ability to influence international events. If presidents cannot retain the majority support of their own and other democratic peoples, they have no business trying to spread freedom to nondemocratic countries.

The toughest test the next president will face is his ability to maintain a consensus with the U.S. and among democratic countries when he has to resort to the use of force. As long as authoritarian governments persist, force will be used in international affairs, and the right response to it is to join force and diplomacy, not use force as a last resort or as a substitute for diplomacy.

Henry R. Nau is a professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University. A longer version of this article can be found in Policy Review, August/ September 2008.

Baraka_Guru 09-26-2008 07:42 AM
Okay, wow, this is interesting.

Quote:
Russia Loans Venezuela $1 Billion for Military
September 27, 2008
Russia Loans Venezuela $1 Billion for Military
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ

MOSCOW — Russia will loan Venezuela $1 billion for arms purchases and military development, a Kremlin spokesman said Friday, the second day of a visit here by resident Hugo Chávez aimed at tightening a relationship that has caused increasing discomfort in the West.

Mr. Chávez , who is on his second visit to Russia in two months, met with Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin on Thursday, and on Friday traveled to the southern city of Orenburg near the border with Kazakhstan to meet with President Dmitri A. Medvedev.

A Kremlin statement released Thursday night said Mr. Putin and Mr. Chávez had spoken on enhancing economic cooperation and trade in commercial goods as well as military technologies.

The $1 billion loan will help finance programs related to military-technical cooperation, the statement said. The Kremlin spokesman, who spoke anonymously under normal diplomatic ground rules, would not elaborate on the details of the deal.

Between 2005 and 2007 Venezuela has signed 12 contracts for weapons purchases from Russia for a total of more than $4.4 billion, the Kremlin statement said.

The move is the latest gesture of military friendship between Russia and Venezuela, two counties that have increasingly positioned themselves as mavericks vis-à-vis the West. The Kremlin says its economic and political stability have allowed it to broaden the scope of its military and economic cooperation beyond what it calls its traditional sphere of influence.

Moscow is also frustrated with what it considers aggressive military posturing from the West, particularly the United States. Washington’s plans to deploy elements of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, as well as its support of NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, have set Russia on edge.

In turn, Russia has sought to expand its military footprint in recent years, inching closer and closer to American shores. Russian bombers have flown sorties close to Alaska and its naval vessels have been pushing deeper into the Atlantic.

Latin America, and Venezuela in particular, has become has become a major theater for this expansion.

Earlier this month a pair of Russian Tu-160 long-range bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons received a warm welcome when they landed in Venezuela. Russia has also dispatched a squadron from its North Sea Fleet to the Caribbean to take part in joint naval exercises with the Venezuelan Navy sometime in November.

“Latin America, of course, is becoming an obvious link in the chain making up a multipolar world,” Mr. Putin said during his meeting with Mr. Chávez. “We will allocate more and more attention to this vector of our economics and foreign policy.”

Russia has already delivered Sukhoi Su-30 fighters, Mi-17 transport helicopters, and thousands of Kalashnikov assault rifles to Venezuela. There are also plans to build a factory in the country that will manufacture these weapons under license.

Ties between the two countries appear to have been strengthened following Russia’s five-day war with Georgia last month, which caused relations between Moscow and the West to plummet to their lowest point since the Cold War.

At his meeting with Mr. Medvedev on Friday, Mr. Chávez expressed “firm support” for Russia’s unilateral recognition of independence for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, two Georgian separatist enclaves, Interfax reported. Only Nicaragua has officially followed Moscow’s recognition, which prompted broad international criticism.

Mr. Chávez’s remarks fell short of official recognition of the republics, despite speculation that he would use his visit to offer it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/wo...chavez.html?hp

So Russia is pumping (a lot) more money into Venezuela. The timing here is almost as great at America's timing on finalizing that missile deal with Poland as Russia was in the midst of the Georgian crisis. America's economic warning bells are sounding, and here's Russia loaning military money to "anti-American" Venezuela.

What's going on here? Is this Russia playing the next turn of some kind of new Cold War?

By expanding its military (and political) influence to the Western Hemisphere, is this Russia's tit for tat?

UKking 09-26-2008 10:13 AM
Can't help but think this is a big, expensive publicity stunt. What do Russia and Venezuela really have to gain from all this?
Are we truly perceived as a military threat? It seems like delusional paranoia. Or maybe I'm just missing some vital perspective on it...

jorgelito 09-26-2008 01:46 PM
Definitely seems like tit-for-tat. I would think it's time to put Russia and Venezuela in their place but we may not have the means to. Hopefully our next president will have the good sense to increase our military spending and deal with these belligerents appropriately.

roachboy 09-26-2008 01:50 PM
what are you talking about?
first off, according to the logic of the bush people, there should be no reason to impute any ill intent to a move like this.
second, the conditions of possibility for it are a direct result of american policy--in this case toward venezuela--the americans act like it's still the 70s and it's ok for the fading, pathetic empire to be all annoyed with democracy "turns out wrong" as kissinger said about the allende election in chile 1972.
it's be much cheaper and more effective to throw out the republicans from power and adopt a more rational policy toward venezuela.

Baraka_Guru 09-26-2008 03:27 PM
What roachboy said.

jorgelito, is it even possible for the U.S. to increase military spending?

And what is the "appropriate" way of dealing with them? The Iraq method?

They can't afford that.

Jozrael 09-26-2008 03:56 PM
I vote nuclear winter! Once we reduce ourselves to cavemen again politics will be a much simpler issue all around ^^.

guyy 09-26-2008 06:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy (Post 2532903)
it's be much cheaper and more effective to throw out the republicans from power and adopt a more rational policy toward venezuela.
We didn't under Clinton, but one can always hope.

jorgelito 09-27-2008 02:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2532983)
What roachboy said.

jorgelito, is it even possible for the U.S. to increase military spending?

And what is the "appropriate" way of dealing with them? The Iraq method?

They can't afford that.
Absolutely. We need way more funding for sure. Our military is vastly underfunded, it's embarrassing. $700 billion for corporate welfare and socialism is a disgrace. Our soldiers need to be equipped properly and paid.

I am not in favor of the Iraq method. What a disaster. The Iraqis need to pay their bill.

Charlatan 09-27-2008 03:41 AM
I would tend to agree that the military in the US has been increasingly underfunded and understaffed since 9/11.

It was the day before 9/11 that Rumsfeld held his meeting with the top brass at the Pentagon and began the process of hollowing out the military. He managed to do this hollowing out to the best of his ability. All non essential (and even some essential) services have been outsourced. The US Military has been largely privatized.

So while military spending has increased (in the form of transferring public money into private hands) the spending on Military has decreased.

I think the US needs to get back into the business of looking after its own Military.

Baraka_Guru 09-27-2008 06:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorgelito (Post 2533237)
Absolutely. We need way more funding for sure. Our military is vastly underfunded, it's embarrassing.
Wait a minute...I thought the current bloated amount Americans spend on military was the embarrassing thing. I think maybe you want to rejig how the money is spent. To spend even more is ridiculous. Your education system is failing, your social security is at risk, you can't even look after your veterans, your disparity between rich and poor is making some parts look like Third World countries, and you want more spending on military? When your budget already makes up around 47% of the world's military spending? How much impact will more money have when your spending is already so high? What about your national debt? Between the U.S. and Russia, do you know who's balancing their books better right now? I'm not sure. But what I do know is that Russia's public debt is sitting at 5.9% of GDP (of which has been growing faster than most G8 countries), while the U.S. sits at 60.8%. There is something wrong with your economy, and much of it might have to do with your military. Is this a reasonable expense? Can you afford this?

Quote:
$700 billion for corporate welfare and socialism is a disgrace. Our soldiers need to be equipped properly and paid.
I think you mean corporate welfare and corrupt socialism.

I don't know how American military personnel cannot be properly equipped with that kind of budget. Something is amiss. Is it corruption? Is it foolish spending? What is it?

And I thought the military base pay was raised this year in Congress?

Quote:
I am not in favor of the Iraq method. What a disaster. The Iraqis need to pay their bill.
I don't think anyone is in favour of it. Except maybe contractors. Iraqis might have a bill to pay, but America should establish a generous aid program. Along the lines of what Japan received after the war, but to scale, of course.

Charlatan 09-27-2008 07:22 AM
Baraka... the budget isn't being spent on soldiers and equipment... or rather it but it is being shifted to private soldiers and their equipment. Companies like Blackwater have sizable, well-equipped armies of private soldiers. Financed by the US government.

I wonder how long it will take before they come into play in domestic politics?

roachboy 09-27-2008 07:22 AM
the american military is underfunded?
on what planet?
not this one:

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: The FY 2009 Pentagon Spending Request - Global Military Spending

notice that the united states alone accounts for almost half of the global total expenditures on military toys in 2008---711 billion of a total 1473.

here's a graphic showing expenditures during the bush period:

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: U.S. Defense Spending, 2001-2009

here's a category summary which outlines where this obscene amount of money goes (by category. you know.)

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: The FY 2009 Pentagon Spending Request - Topline

this outlines expenditure levels of ballistic missle systems:

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: The FY 2009 Pentagon Spending Request - Ballistic Missile Defense

it's convenient to look at this stuff---the data these graphics relies upon is available on the website (directly and via links)

so i don't know what you folks are talking about when you say "the military is underfunded"---the levels of funding are grotesque.
within that, there's problems of allocation obviously.
but this system has been the mainspring of republican-specific policy regarding "free markets"---so you see when the state is buying ridiculous amounts of military toys etc. then everything's hunky dory, but when it moves away from being a patronage spigot for political allies of the republican party, suddenly there's "socialism"

the disengenuousness of the conservative position is obvious.

tisonlyi 09-27-2008 07:38 AM
^^^ agree, but i think the spigot works equally well for both elements of the Property Party with two right wings.

Baraka_Guru 09-27-2008 07:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlatan (Post 2533327)
Baraka... the budget isn't being spent on soldiers and equipment... or rather it but it is being shifted to private soldiers and their equipment. Companies like Blackwater have sizable, well-equipped armies of private soldiers. Financed by the US government.

I wonder how long it will take before they come into play in domestic politics?
I don't know, but as I (and roachboy) suggested, I think this is an allocation problem, not an overall budget problem.

tisonlyi 09-27-2008 09:16 AM
Factors in the near term and present:

- Roughly 1/2 trillion dollars per annum of debt servicing payments
- $700bn+ in defence spending per annum
- probable year+ long recession on the cards
- inflation officially at around 3-4% (more like 8-10% or more using older standards and measures)
- SS and Medicare about to be clobbered by retiring boomers
- all told, probably 2-3 trillion in bailouts and other dubious economic measures, via magicing money into the economy and piling on even more debt repayments - i think the debt repayments look like being somewhere near 600bn for next year? (The Fed accepting Junk Bonds and equities at the discount window? *shudders* )

Where, exactly, would the pro-military folks see the funds for further cash/debt-sinks into military consumption coming from?

Printing money? >.<
Borrowing more, pushing repayments even higher? >.<
Enslaving other nations in more traditional imperial fashion? (hey, it'd help economically! didn't interest rates in Rome fall dramatically when Egypt was conquered? Conquer Egypt, not Afghanistan! ;) ) >.<

The end of imperialism usually means exactly the opposite.

(why is all this in a thread about Russia? *shrugs*)

Baraka_Guru 09-27-2008 09:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tisonlyi (Post 2533408)
(why is all this in a thread about Russia? *shrugs*)
Well I think it would be interesting to contrast the military expansionism of America to Russia these days.

I find it a bit annoying to hear American politicians morally lambasting Russia on Georgia when you take Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, into account.

This is a thread about Russia and our worries of another cold war. America's military is a very big factor.

Charlatan 09-27-2008 04:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru (Post 2533332)
I don't know, but as I (and roachboy) suggested, I think this is an allocation problem, not an overall budget problem.
I don't disagree. I think the money the US is spending on military overall (whether on the actual Military or the private military buildup) is obscene.

tisonlyi 09-28-2008 05:57 AM
This is a handy summary of why I think there's a change of epoch coming.

This really deserves its own thread.

smooth 10-07-2008 07:41 AM
I'm pretty sure that when people argue our military's budget isn't big enough, they really want more boots on the ground.
Unless those people are military contractors...but for everyday people they probably equate military budgets to necessities and primarily things that are troop-centric.

I think this flows from the discussion revolving around making sure we have enough troops and that they are properly compensated and geared, but the official response is that we have enough soldiers because our recruitment levels are being met as if the argument was we didn't have enough people wanting to work in the military. It follows that two rational responses would be either a) hire more people or b) quit sending what we've got all over the globe depending on one's personal stance about war/global military presence.

Baraka_Guru 02-27-2009 09:06 AM
A cold-war gesture or coincidence?
 
Quote:
Canadian jets scrambled to intercept Russian bomber before Obama visit
Last Updated: Friday, February 27, 2009 | 9:44 AM ET Comments296Recommend255
CBC News

Canadian fighter jets scrambled to intercept a Russian plane approaching Canadian airspace shortly before U.S. President Barack Obama visited Ottawa, the defence minister said Friday.
A Canadian F-18 lands at the Aviano air base in northern Italy in 1999.A Canadian F-18 lands at the Aviano air base in northern Italy in 1999. (Franco De Bernardi/Associated Press)

Peter MacKay said he wasn't accusing Russia of deliberately timing the flight to coincide with the visit — when Canadian security was focused in Ottawa — but he did call it a "strong coincidence."

"It was a strong coincidence which we met with … CF-18 fighter planes and world-class pilots that know their business," said MacKay.

"[The pilots] sent a strong signal they should back off and stay out of our airspace."

MacKay confirmed the incident at a news conference Friday in Ottawa with the chief of the defence staff, Gen. Walter Natynczyk, and the commander of NORAD, Gen. Gene Renuart.

The CF-18s took off from Cold Lake, Alta., on Feb. 16 after North American Aerospace Defence Command (Norad) detected the Russian Bear long-range bomber headed for Canadian airspace. The aircraft never did enter North American airspace.

Obama arrived in Ottawa on Feb. 19 to meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He spent six hours in the nation's capital.
No comment from Russian ambassador

Russian aircraft regularly probed into North American airspace during the Cold War and Canadian and American fighters routinely tracked the snoopers and escorted them back into international airspace.

Such flights were suspended for years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, but resumed in recent years as Russia pushed its claim on the Arctic and oil wealth allowed the country to spend more on its military.

MacKay said Canada has seen "increased activity" in recent years.

Norad spokesman Michael Kucharek wouldn't say what signals the pilots sent to the Russians, but did say they were close enough to make visual identification.

"Visual identification is enough to get their attention," he said.

Kucharek said it's possible the Russian plane was taking part in a military exercise.

"These types of exercises occur and have occurred over the past few years in quite a few different times and places."

Russia's ambassador to Canada, Georgiy Mamedov, will not be commenting on the incident Friday, said the Russian Embassy, but he may comment on Monday.
Rival Arctic claims

Melting Arctic ice has increased the chances of a standoff between countries that claim a stake in the region. The Arctic seabed, an area as large as the Prairie provinces, could be abundant in natural resources such as oil and gas.

The region is currently divided among Canada, the United States, Norway, Russia and Denmark.

Countries that ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea have 10 years to prove their continental shelves extend beyond the 370-kilometre (200-nautical-mile) outer limit currently in place. Since Canada ratified the convention in 2003, it has until 2013 to submit scientific evidence to extend that limit.

Russia claims the Arctic seabed and Siberia are linked by the same continental shelf. The UN rejected the claim, citing lack of evidence, but the country is set to resubmit the application in 2009.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said Arctic sovereignty is a key priority of his government and has promised to beef up Canada's military presence in the region. The Tory government has also moved to increase the jurisdiction of Canadian environmental law over northern waters and made it mandatory for vessels there to register with the Canadian Coast Guard.

Canadian scientists are mapping the seabed in an effort to bolster Canada's claim.

Two years ago, Russia sent a mini-submarine to plant a flag on the ocean floor at the North Pole.

MacKay, who was foreign affairs minister at the time, scoffed at the move, saying, "You can't go around the world these days dropping a flag somewhere, this isn't the 14th or 15th century."
With files from the Canadian Press
Canadian jets scrambled to intercept Russian bomber before Obama visit

Only recently has Russia resumed patrols probing nearby North American airspace; the first time since their collapse after the cold war. That they came close to entering Canadian airspace at the same time as Obama's visit to Ottawa is an interesting coincidence, if that's what it indeed was.

What do you guys think?

Much of the northern territory is opening up due to melting ice. It could become a hotly contested area, considering the potential resources there.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360