View Full Version : Russia Making Threats Over Missle Shield
charlietwo
08-20-2008, 14:16
Just saw this headline on drudgereport -- http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92M5GM81&show_article=1
I'm a young pup still, with not much world experience, but my gut tells me that this is very bad business. My knowledge of history tells me that this was a very big domino that is falling towards WW III. I'm very interested to hear what my elder brothers have to say about this.
The Reaper
08-20-2008, 14:48
I say "woof-woof".
The missile shield threatens Russia in no way. Even after built, they can throw way more missiles than we can shoot down, and it only takes a few to make a big impression.
My personal belief is that the quality of the Russian military is not all it is cracked up to be, and that the Poles are not Georgia. I suspect that if we flew air cover and provided CAS, the Poles could hold their own, especially since the Russians are short on strategic projection, and would have to come through Lithuania, Belarus, or the Ukraine, none of which are likely to look upon this favorably.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Red Flag 1
08-20-2008, 17:54
I say "woof-woof".
The missile shield threatens Russia in no way. Even after built, they can throw way more missiles than we can shoot down, and it only takes a few to make a big impression.
My personal belief is that the quality of the Russian military is not all it is cracked up to be, and that the Poles are not Georgia. I suspect that if we flew air cover and provided CAS, the Poles could hold their own, especially since the Russians are short on strategic projection, and would have to come through Lithuania, Belarus, or the Ukraine, none of which are likely to look upon this favorably.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Air Force Magazine did an article a few months ago about the current Russian Military. A rather large amount of the Russian economy is being put into their military, that is just money. There is virtually no senior NCO leadership in the Russian military. Officer Corp is in about the same shape. Corruption is a huge factor in the bulk of the Russian military. Money can buy technology, but can not buy leadership or credability. Russian military is rebuilding but, not seen very effective at this time.
Is current Georgia "event" a training exercise for the Russian Military?
With all the looting reported, it seems coruption within the Russian military is still a problem.
:munchin
RF 1
They have been stealing windows. Guess they need some for their base back home......:rolleyes:
I have to agree with Reaper. The missile shield is in no way a threat to them. But that being said, they have wanted back on the international scene for quite a while, and Georgia gave them the opportunity to do it. The missile shield issue will be sure to keep them in the news for some time to come.
I for one do not think we are in any way close to a WWIII scenario with the Russians. They have too much to loose. And I personally think we are past the point in time where two states such as Russia and the US are going to start lobbing nukes at each other. I can see other states threatening the use of nukes, but not us or the Russians.
As for the Russian military, they have a long way to go before they can be anywhere close to "superpower" status. I read an article yesterday that said their army is in such a shambles they were contracting Chechens to fight in Georgia.
Russia mentions that its response might be beyond diplomacy, and that could mean military action.
What if it means something different? Perhaps it means economic action.
Did Russia attack Georgia because of South Ossetia? Or might it be the BTC pipeline? Because if Russia got control of that 1,100 mile long pipeline, it would give them additional control over the flow of oil and natural gas to Europe.
Isn't it interesting that Poland wants to create a new LNG port? Link (http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssEnergyNews/idUSLJ66653520080819)
If one speculates that the availability of oil might be in decline, then Russia may be positioning itself for both diplomatic and economic gains by controlling a big part of the flow to Europe.
I read an article yesterday that said their army is in such a shambles they were contracting Chechens to fight in Georgia.
According to my very limited understanding, the Chechen mercenaries are renowned for their brutality. Perhaps the goal is to intimidate and cow the local population, while maintaining the ability to deny any involvement by Russian forces.
The country might then be less willing to risk Russian anger; they might distance themselves from the West, and seek to placate Russia. This would seem to work to a Russian advantage.
This has been going on for several years. One has to remember that Russia's defense of the Rodina (Motherland) is based on the historical precedents of trading space for time...and anything encroaching upon their space (including any barrior space between them and Germany--and now NATO) is suspect to them. Period. Do we have any Russian FAOs on this site who could expound upon this?
As a former 18A/48E, we understood that this was a fact, Jack, and always a point to consider when dealing with the Soviets! Why would we think the "new and improved" Russian mentality was any different?
Richard's $.02 :munchin
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia says its response to the further development of a U.S. missile shield in Poland will go beyond diplomacy.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying the U.S. missile shield plans are clearly aimed at weakening Russia.
My take on this has always been from the cold war perspective because I think that is where their minds are still at. The "Missile Shield" would give us opportunity for first strike with retaliation being thwarted from Russia. This thinking is so 1980's but that's where they want to be.
I don't think they have the ability to do anything directly to us, but they sure can lend some talent and technology to our current enemies as well as do an economic job on us via the pipe line.
Could you imagine seeing Mig-29's over the skies in afghanistan being flown by a caveman? I think our flyboys might actually enjoy it.
charlietwo
08-20-2008, 23:33
I say "woof-woof".
The missile shield threatens Russia in no way. Even after built, they can throw way more missiles than we can shoot down, and it only takes a few to make a big impression.
My personal belief is that the quality of the Russian military is not all it is cracked up to be, and that the Poles are not Georgia. I suspect that if we flew air cover and provided CAS, the Poles could hold their own, especially since the Russians are short on strategic projection, and would have to come through Lithuania, Belarus, or the Ukraine, none of which are likely to look upon this favorably.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
The bluster is obvious, particularly when they're upset about anti-ballistic missile shields, as if they are a direct threat. War gaming this in my head, a major conflict between Russia and the West could shake up the civilizational fault line that runs through the nations of NATO. If key players in Eastern Europe buckle under the weight of Russia's chest-pounding, a relatively solid line could be drawn over loyalties. Also, I highly doubt the major players in Western Europe are willing to harden up any time soon in the face of the Russian bear. In addition, it appears as if Russia is already trying to solidify alliances abroad (i.e. Syria). If they can capitalize or intensify on the West's conflict with Islam to any degree, and come to terms with China as any sort of ally (or even a neutral state), it would definitely strengthen their position in the region. As well as give them more time to utilize their resources to bolster their military. I believe Red Flag 1 is dead on with his assessment of their floundering military, from what I've seen and read.
Also, I definitely agree with nmap that the oil resource is a major aspect of this current situation in Georgia. If it was not a valuable piece of land, they wouldn't risk so much over it. The same could be said for the West's interest, or more specifically, Western Europe. In regards to the Chechens, if the Russian's wanted to, they could fight proxy wars using the Islamists all over their western front, if for nothing else than to cause problems within their NATO neighbors backyards. Just send some material and some advisors, and you have yourself a good old fashioned guerrilla war.
I didn't grow up during the cold war, so all of my knowledge is whatever history I've scoured in my days. I haven't really seen much of the Russian mentality, so I suppose I'm grasping at straws with my ramblings :) I'm enjoying this discussion greatly, however. Thanks all! :munchin
Jack Moroney (RIP)
08-21-2008, 05:23
One has to remember that Russia's defense of the Rodina (Motherland) is based on the historical precedents of trading space for time...and anything encroaching upon their space (including any barrior space between them and Germany--and now NATO) is suspect to them.
Absolutely. The Russian psyche has always been part of this equation and I would not be surprised if the leadership is not playing to that part of its population to quell the discontent of all the money being poured into the military for the defense of the motherland while ignoring more pressing social problems at home. I look at this adventure in Georgia more like a recon by fire to see exactly what the west a very weak EU and deteriorating NATO would do. Russia does not need to exercise its military force to bring EU to its knees, they are heavily engaged in Europe's energy profile and that alone will dampen any adventure by the fledgling EU military. Right now I would not be surprised to find out that France is building yet another Arc d' Triumph for the Russians to march under when Europe folds. There is also another aspect for mother Russia. They have a great concern with all the Muslim states along their southern border and a solid foot hold in the Cacusus will give them another avenue of approach to keep a lid on the pending surge of fanatics looking for revenge and expansion of the word of the one true god. I think that mother Russia is also( although I may be giving that little commie, judo, KGB freak Putin too much credit) looking at a way to dismantle both NATO and the EU. Right now the EU is trying to create its own military arm and the budgeting process for membership in the EU ties the amount of money that countries can spend in order to manage inflation and other aspects of the common good. Countries within the EU just cannot come up with the bucks to build a military force with those limitations without sharing the burden amoung each country to provide some aspect of the "force" and I think Russia is actually hoping for a rise in nationalistic feelings within the various members that will cause a break down of the PanEuropa dream which will allow Russia to concentrate on those targeted countries as they tell the EU to go pound truffles because their own national identities and pride are threatened by their collective impotency and they will remove themselves from the EU. If that happens, they will once again have the buffer of expendable states between mother Russia and the west and all will be good again in Red Square. Just my opinion.
ZonieDiver
08-21-2008, 09:07
Absolutely. The Russian psyche has always been part of this equation and I would not be surprised if the leadership is not playing to that part of its population to quell the discontent of all the money being poured into the military for the defense of the motherland while ignoring more pressing social problems at home. I look at this adventure in Georgia more like a recon by fire to see exactly what the west a very weak EU and deteriorating NATO would do. Russia does not need to exercise its military force to bring EU to its knees, they are heavily engaged in Europe's energy profile and that alone will dampen any adventure by the fledgling EU military. Right now I would not be surprised to find out that France is building yet another Arc d' Triumph for the Russians to march under when Europe folds. There is also another aspect for mother Russia. They have a great concern with all the Muslim states along their southern border and a solid foot hold in the Cacusus will give them another avenue of approach to keep a lid on the pending surge of fanatics looking for revenge and expansion of the word of the one true god. I think that mother Russia is also( although I may be giving that little commie, judo, KGB freak Putin too much credit) looking at a way to dismantle both NATO and the EU. Right now the EU is trying to create its own military arm and the budgeting process for membership in the EU ties the amount of money that countries can spend in order to manage inflation and other aspects of the common good. Countries within the EU just cannot come up with the bucks to build a military force with those limitations without sharing the burden amoung each country to provide some aspect of the "force" and I think Russia is actually hoping for a rise in nationalistic feelings within the various members that will cause a break down of the PanEuropa dream which will allow Russia to concentrate on those targeted countries as they tell the EU to go pound truffles because their own national identities and pride are threatened by their collective impotency and they will remove themselves from the EU. If that happens, they will once again have the buffer of expendable states between mother Russia and the west and all will be good again in Red Square. Just my opinion.
Col M, sir, you should write a book (or three)! I'd buy 'em!
The "Missile Shield" would give us opportunity for first strike with retaliation being thwarted from Russia.
Someday, maybe, perhaps, with a buttload more money...but not right now.
COL Moroney is 'spot on' IMO. :lifter
But we also must remember that Russia remains an enigma not only to us, but to the Europeans who struggle with the idea that a country which produces such great literature, music, ballet, poetry, etc can be so corrupt and industrially inefficient, and cannot even safely manage its own capitol's airport (which is outsourced to a German firm) to Western standards. And even though Russia has concerns over the many splinter states now surrounding its borders, it still 'fears' NATO-- which has been offering 'membership' to so many of the USSR's former satellite republics and buffer states--to the point that it retains several hundred ICBMs targeting Central Europe.
As for the EU's fledgling 'military' arm--remember that their first 'test' was to take care of the Balkans ("This is a matter which can best be handled by Europeans") while we deployed to GW1...and we know the result of that French led effort. I was reading a recent article in Der Spiegel about this very issue and little has changed since then for the EU--which does not bode well for us if we continue to perceive our strategic position regarding NATO to be of great importance in today's world and continue to have to deal with fledgling democracies who seek to join NATO while blatantly 'teasing' the Russian Bear with their new found 'Big Brothers' standing behind them.
Here's a good piece which offers a pretty solid broader picture of recent (within the last decade) events by one columnist I read with regularity for his 'classical' world view of events--Victor Davis Hanson.
Richard :munchin
Brave Old World
by Victor Davis Hanson
Russia invades Georgia. China jails dissidents. China and India pollute at levels previously unimaginable. Gulf monarchies make trillions from jacked-up oil prices. Islamic terrorists keep car bombing. Meanwhile, Europe offers moral lectures, while Japan and South Korea shrug and watch — all in a globalized world that tunes into the Olympics each night from Beijing.
"Citizens of the world" were supposed to share, in relative harmony, our new "Planet Earth," which was to have followed from an interconnected system of free trade, instantaneous electronic communications, civilized diplomacy and shared consumer capitalism.
But was that ever quite true?
In reality, to the extent globalism worked, it followed from three unspoken assumptions:
First, the U.S. economy would keep importing goods from abroad to drive international economic growth.
Second, the U.S. military would keep the sea-lanes open, and trade and travel protected. After the past destruction of fascism and global communism, the Americans, as global sheriff, would continue to deal with the occasional menace like a Muammar al-Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il or the Taliban.
Third, America would ignore ankle-biting allies and remain engaged with the world — like a good, nurturing mom who at times must put up with the petulance of dependent teenagers.
But there have been a number of indications recently that globalization may soon lose its American parent, who is tiring, both materially and psychologically.
The United States may be the most free, stable and meritocratic nation in the world, but its resources and patience are not unlimited. Currently, it pays more than a half trillion dollars per year to import $115-a-barrel oil that is often pumped at a cost of about $5.
The Chinese, Japanese and Europeans hold trillions of dollars in U.S. bonds — the result of massive trade deficits. The American dollar is at historic lows. We are piling up staggering national debt. Over 12 million live here illegally and freely transfer more than $50 billion annually to Mexico and Latin America.
Our military, after deposing Milosevic, the Taliban and Saddam, is tired. And Americans are increasingly becoming more sensitive to the cheap criticism of global moralists.
But as the United States turns ever so slightly inward, the new globalized world will revert to a far poorer — and more dangerous — place.
Liberals like presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama speak out against new free trade agreements and want existing accords like NAFTA readjusted. More and more Americans are furious at the costs of illegal immigration — and are moving to stop it. The foreign remittances that help prop up Mexico and Latin America are threatened by any change in America's immigration attitude.
Meanwhile, the hypocrisy becomes harder to take. After all, it is easy for self-appointed global moralists to complain that terrorists don't enjoy Miranda rights at Guantanamo, but it would be hard to do much about the Russian military invading Georgia's democracy and bombing its cities.
Al Gore crisscrosses the country, pontificating about Americans' carbon footprints. But he could do far better to fly to China to convince them not to open 500 new coal-burning power plants.
It has been chic to chant "No blood for oil" about Iraq's petroleum — petroleum that, in fact, is now administered by a constitutional republic. But such sloganeering would be better directed at China's sweetheart oil deals with Sudan that enable the mass murdering in Darfur.
Due to climbing prices and high government taxes, gasoline consumption is declining in the West, but its use is rising in other places, where it is either untaxed or subsidized.
So, what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that in large part America was the model, not the villain — and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions.
Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s — with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite.
If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we were to treat the environment as do China and India, the world would become quickly a lost cause.
If we flee Iraq and call off the war on terror, Islamic jihadists will regroup, not disband. And when the Russians attack the next democracy, they won't listen to the United Nations, the European Union or Michael Moore.
Brace yourself — we may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must.
These are good. :D
Richard :munchin
charlietwo
08-21-2008, 10:35
Right now I would not be surprised to find out that France is building yet another Arc d' Triumph for the Russians to march under when Europe folds.
:D Haha! I think that is the crux of the matter in Europe right now. The European core states have no leadership, no spine, and therefore no respect from other nations that are looking to fill the vacuum. If countries like Germany and France had a collective mind between them, they would see the writing on the wall and realize that resources are dwindling and they have a vested interest in reacting, or even becoming proactive.
Richard - Great article. Doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy, but nothing much does these days. It looks and feels like America is in a slow bleed, and we lack the leadership to stop the wounds. I only hope McCain is up to the task... if he drops the ball with any policies and allows too much breathing room for our enemies within, we're going to be in serious trouble, imho. :(
greenberetTFS
08-21-2008, 10:45
I say "woof-woof".
The missile shield threatens Russia in no way. Even after built, they can throw way more missiles than we can shoot down, and it only takes a few to make a big impression.
My personal belief is that the quality of the Russian military is not all it is cracked up to be, and that the Poles are not Georgia. I suspect that if we flew air cover and provided CAS, the Poles could hold their own, especially since the Russians are short on strategic projection, and would have to come through Lithuania, Belarus, or the Ukraine, none of which are likely to look upon this favorably.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
I personally agree with Reaper....The Russian military is not what it once was! "woof,woof" is all that they can do right now....:munchin
Any thoughts on the "woof-woof" coinciding with our upcoming election and the possibility of electing BHO, an appeaser? Could Putin be banking on this and the fact that there would be one less obstacle to stand against his maneuvering?
Any thoughts on the "woof-woof" coinciding with our upcoming election and the possibility of electing BHO, an appeaser? Could Putin be banking on this and the fact that there would be one less obstacle to stand against his maneuvering?
If polls are any indication, if this was their intent it backfired. The same as Osama Bin Laden offering up his support to Kerry right before the election. McCain has taken a bounce and Obama has dropped in the polls, and many believe it is this issue that has done it.
The whole Russia/Georgia issue has bolstered McCain in the eyes of many. He was quick to point out that he thought the Russians were wrong, and that we should be seeking to deter them in their aggression. Obama on the other hand waited a couple of days, and then took what amounted to "a wait and see' attitude about what was going on.
If this hasn't pointed out to people that Obama lacks the experience necessary to even crawl into the International Arena, let alone walk, it will. In my opinion that is why Biden will be his VP candidate. No others that he has vetted have the foreign relations experience Biden does.
But Joe Biden as VP scares the hell out of me. He would walk all over Obama every chance he got, and he would be the one really running the White House which is as scary or scarier than Obama in and of himself.
I agree. If he wanted BHO in there he might have waited a little longer, instead of helping to bolster McCain's numbers.
Here's something to ponder in all this.
Richard :munchin
Blame Everyone But Russia
Victor Davis Hanson
Everyone is distracted by the Olympics. The squabbling here on the campaign trail consumes the media. Two presidential candidates and a lame-duck president all are weighing in on foreign policy. No wonder Vladimir Putin thought it was a good time to invade Georgia.
Apparently the Russian prime minister knew exactly what he was doing but assumed no one in the West did. And he was right.
Our pundits and politicians are all over the map as Putin is variously portrayed as villain, victim, patriot, tyrant -- and more still.
The neoconservatives: We must make Russia pay a terrible price for subverting a democracy. Our policy of promoting liberal governments among the former Soviet republics, with integration into Europe and relations with NATO, was sound, and it cannot be allowed to be aborted by Putin.
Bottom line: Form a ring of democracies around Russia until it sees the light and likewise evolves into a constitutional state.
The paleoconservatives: Putin is only protecting his rightful national interests in his own backyard, which don't really conflict with ours. You have to admire the old brute for taking care of business. Neocons -- and no doubt Israelis in the background -- provoked that Georgian loudmouthed dandy Saakashvili to stick his head in a noose -- so he deserved the hanging he got.
Bottom line: We should cut a deal with our natural ally Putin to keep out of each other's proper sphere of influence -- and let each deal as it wishes with these miserable little third-party troublemakers.
The realists: Don't poke sticks at the Bear. We should define what our strategic interests in the region are. Maybe we can protect Eastern Europe, the Baltic republics and the Ukraine -- but only if we accept that Georgia just isn't part of the equation. We need to back out of the saloon with drawn pistols, and save as much face as we can.
This is a reminder that we forgot the role of honor and fear in international relations when we encouraged weak former Soviet republics merrily to join the West and gratuitously humiliate Russia.
Bottom line: Don't get caught again issuing promises that we can't keep!
The left wing: Putin's unilateral pre-emption was just like our own in Iraq. His recognition of South Ossetia's independence was no different from our own in breakaway Kosovo. So America is just as bad. Russia's attack is the moral equivalent of America arbitrarily removing the tyrant Saddam. It's all about Big Oil and pipelines anyway -- along with Bush, Cheney, Halliburton et al.
Bottom line: Another long overdue comeuppance for the American Empire.
The liberal mainstream: Both sides are at fault. We understand Georgia's plight, but also sympathize with Russia's dilemma. We should consult the United Nations, involve the European Union and encourage European diplomacy. We can learn from the multilateral NATO teamwork in Afghanistan.
Bottom line: Make sure that international institutions don't confuse an empathetic America with cowboy George Bush.
The Europeans: Prioritize! 1) Don't jeopardize gas supplies from, and trade with, Russia; 2) Avoid any confrontation in any form; 3) Make sure that Bush does not do something stupid to draw us too far in, but at least does something to avoid leaving us too far out.
Bottom line: Luckily, Tbilisi is still a long way from Berlin and Paris!
The rest of America: My lord, Putin is acting just like Brezhnev! But they told us that he just wanted to democratize and reform Russia, integrate with NATO and the EU, and help fight radical Islam! So why did he get angry with Georgia when it just wanted to do the same things he was supposed to be doing? That backstabber wasn't honest with us!
Bottom line: Now what?
The more Russia promises to leave Georgia, the more it seems to stay put. One reason may be that Putin keeps counting on us either to be confused, contradictory or angrier at ourselves than at Russia over his latest aggression. And given our inability to speak with one voice, he seems to be absolutely right.
Surf n Turf
08-21-2008, 18:21
But we also must remember that Russia remains an enigma not only to us, but to the Europeans who struggle with the idea that a country which produces such great literature, music, ballet, poetry, etc can be so corrupt and industrially inefficient, and cannot even safely manage its own capitol's airport (which is outsourced to a German firm) to Western standards. And even though Russia has concerns over the many splinter states now surrounding its borders, it still 'fears' NATO-- .
This has been going on for several years. One has to remember that Russia's defense of the Rodina (Motherland) is based on the historical precedents of trading space for time...and anything encroaching upon their space (including any barrior space between them and Germany--and now NATO) is suspect to them. Period.
Absolutely. The Russian psyche has always been part of this equation and I would not be surprised if the leadership is not playing to that part of its population to quell the discontent of all the money being poured into the military for the defense of the motherland while ignoring more pressing social problems at home. I look at this adventure in Georgia more like a recon by fire to see exactly what the west a very weak EU and deteriorating NATO would do. Russia does not need to exercise its military force to bring EU to its knees, they are heavily engaged in Europe's energy profile and that alone will dampen any adventure by the fledgling EU military. .
Sorry, Late to the forum -
Richard and the COL Moroney are correct about the “intense” feelings of the Russian people for securing the Motherland. I am not sure how Putin really feels (world-wiew), but he is playing this message perfect to the citizens --- Most Russians view any encroachment with fear. They still talk about Napoleon / Hitler’s marches into the interior with horror. Both Napoleon / Hitler were eventually defeated by “General Mud & General Winter”, and a great deal of Russian blood. The experience of invasion is still real to the Russians. Remember the siege / encirclement of Leningrad (St. Petersburg) lasted 900 days, with a total over 1.2 million Russian dead. Stalingrad (Volgograd.) lasted 240 + days) with combined dead at over 1.7 million . These were just two battles in Operation Barbarosa (Unternehmen Barbarossa). It is said that Josef Stalin only learned three words in english --- Twenty (20) million dead – That was the Soviet war deaths from WWII, and Stalin used these three words over and over at Yalta to pressure Roosevelt & Churchill to accede to his demands for control over a buffer zone between the Motherland and Europe (Churchill afterward called it the “iron curtain”)
With the invasion of Georgia, I agree that Putin made a calculated move to eliminate the “defensive missile shield” that was just signed with Poland, while diminishing American influence, and to fight a war of terror within the former Soviet sphere of influence (including Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania) to increase Russian aims. After all, what would NATO do? --- it turns out NOTHING. The Russian Bear has stood down his adversaries, and is in the process of reasserting itself. I don’t think they will have the international clout of the former USSR, but will have an increasing role in frustrating the EU / NATO / USA.
Good Article
Quote - President Dmitry Medvedev spoke at the Foreign Ministry. “I would like to use this opportunity for an open and pragmatic conversation,” explained Medvedev to the assembled diplomats. “Russia is indeed stronger and able to assume greater responsibility for solving problems on a regional and global scale.” You see, the Cold War was not an American victory. Medvedev reminded his colleagues that they had “survived the Cold War.” And now Russia is prepared to establish “a new equilibrium.”
Medvedev explained Russia’s overall diplomatic strategy: “I have focused on these aspects because Europe today needs a positive rather than negative agenda.” In other words, the invasion of Georgia is not an end in itself. The real purpose of this operation, the Russian president hinted, was to highlight the dangerous obsolescence of NATO and Europe’s unrealistic expectations with regard to Russia”
http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/analysis.html
We are perhaps a little hasty to move the US Military in Harms way in “relief efforts” in Georgia. I believe that most of the material will have to move thru Turkey ---- and Russia will certainly prod Iran to “do something”.
Quote --“The American move raises the stakes for everyone. It has its share of risks. But it puts the onus back on the Russians. Surely even Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin at his most reckless would hesitate before killing US troops. It's one thing to attack Georgian soldiers and to murder Georgian civilians. It's another thing altogether to do that to the US Army or Marine Corps.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24187321-25377,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/2575421/Russia-distributing-passports-in-the-Crimea.html
SnT
charlietwo
08-21-2008, 18:51
This is becoming a solid picture. It seems to me that America's best move at this point is to light a fire under the collective asses of NATO. We're tertiary parties in this conflict and it would make sense for us to put our state department to work at challenging NATO to make some steps towards keeping Russia and it's satellites in check.
Good post, Surf.