Printable View
Maybe we should've elected Howard Dean. He might have been able to hold his own in a screaming match with insane foreign leadersQuote:
"That's enough ... from you, Yankees," Chavez said, using an expletive. Waving his fists in the air, he added: "I hold the government of the United States responsible for being behind all the conspiracies against our nations!"
That would be a hoot!Quote:
Originally Posted by hoglahoo
:roflmao
While I tend to agree somewhat wrt to Kosovo, the political situation here during the start of that conflict allowed it to become commonly accepted that Serbs were committing mass murder and "ethnic cleansing". I was not there, so I honestly don't know. My suspicions tell me it was a bad move.Quote:
Originally Posted by WireBeard
Here's an interesting commentary on the topic, which predates the festivities in Georgia involving Russian troops. In one point, it even mentions Putin "warning" against recognizing Kosovo, because of what it would stir with separatists in S.Ossetia, Abkhazia, etc. etc....funny how times have moved forward.
I completely disagree with your premise that "missiles in Poland=bombers in Venezuela". What has been offered to Poland is an interceptor array connected to antennae in the Czech Republic, which are specifically designed to target and kill ICBMs launched not only at Poland and Europe, but the US as well. This has been on the table for over a decade, with intelligence reporting (back then) that Iran was attempting to develop long range capabilities and nuclear weapons, something that now is quite obvious, even though it was more vague back then.
This suggested array has no capability other than defensive-why is Putin so upset, then. He is already boasting that his new mobile launched MIRV armed Topol-M missiles can easily defeat such a shield, so realistically why does he care?
Following the almost clockwork like improvements to Iranian missile technology (e.g. they copy successive models of N.Korean, Chinese, and Russian ICBM's) they already have tested one model below a version which could reach all of Europe and most of Russia, perhaps not long from reaching the United States itself, either. Patriots are insufficient to kill ICBMs as there needs to be sufficient warning to actually launch the interceptor in FRONT of the missile and hit it as it is about to enter the apex of its path, as not long afterwards, is when MIRV warheads are typically dispersed, meaning a single interceptor would not be sufficient, and at that point, as most nuclear weapons are designed for aerial bursts (most damage) it is too late for everyone.
Which brings us back to Russia.
There was a period of time when Russia was presenting itself as the "new" Russia, friendly to the west, friendly to all; however, this is what I see happening, and it is just my opinion: this was in the past, and partly due to our various actions in Eastern Europe during the Clinton administration, which allowed Putin's rise to power, and part to do with Russia itself.
Russia has been quietly cornering the market. Everything is a chess game here. Russia would IMHO like more control over Europe, something it once had. The answer? fuel. Russia already controls much of the fuel going into Europe. Russia also recently allied with Iran after fuel arrangements were made with Ahmadinejad, effectively gaining control of another fuel source. Hence also the Russian dislike and mockery of the Iraq war in the beginning, as there were also ongoing oil deals between Russia and Saddam, which fell through. If the war were to become a failure, or if Iraq could be made a puppet of Iran due to instability concerns...again, Russia would have de-facto control of even THAT fuel source. Likewise Russia's alliance with Venezuela-another strategic move that has nothing to do with Chavez and everything to do with controlling another fuel choke point.
Which brings us to S. Ossetia and Abkhazia. These areas were claiming their independence for some time, but remained politically a territory of the nation of Georgia. It is no accident that high leadership in these regions in many cases have strong strong ties to Russia; there has been a simmering squabble there for some time; however, on someone or other's cue, using Russian weapons, the separatists mounted some sporadic attacks (as I gather) and Georgian president Saakashvili felt the best response was to squash this once and for all. Allegedly Russian peacekeepers were killed in the process, however one wonders why Russian troops were in Georgia in the first place, peacekeepers or no. One also wonders if they were fighting alongside the separatists, or indeed if any Russians were even killed. Putin screamed bloody murder, and used his forces-already massed on the Georgian border, incidentally, to "punish" Georgia for its aggression on its own province. Notice above that there was no prior rush to acknowledge these regions...
Conveniently, Russia is KEEPING the provinces for itself "for the foreseeable future" and only after invading Georgia and proceeding well beyond the borders of the disputed provinces does Russia, and Russia alone, then acknowledge their independence.
Imagine if we Americans were to invade Canada for some reason, claiming an American was harmed in Quebec during police struggles, occupy Quebec, then while marching on Montreal and seizing all of Canada's seaports and resources, announce that separatists in Quebec were their own independent nation?
I think Russia's move has nothing to do with a love for S. Ossetia or Abkhazia, but everything to do with the fact that Georgia, I gather, has the single remaining fuel pipeline to Europe which does not pass through Russia.
Convenient, I think.
Hard to bargain with someone who can make sure your grandmother freezes in the winter, after all.
Great way to enslave a whole lot of people without firing a shot.
I'm getting ahead of myself. Prior to these agreements Putin made with Iran, et al, Russia was not quite as vocally against an interceptor shield; even now, Putin claims his weapons can defeat our shield...so is he really worried about them, e.g. planning to use his ICBM's in the future, or does he plan to use his new friend Iran as the stick to shake at Europe when it is out of line?
while it is Iran who made the most recent "we're going to destroy [an entire nation]" threat, Russia is suddenly concerned it would help counter her own ICBM's. Something if one looks not too far into the distant future, Putin may wish to use to intimidate some into submission. He does not have a military large enough to counter a European move to recapture a fuel source, once they realize what Putin has done. He DOES have nuclear weapons, and plenty of them. Why spend money on thousands of tanks and conventional forces, when you can just point your nukes at someone. Or, claim one's own nukes "don't care" and can dodge interceptors, while letting one's "dangerous" friend in Iran be the bogey man held over nations' heads to the benefit of Russian interests.
Anyway, getting away from myself here, but it all looks a bit fishy.
Russia and others simply trying to edge the US out of the market completely, while our own politicians seem to be too busy squabbling with each other to notice. Russia doesn't care one bit about Hugo Chavez; he is but a pawn in Putin's plan for domination.
It is no accident the oil prices keep rising and certain powers are gaining control of all of it.
Putin was brought up through the ranks of the KGB. No doubt he aspired to one day be General Secretary of the Communist Party and head of the Soviet Union. He is instead in charge of a much weaker shadow of the former great nation. His moves (and funny-he is still in power even while no longer president) seem to be aimed at creating for himself the powerful nation he originally planned to be in control of.
Perhaps I'm wrong, and I hope so...and if not, hopefully it is not too late before something is done. Even we evil Americans do not exert this amount of control over people, although the Machiavellian imagination of what Putin seems to be doing is impressive.
John P.
Putin is upset because an anti-missile shield unbalances the nuclear standoff. Nuclear security at this juncture rests on mutually-assured destruction -- you hurt us, and we'll hurt you just as bad, if not worse. If we can stop their missiles and they can't stop ours, this creates an imbalance that might motivate someone -- particularly them -- to strike unexpectedly and unilaterally. If they felt we were acting aggressively, they might conclude that they had no choice but to attack first, before we were prepared.
A scary scenario.
j
Jim,Quote:
Originally Posted by Nord Jim
as addressed in my post above, Russia claims the shield would not even defend against its own missiles. It WOULD defend against the newest Iranian Shahab-series of missiles, already capable of reaching most of the Middle East, probably Southern Europe, and in iterations not tested, much farther.
Interesting that even Russia believed Iran was planning an ICBM program, but now the two are allied, Putin is screaming in one breath that "the balance is damaged" between the U.S. and Russia, and in the other breath, that "Russia's missiles will get through any shield".
Why the seeming confusion? Russia apparently feels no real threat from a missile shield, but is posturing politically, to reduce the credibility of American interests in Europe, (if you let Americans in, Russian nuclear weapons will be pointed at you) and to improve the political power by default, of Russia.
Distrust of Americans seeded by Putin's political engine serves to distract Europe while Russia takes their entire fuel supply. 10 years from now when the EU is voting on how to deal with this or that-Putin will be able to remind them simply, that without fuel, their vehicles, tanks, airplanes...aren't going anywhere.
Interceptors don't concern Russia-it's the political clout they're more worried about.
Otherwise, Russia has had her own missile defense shield fielded (as have we) for decades. A difference between the Russian A-135 and the new US ones being suggested for Poland...is that the Russian interceptor missile is itself nuclear tipped. The US version is not. If one is to shoot down an incoming ICBM over his hometown, it's a fair bet which would be preferable.
John P.
John,
I agree to a large extent with your points on Russia trying to gain more control. I don't see that as being different than any other big country, including USA. You may think it's bad, but that's just how it is.
Of course, if somebody believes US and most western countries are doing what they're doing in order to spread democracy (good) and the Russians do similar things in order to enslave others (evil), that's perfectly fine with me, even though I do not subscribe to such view myself.
I would like to note though that it isn't only the local leadership in North Ossetia and Abkhasia that is pro-russian. The population itself feels more closer to Russian than to Georgian and there are deep historical reasons for that. No need to speculate on the subject - you can find out from the history. That's why the russian peacekeeping forces were there in the furst place, and not just the georgians (don't you find it strange when a sovereign country allows foreign army on its territory - my country has american military bases and the exact parameters of that presence had to be approved in the parliament).
Anyways, now NATO and US know how serious the russians are when they say that they cannot tolerate the NATO expansion in Caucas. Whether Georgia will become part of NATO is yet to be seen - I suspect that it is not going to happen, unless they were promissed that in exchange of testing out Russia's resolve. And the russians have said they will have no problem increasing their nuclear cooperation with Iran if US is so determined to push the matter further. Somehow I don't think escalating the confrontation further is the answer. We're not in the 90's anymore - oil is $100 and Russia has no economic need to be cooperative. I think you may safely assume that many russians are as proud of their government being able to stand to any superpower, as the americans are proud of having 'the best military in the world', able to defend the US interests.
In the current reality bankrupting Russia again seems rather infeasible to me - I somehow can't see the Europeans be enthusiastic about paying the price of it, any more than the Americans willing to pay the price of bringing democracy in Saudi Arabia. So what is left is hopefully politicians who can deal with the current realities instead of posture recklessly and have the inspered and patriotic citizens pay for their stupidity.
If Russia weren't worried about the missile shield, they'd be behaving very differently. Of course it worries them -- perhaps not in this iteration, but they know very well where this leads.
You are correct, though, that this is all economic. Russia wants to re-establish its hegemony for its own economic benefit. We're doing the same. Why do you think we're interested in Georgia in the first place? As a beneficial trading partner. Russia, who used to have a corner on that market, doesn't like it.
And round and round we go!
The eventual solution, of course, is first, to kick oil out of the energy equation. Second, believe it or not, we need to establish Russia (and China, for that matter) as prosperous, self-confident nations. Once they have a stake in the international economy, it ceases to be in their interest to upset it, and they prefer, rather, that things be calm, peaceful, and orderly.
j