Russia Explains Its Plan Of Conquest

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

jak267 9/4/2008 1:49:02 PM

This is not the Cold War; this is a lot worse.

First, there are no Superpowers today. You can't have one Superpower without at least one other to define itself in opposition to.

And the US and the West are significantly weaker than in the past due to both the oil situation and the rising economic power of rest of the world (but in particular China).

The US and Europe have also proven that they are incapable of either advancing their ideals or taking decisive action to defend their strategic interests.

There's no chance of an apocalyptic nuclear war ? but that is what you frighten you the most. Without the credible threat of MAD (that one side or the other actually would escalate to that level), there is nothing to stop a return to the world of the 18th century ? with nations building empires both by economic coercion and by piecemeal conquest.

When the Cold War ended there were only two possibilities ? a world where economic cooperation and competition (via Capitalism) became the centerpiece of international relations ? or the total collapse of the world order into chaos. You had your chance ? and you won't get another.

The West is now collapsing in on itself just like Rome did ? not defeated by some greater power, but nibbled to death by opportunists while the core withers and decays.

The US is not a Superpower because we no longer recognize an ultimate enemy against which to focus our military, economic, and social power. (Of course Radical Islam is such an enemy ? we just refuse to recognize it as such.)

Our economy is no longer dominant and is rapidly becoming second-tier. We have accepted Euro-style pacifism and isolationism as the definition of "constructive engagement" with the world. It doesn't matter how powerful your military is if you are politically incapable of using it effectively.

In short we have squandered the political, economic, and military leverage that made us preeminent. The US won't disappear from the face of the earth ? but if no one listens to us, we might just as well. You will not enjoy living in a world where your country has no control over its destiny. (Think the Russians don't believe that?)

The real problem, however, is nuclear. Without the ultimate superpower opposition of the Cold War, there is nothing to stop limited nuclear war from becoming first, imaginable, and then commonplace.

It was Democratic President that used the first two nuclear weapons. It will most likely be a Democratic President who has to respond to the use of the third. And what he does (or doesn't) do will determine how many more are used in the next 100 years.

The biggest problem, however, is the UN. Its sole purpose is to stop regional conflicts from escalating into an all-out nuclear confrontation. But that means that it actually encourages regional ? often proxy ? wars. Now that MAD is no longer realistic, that means that regional nuclear wars are inevitable. (MAD no longer acting to check regional conflicts because the polarization of the Cold War is gone.)

Quote Reply

Softwar 9/4/2008 3:07:36 PM

Bah! The current situation is nothing compared to 30,000 tanks massed on the German border, 5 1/2 million soldiers from pole to pole, 4000 combat aircraft, a massive fleet of submarines and 20,000+ nuclear weapons on a hair trigger.

A US officer once joked to me that when the Soviet Army held an exercise in East Germany, you could step on an armored vehicle at the border and not touch the ground until you reached Poland.

Russia today is a mere shadow of the Soviet Union. Putin is playing to the home crowd but is losing investment money by the ton because of his antics in Georgia. The Russian population is actually on the decline so the problem of power projection is only going to get worse - not better. The only thing he has at the moment is oil and even that is failing due to demand destruction caused by the knee jerk run up.

I'd think you guys would have learned that a commodity based economy is too risky to bet the whole cabbage on. Feast and famine will be the watch words over the next few years in Moscow.

Quote Reply

afrc 9/4/2008 11:41:29 PM

And the US and the West are significantly weaker than in the past due to both the oil situation and the rising economic power of rest of the world (but in particular China).

Russia is also significantly weaker. And I wouldn't say that US is so much weaker... we are actually doing ok by world standards. We just have to accept that it is the time of the rising global powers. I hope we are not wimps scared of a little competition?

The US and Europe have also proven that they are incapable of either advancing their ideals or taking decisive action to defend their strategic interests.

And when did US go to big war during Cold War last time? Reagan was actually pretty smart - he did not even get into Afghanistan when Soviets moved there... nor Iran. He only started a few small ops here and there and nothing more. He defeated USSR with rhetoric alone it appears. Brilliant! Now Bush is the one who started a pretty big fight in Iraq. So is US really less capable or decisive now?

Quote Reply

afrc 9/4/2008 11:50:00 PM

I'd think you guys would have learned that a commodity based economy is too risky to bet the whole cabbage on. Feast and famine will be the watch words over the next few years in Moscow.

Excellent assessment! That's why I do not understand why Putin & Co started to behave like an invulnerable empire when growth of their economy depends on appearance of stability and investment security (and oil exports)... it looks like all that oil money went straight to their heads... or maybe they stole enough money already that they don't care any more what happens and they just do it for the game alone... or maybe they think it is the way to control the population and keep it in check and consolidated around government. So while Putin is wining a battle, he may be losing the war... or am I wrong?

Quote Reply

Photon 9/5/2008 3:41:42 AM

It may be worthwhile to make plans to neutralize Russia in long-term. This will have to wait for at least a decade, but nonetheless something that should be considered from this day on.

Sounds very barbaric and un-diplomatic? Indeed, but only as long as the West clings to stupid human-rights and diplomacy sort of thingies as alternative to wars.

Insofar as the West is concerned, soon or later it will have to either absorb or eradicate Russia. (The same can be said about China.)

Meanwhile, the first thing for the West to do is to purify itself by eradicating its own leftist elements.

Quote Reply

WarNerd 9/5/2008 4:21:28 AM

My personal suspicion that foreign investment is slipping fast because of the ways that the Kremlin is playing fast and loose with the law and the courts. This will cause a big drop in economic growth, if not a recession. Putin & Co. are just following the old political maxim of "when you have trouble at home, stir up trouble abroad." There is an added advantage, from their point of view, that if any sanctions are imposed then they can these for any drop in growth instead of their own mismanagement.

The import thing for Putin & Co. is staying in power, not economic growth. They would like to have both, but will settle for power only if necessary. Factor that into your analysis and see if their actions make more sense.

Quote Reply

trenchsol 9/5/2008 5:27:28 PM

Meanwhile, the first thing for the West to do is to purify itself by eradicating its own leftist elements.

I'd like to agree with you, but I can't. West has become what it is because of its ability to absorb different influences. We can see that number of nations is trying very hard to join NATO. In the same time, Russia is trying to resurrect Warsaw Pact by threatening neighbor nations. They got Belarus only, so far. Other Russian allies in the world are regimes and organizations of bloodthirsty killers, like Syria and Hamas, maybe Iran, or countries like Venezuela, which is ruled by maniac clown.

There are very few things that I despise more than that sort of activists and "intellectuals" that spit on their own countries and cheer murderers, crooks and maniacs. They are very loud, claiming moral superiority based on nothing, living in homes that are warm in the winter and air conditioned in the summer. I can partly understand why they admire killers and terrorists. That's because running around with AK and killing children for the cause is probably more fullfiling than writting columns in sponsored newspapers that don't sell or publishing books nobody ever reads.

Yet, people like that have always been around. Eliminating them would be kind of defeat, because it would make the West more like its adversaries. What appears a weakness might be strength in a long term.

Quote Reply

Lonewolfen 9/5/2008 10:02:59 PM

I would cut off every dime and technical support in aid given to Russia.I would send Patriot Missile Batteries into Georgia to be manned by American Special Forces. to counter the SS20 threat the Russians have set up, I would put Seal Teams in to defend in and around the critical oil pipeline that runs to the coast.I would then run a no fly zone east to west north to south.

I would do everything I could to Piss the Russians off and push them to the line including calling them barbaric war mongering Pricks.If their Generals are so crazy they would threaten Poland with a nuclear strike over a couple of non-nuclear intercepters, then I would kick them out of the G8.I had to deal with Aeroflot executives in the early 1980's and I knew they were KGB so I have some insight into how the Russians operate.

Quote Reply

afrc 9/6/2008 1:06:22 AM

I actually all for US air base in Georgia... navy too. I would not arm Georgians with heavy weapons because they can drag US into a war, but they can certainly can use US air cover and we can use a country next to Iran that will let USAF do whatever it needs to do when necessary. Turkey will not let us use the airspace to attack Iran (if we decide to)... nor Iraq or Afghanistan. American base in Georgia is beneficial to both countries.

Now Russians did get rid of their general that said something about nuking Poland... and there is no clear indication that they will try to take control of the Georgian pipeline. They are also smart for trying to play Europe against USA - it may actually work to a degree. West is actually worse off because we are using Russian oil and gas and not another way. Even if we stop - there is always China. We can only make a dent if we drive the price of oil down. And Russian government knows better how to control and manipulate Russian people so they will consolidate around government even more if we start boycotting Russia. Russians got used to poor standard of living and Europeans like comfort... and so do Americans. Russia does not need West to survive - they will have shortage of meat, they will not have nice import cars, but they have enough grain to feed themselves and enough oil to cover their needs and sell it to China for goods, so they can just dig in and wait. And their government has enough money already that they can live comfortably with or without sanctions so they are not afraid. West needs 5-10 years to gain energy independence... if they work hard on it. America is stuck in the Middle East and has a huge budget deficit, while Russia enjoys surplus. West does not have reserve and determination to confront Russia, while many Russians are waiting for a good fight with the West. It looks like Russia has a good chance of outlasting Western sanctions. Talk about sanctions on Russia and Cold War is just that - talk. We can destroy Russian economy at a cost of destroying our own. I think Russians are more prepared now for hardships than we are... maybe that's why they picked this time to talk tough and flex muscles.

Quote Reply

oh boy You people are nuts. 9/6/2008 2:24:23 AM

Well, the first problem with this whole discussion is that you all are drinking the Machiavellian Kool-Aid and have one very incorrect beginning assumption: Georgia is not a democracy. Georgia is one of Samuel Huntington's fake democracies, and a poor one at that. Therefore, the consideration that the US is protecting democracy is fraudulent. Actually, as fraudulent as it was when this idea started getting floated around during WWI. It's tired, it's old, it's a lie, it's ridiculous. Saakashvili is a stooge installed by the National Endowment for Democracy, and he acts like a dictator. Does that mean they "deserve" to be invaded? No. My point is that this whole argument that they are this helpless little democracy, a tiny fragile sprig of human dignity in a sea of evil, is frankly so stupid anyone that believes it should be embarrassed enough to just study the situation over from scratch. I don't blame you, we've all swallowed the bull at some point.

The second problem is that Russia, yes, is not the good guy. Obviously they are not "good." I'm not defending them. We all know that international politics is not a very moral place. But if you think that some crap story about a fake passport somehow proves that Georgia didn't start this, you are seriously delusional. Richard Holbrooke on the News Hour took tortured language to new depths by saying that the Georgians "goaded" the Russians into attacking them. That's like saying the Japanese "goaded" us into WWII with Pearl Harbor. In fact, the metaphor is pretty apt, because the Georgians actually killed more people than the Japanese did at Pearl Harbor, and civilians at that.

Look. The strategy is that the US wants to encircle Russia to create political capital at home, and to pre-emptively challenge it on the world stage. Can we all just agree that this is the case and then debate whether we think it's a good idea or not? Russia does not want to take over the world, that is completely retarded. Again, is Putin evil? You bet. But I just think the discussion needs to be a little more sophisticated than what I'm reading, which frankly is propaganda parrot talk. Oh, wait, the US never lies about anything. It's just the governments of all 190 other countries in the world that do. Open a history book.

Quote Reply

oh boy You people are nuts. 9/6/2008 2:26:44 AM

Edit: Sorry, I meant Holbrooke said the Russians "goaded" the Georgians into invading, meaning even he admits they really started the fighting, and that lying and saying the Russians began hostilities is too outrageous a lie even for him.

Quote Reply

afrc 9/6/2008 2:04:07 PM

My point is that this whole argument that they are this helpless little democracy, a tiny fragile sprig of human dignity in a sea of evil, is frankly so stupid anyone that believes it should be embarrassed enough to just study the situation over from scratch. I don't blame you, we've all swallowed the bull at some point...

Hey, listen to the news carefully... no one denied that Georgia attacked Ossetia first. All news in the first day of war were telling us that Georgia attacked Ossetia and there was no mention of Russia until it enter the war. The point was that they either responded to provocations, or they decided to return territory that almost everyone said was part of Georgia. Either way Russians are seen as outsiders that try to influence the flow of events by interfering inside S Ossetia and supporting pro-Russian movement.

I admit that Saakashvili is an unstable element and US should have put him on a short leash. And Georgia is not a model democracy... neither is Russia. However I read a report and it seems to indicate that Georgia (probably under US pressure) was moving in the right direction starting 2007. And did we really protect Georgia? Did you see US planes, tanks, soldiers fighting Russian hordes? There is a difference between protecting democracy and supporting it.

The fake passport and the way it was spun in Russia proves that Russian government will use anything to promote its agenda: "proving" to ordinary Russians that US organized the war and US is against Russia. It certainly does not prove that Georgia did not start it... no one said it did.

And what possible political capital "at home" does US create by encircling Russia? Americans don't care much about Russia and it's encirclement... they care about US economy, so I don't see how you can earn political caputal around Russia. Explain your point because I am not following. As far as I can tell, US sees Russia as something unpredictable, maybe even dangerous (they do sell weapons to Iran, while trying to protect them from sanctions) and US government wants to control it... and it is difficult if not impossible task. It is also good to use the situation to put a base in a strategic place... just in case. USAF base in the compliant Georgia is much more useful in case of war with Iran than Turkey or Europe.

Oh, wait, the US never lies about anything. It's just the governments of all 190 other countries in the world that do. Open a history book.

Everyone lies. Surprise!

PS: Are we reading the same article?

Quote Reply

	News As History - November 19, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us