Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Still no Russian Cooperation despite US concession
YelliChink    10/13/2009 1:17:24 PM
www.nytimes.com/2009/10/14/world/europe/14diplo.html NYT: Russia Resists U.S. Position on Sanctions for Iran ?At the current stage, all forces should be thrown at supporting the negotiating process,? he said. ?Threats, sanctions, and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive.? Lavrov, Russian Foreign minister. www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/10/13/world/international-us-russia-clinton.html NYT: Clinton Fails to Win Russia Pledge on Iran Sanctions [quote] A senior U.S. official had said before the talks that Clinton wanted to know "what specific forms of pressure Russia would be prepared for to join us" if Iran did not keep promises to the international community not to pursue nuclear weapons. [unquote]
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT
tigertony    Blame DA   10/23/2009 10:38:32 PM

This thread is quickly degenerating into a flame war if it hasn't already... yay!

 

It is unfortunate that we havn't seen the  any concessions, but seeing as Poland hasn't been invaded yet, and Biden has managed to snag the endorsement of the new system, which still includes Poland, from at least one important Polish official, I don't see any lasting effects to this... except for a new missile plan that may be more flexible, and less Russian whining on the Issue (so net gain?).



CHENEY: Thank you all very much. It?s a pleasure to be here, and especially to receive the Keeper of the Flame Award in the company of so many good friends.

I?m told that among those you?ve recognized before me was my friend Don Rumsfeld. I don?t mind that a bit. It fits something of a pattern. In a career that includes being chief of staff, congressman, and secretary of defense, I haven?t had much that Don didn?t get first. But truth be told, any award once conferred on Donald Rumsfeld carries extra luster, and I am very proud to see my name added to such a distinguished list.

To Frank Gaffney and all the supporters of Center for Security Policy, I thank you for this honor. And I thank you for the great energy and high intelligence you bring to as vital a cause as there is ? the advance of freedom and the uncompromising defense of the United States.

Most anyone who is given responsibility in matters of national security quickly comes to appreciate the commitments and structures put in place by others who came before. You deploy a military force that was planned and funded by your predecessors. You inherit relationships with partners and obligations to allies that were first undertaken years and even generations earlier. With the authority you hold for a little while, you have great freedom of action. And whatever course you follow, the essential thing is always to keep commitments, and to leave no doubts about the credibility of your country?s word.

So among my other concerns about the drift of events under the present administration, I consider the abandonment of missile defense in Eastern Europe to be a strategic blunder and a breach of good faith.

It is certainly not a model of diplomacy when the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic are informed of such a decision at the last minute in midnight phone calls. It took a long time and lot of political courage in those countries to arrange for our interceptor system in Poland and the radar system in the Czech Republic. Our Polish and Czech friends are entitled to wonder how strategic plans and promises years in the making could be dissolved, just like that ? with apparently little, if any, consultation. Seventy years to the day after the Soviets invaded Poland, it was an odd way to mark the occasion.

You hardly have to go back to 1939 to understand why these countries desire ? and thought they had ? a close and trusting relationship with the United States. Only last year, the Russian Army moved into Georgia, under the orders of a man who regards the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. Anybody who has spent much time in that part of the world knows what Vladimir Putin is up to. And those who try placating him, by conceding ground and accommodating his wishes, will get nothing in return but more trouble.

What did the Obama Administration get from Russia for its abandonment of Poland and the Czech Republic, and for its famous ?Reset? button? Another deeply flawed election and continued Russian opposition to sanctioning Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
In the short of it, President Obama?s cancellation of America?s agreements with the Polish and Czech governments was a serious blow to the hopes and aspirations of millions of Europeans. For twenty years, these peoples have done nothing but strive to move closer to us, and to gain the opportunities and security that America offered. These are faithful friends and NATO allies, and they deserve better. The impact of making two NATO allies walk the plank won?t be felt only in Europe. Our friends throughout the world are watching and wondering whether America will abandon them as well.

Big events turn on the credibility of the United States ? doing what we said we would do, and always defending our fundamental security interests. In that category belong the ongoing missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the need to counter the nuclear ambitions of the current regime in Iran.

Candidate Obama declared last year that he would be willing to sit

 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/24/2009 2:15:19 AM

Why was the request for more troops in Afghanistan only 40,000 when there is a clear need for more? And you guys want to go pissing in Russia's backyard? OMFG...










-DA 
I'm not sure where you're going with that, DA, but you're right--40,000 isn't enough.  Obviously, the solution is to pull out and let the Russians hunt down AQ and the Taliban, because they did such a great job the last time.
I mean, it's their backyard, right? Let's let them clean it up.
 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       10/24/2009 7:40:50 AM
OK so you wanna, put more than 40000 additional troops in Afghanistan.
 
How do you reliably get all the tonnage of goods to those troops, without using territory, where Russia can block your flow of supplies with a single unwilling customs official? It's that easy for Russia to seriously screw you over.
 
And you can forget selling a conflict with Russia over this to the general US public. They won't buy.
 
Also additional troops may not be the correct/best strategy for Afghanistan.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       10/24/2009 1:18:39 PM

OK so you wanna, put more than 40000 additional troops in Afghanistan.

How do you reliably get all the tonnage of goods to those troops, without using territory, where Russia can block your flow of supplies with a single unwilling customs official? It's that easy for Russia to seriously screw you over.

And you can forget selling a conflict with Russia over this to the general US public. They won't buy.

Also additional troops may not be the correct/best strategy for Afghanistan.


 

 
Why this is so difficult to understand for some is beyond me. Even for those who haven't travelled those logistics hubs, it should be EASY to see this. Afghanistan is landlocked and the three ways into it are through Pakistan, Iran or former Soviet States. Even the air routes which CAN NEVER make up for ground transportation. There is a theme with all three routes. They are highly unstable if not outright unavailable and vulnerable to local politics and/or interdiction. We cannot just simply wave the US flag and cram men and machines in there. What's there MUST BE SUSTAINED. 

a. Pakistan 

In addition to not having the logistical bandwidth, vulnerable to Taliban and too much US involvement with securing routes will destabilize the Pakistani Gov and expand the war.

b. Iran

No longer an option for obvious reasons.

c. Former Soviet States

All beholded to Russia or if not at least vulnerable to Russia.


The situation isn't unwinnable but it's certainly one that requires involvement with and consideration of RUSSIAN interest. This logistical situation is the real reason why the Generals are losing faith in the chances of success. Like me, they can see the true necessity for more force but also realize that logistically and politically such a force is not sustainable for very long. There isn't a single piece of terrain in Afghanistan the coalition can seize and control AT WILL. But staying there for any duration is the problem. This is almost a classic COIN scenario.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       10/24/2009 1:44:54 PM
What worries me is that even if you get all the supplies you want into Afghanistan, you hit the problem of distributing the supplies to all the remote inaccesible parts of Afghanistan itself.
 
The extra troops may end up being tied to supply depots at the end of the roads and railroads into Afghanistan, while the enemy is operating in the remote and poorly connected parts of that country.
 
Getting the extra troops to that remote and poorly connected region requires you put supply caches there in advance. Aside from the problem of preventing these caches from falling into enemy hands, your enemy can "predict" where your next operations are gonna be from where the supplies are being moved to.
 
That's the reason why I am not sure about adding more troops. This may create as much problems as it solves.
 
And then there is the extra problem of adding all kinds of pet causes to the strategy in Afghanistan. Like the war on drugs *1) for instnace, which rules out using the drugs criminals against the Taliban in an enemy of my enemy kind of move.
 
*1) If you let some people they would add everything up to and including having the Afghans accept gay marriage to the list. Making sure a terror attack never again originates from Afghanistan is a very different problem from having the Afghans accept secularism, freedom of religion, women's rights, etc....
 
 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

FJV    PS   10/24/2009 1:50:55 PM
The reason why I'm annoyed is that I would hate a situation where our soldiers would have to count each bullet they fire because of supply problems.
 
Not only, because our Dutch soldiers are there, but also because I do not wanna see the soldiers of our long time ally *1) in that situation.

*1) Regardless of the stupid sneers in the direction of Europe.
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       10/24/2009 3:44:36 PM
The problem is Russia has no problems, no worries...at least none that we can affect, it seems.  Other than arming the Chechens, which would only go so far, there is no counter-pressure we can exert.  We could sink their ships, splash their Bear patrols, but to what effect?  They have plenty more.  Blow up some central refinery or other schwerpunkt infrastructure piece a la Red Storm Rising?  Not sure how that helps either.  And this is all assuming we can do it without discovery, retaliation or WWIII.
 
What can we do that the Russians wouldn't like?  Oh, radar y rockety in Eastern Europe...well no, Obama gave that up for nothing.  What else?  Big Balkan bases, move into Georgia?
 
Absent the answer to that question...they get free hits.  We can't appeal to their virtue, they have no virtue.  We can't really deal, we're evidently not smart enough for that.  Why shouldn't they screw us at every turn?
 
The only angle I can see is that in 20, 50, 100 years their demographics will turn Russia into the plaything of its neighbors.  Of course then they get looted and China or OBL or somebody gets to play with their toys.  Can't think what to offer them on that end either - deport all our criminal scum to help 'em colonize Siberia?  Axlotl tanks to help 'em breed?

Russia is dead.  No, but they are moribund, and seem happy to infect the living while they can.
 
 
It's a big problem.  And while I favor booting them in the teeth at any opportunity on GP...I don't see much more opportunity.  They've withdrawn into their shell - no extremities to pinch, twist, or sever.  What is to be done, indeed? 
 
We need to identify and exploit Russian weaknesses.  Ideas?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Nichevo   10/24/2009 3:55:10 PM


We need to identify and exploit Russian weaknesses.  Ideas?

That's exactly what we are doing with START, Poland, Ukraine, Georgia and it's happening under most people's nose because they don't understand warfare as it relates to geography, the IPB process or Russia's inherent strategic weakness. When you see Biden in Eastern Europe or SecDef Gates discussing BMD integration that frightens the Russians to death.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Nichevo   10/24/2009 4:02:31 PM


Look at the terrain. Notice the mountains to the South of Poland from the point of view of supply lines and mechanized forces. Heck as an economic corridor into Europe/Russia. Look at Poland proximity to Moscow and notice how AFTER you leave Poland East or West the terrain opens up again. Don't forget Ukraine either! Notice where "Russia" really is...

 




Does it make more sense yet?


 
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    Um, yeah, no...   10/24/2009 6:24:44 PM
Yes, from the stand-up fight POV, this is all correct.  If the West ever really intended to invade and conquer Russia, this would be proper prep. 
 
But that's not what I mean, Darth. Does the West want to invade Russia?  (Do I have to answer that?  The best things coming out of Russia are vodka, oil and hot, non-liberated white women.  And they're being exported to us, we don't need to go in and get them.)  What I want is a series of sticks and carrots which can be applied in order to get Russia to do things and not to do other things - i.e., the West giveth, and the West taketh away.
 
Right now it's all about what Russia can do for us.  Help with Iran, or at least stop propping them up.  Lay off the neighbors.  Keep pumping oil.  Honor intellectual property.  Give us passage through the Stans.  Stop mugging the gas consumers of Europe every winter.  Maybe even stop knocking off dissidents and such.  
 
In general, invasion or the threat of invasion is not a suitable influencer for horse-trading among peers, and multibillion-dollar bases and alliance commitments are not wonderfully flexible and expendable bargaining chips.  There is nothing that is easy to turn on or off, up or down.  Nothing that is cheap for us and dear to them.  No sizzle that can be sold without the steak.
 
Do you see what I'm getting at?  I don't want to kill them.  I want to f--k them.  So what are the nylons, chocolates, cartons of Luckies to use?  Any ape can bash their teeth in or bayonet them, I want them to give it up willingly, offer to try new things.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy