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       10/24/2009 10:27:53 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 

  Does it make more sense that Russia already knows our plans?
 
  Thanks alot for the geography lesson DA. How bout next time you use some nice grid maps?
 
  Am i wrong or was NATO's mission to contain Russia?
 
  It all really comes down to this in regard to Mother Russia:
 
 

Russia says military cooperation with Iran to continue

RIA Novosti...

19:01 22/10/2009 MOSCOW, October 22 (RIA Novosti) - Russia has no plans to stop military cooperation with Iran, a federal military cooperation body said on Thursday.

The statement comes amid media reports that Russia could cancel a contract to deliver S-300 surface-to-air missile systems to Tehran.

"Russia is resolved to continue military and technical cooperation with the Islamic Republic of Iran in strict compliance with existing laws and its international obligations," a spokesman for the Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation told RIA Novosti.

However, he refused to comment on "specific plans or obligations under existing contracts."

An unnamed defense industry official said on Wednesday that Russia would sustain significant losses if it decides to tear up the contract for S-300 systems.

Russian military analyst Konstantin Makiyenko previously said a decision not to go ahead with the contract would cost Russia about $1 billion in lost profits plus $300-400 million in fines and penalties.

The defense industry official stressed that the S-300 systems were defensive weapons.

Reports of possible deliveries of S-300 missiles to Iran have aroused concerns in the West and in Israel.

Iranian media, citing senior security officials, have reported that Russia has started delivering elements of the advanced version of the S-300 missile under a 2005 contract. However, Russian arms industry officials have invariably denied such reports.

The latest version of the S-300 family is the S-300PMU2 Favorit, which has a range of up to 195 kilometers (about 120 miles) and can intercept Quote    Reply


usajoe1    tigertony   10/24/2009 10:54:39 PM
Russias dream has come true, with Carter jr. becoming the president of the US. Remember when Carter sr. came into power in 1976, and gutted our military to the point where the Soviet Union for the first time since the start of the Cold War had more nukes than us, and was looked at around the world as the more powerful country. Remember how the Russians invaded A-stan, and how Iran made as look like weak fools in front of the world. Remember how America looked like the country that was going to loose the cold war. Well we are going down the same path, except this time I don't think we are going to get a Ronald Reagan to save us, and Russia is not the one that is going to come out the winner, but rather CHINA!
 
If this incompetent, arrogant, childish, inexperienced, socialist rookie gets his way, America is in for some real dark days ahead.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Nichevo   10/25/2009 12:01:57 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. 

You just ended the debate. Because the Russians cannot afford to gamble on "IF" we intend. As I mentioned before, intentions change. When we went on patrols in Iraq, it was never a question of "if" some Iraqi intended us hard. If they behaved in certain ways, we moved along with escalation of force until they changed that behavior or died. "IF" was taken out of the question. You make moves based on capability and not intentions.

I'll remind you again that Russia is traditionally invaded through Poland. I'll remind you that an American General has openly suggested invading them at one time. I'll also remind you that the CURRENT VP has said that Russia is on the decline. I'll remind you that NATO has continuously expanded and is now just outside of the combat radius of tactical fighters distance to moscow and also driving range of tanks. It's not that we will Invade. It's that we could if our intent changed.  
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.


All of the grey text above is made irrelevant by your first paragraph to Russian Military and Political Leaders..

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

tigertony    DA   10/25/2009 1:09:17 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. 



You just ended the debate. Because the Russians cannot afford to gamble on "IF" we intend. As I mentioned before, intentions change. When we went on patrols in Iraq, it was never a question of "if" some Iraqi intended us hard. If they behaved in certain ways, we moved along with escalation of force until they changed that behavior or died. "IF" was taken out of the question. You make moves based on capability and not intentions.




I'll remind you again that Russia is traditionally invaded through Poland. I'll remind you that an American General has openly suggested invading them at one time. I'll also remind you that the CURRENT VP has said that Russia is on the decline. I'll remind you that NATO has continuously expanded and is now just outside of the combat radius of tactical fighters distance to moscow and also driving range of tanks. It's not that we will Invade. It's that we could if our intent changed.  







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.











All of the grey text above is made irrelevant by your first paragraph to Russian Military and Political Leaders..




-DA 






All of the above in regards to Poland or Russia by you is completly irrelevant in the 21st century!
  Why? Because if the USA,NATO,India,or China invaded Russia they would be tactically nuked in miles of open terrain.
 
  That DA is the real strategic scenario they all would face.
 
  So i ask you again "Why should we give Russia anything at all?"
 
 
                                   
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       10/25/2009 3:23:01 PM
I posted, on this site, a link to Solzhenitsyn's Harvard speech once. In that speech, IIRC, Solzhenitsyn made a comment to the effect that the then USSR's experts laughed at our liberal intelligencia's doings.
 
I believe that Russia probably has the same people now looking over and laughing at Obama, Clinton, et al. I believe that Obama is a standing joke in the Kremlin. And I believe that that's largely due to Obama's Chicago ward healing, pandering style. Domestic political considerations drive foreign policy in the White House and that's why Obama is transparent to the Russians and that's why they will never take Obama seriously or respectfully. To them, he's just a small time hustler.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       10/25/2009 4:37:51 PM

I posted, on this site, a link to Solzhenitsyn's Harvard speech once. In that speech, IIRC, Solzhenitsyn made a comment to the effect that the then USSR's experts laughed at our liberal intelligencia's doings.

 

I believe that Russia probably has the same people now looking over and laughing at Obama, Clinton, et al. I believe that Obama is a standing joke in the Kremlin. And I believe that that's largely due to Obama's Chicago ward healing, pandering style. Domestic political considerations drive foreign policy in the White House and that's why Obama is transparent to the Russians and that's why they will never take Obama seriously or respectfully. To them, he's just a small time hustler.

If you believe this, which frankly is amazing, I challenge you to show where Obama or Clinton has done anything different with regard to U.S. foreign policy? You can't. Presidents all have their unique way of presentation, but the things that drive their decisions and policy are the same which is why nothing changes much on major issues.

I can't stress enough to some of you to get past the partisan made for TV nonsense.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    Oy   10/26/2009 12:56:53 AM




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. 



You just ended the debate. Because the Russians cannot afford to gamble on "IF" we intend. As I mentioned before, intentions change. When we went on patrols in Iraq, it was never a question of "if" some Iraqi intended us hard. If they behaved in certain ways, we moved along with escalation of force until they changed that behavior or died. "IF" was taken out of the question. You make moves based on capability and not intentions.




I'll remind you again that Russia is traditionally invaded through Poland. I'll remind you that an American General has openly suggested invading them at one time. I'll also remind you that the CURRENT VP has said that Russia is on the decline. I'll remind you that NATO has continuously expanded and is now just outside of the combat radius of tactical fighters distance to moscow and also driving range of tanks. It's not that we will Invade. It's that we could if our intent changed.  
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.









All of the grey text above is made irrelevant by your first paragraph to Russian Military and Political Leaders..




-DA 



Darth, do you understand what I was asking?  Can you answer it? 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    And if Darth can't,   10/26/2009 5:18:03 PM
can anyone else?  Suggest other leverage on the Russians?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Nichevo   10/26/2009 7:37:44 PM

can anyone else?  Suggest other leverage on the Russians?

Nichevo,

I'm afraid the only real leverage we have is to expand NATO eastward as close as we can to Russia proper without provoking violent counter moves or exported Russian subversive action such as arms sales to people we would rather not get access to Russian weapons. This is the only thing that can remove the threat of Russian conventional military power from periphery states. Short of that, they will always be a nuisance. Other alternatives are unacceptable for obvious reasons. In short Nichevo, we are in quite a bind with regard to Russia.

Of course, the warhawks would be pleased to know we retain the option of Naval blockade against Russia. But do we really want to go there right now? I don't think so...


-DA 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       10/27/2009 12:58:47 AM

can anyone else?  Suggest other leverage on the Russians?
Nichevo,

I'm afraid the only real leverage we have is to expand NATO eastward as close as we can to Russia proper without provoking violent counter moves or exported Russian subversive action such as arms sales to people we would rather not get access to Russian weapons. This is the only thing that can remove the threat of Russian conventional military power from periphery states. Short of that, they will always be a nuisance. Other alternatives are unacceptable for obvious reasons. In short Nichevo, we are in quite a bind with regard to Russia.

 
Of course, the warhawks would be pleased to know we retain the option of Naval blockade against Russia. But do we really want to go there right now? I don't think so...

-DA 

Oh please, how pathetic.  Blockade the Russian Navy?  Yes, that's what the strainer in my grandmother's tea set is for.  Russia is almost not a naval power.  Carriers, LOL.  Cut off Russian trade?  Yes, that's right, stop them sending us oil and blondes, that makes sense.   As I was saying earlier, what would it accomplish?
 
 
The problem with Russia is - I want to say, they don't want anything - not quite - they don't want anything they can reasonably have.  They want the moon, they want the world, they want spheres of influence.  They haven't got any influence.  There's nothing we can give them and nothing we can take away.  There is no threat from the West, they have nothing we want that badly.  The eventual threat comes from the direction of China or the Stans.  Frankly why destroy Russia when the neighbors would likely be more of a threat - even if Russia cannot join the Family of Nations they are more useful as the punching-bag in that space than any number of Western forces would be.
 
Yeah, it's a freaking mess.
 
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