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
sentinel28a       10/27/2009 4:34:19 AM
I was going to correct Joe in his comment about the USSR having more nukes than the US during Carter's administration (they had more missiles, we had more warheads), but after reading DA's assertion that he just can't stand being amongst the peasantry, better known as "anyone who disagrees with DA," I want Joe to post early and post often.
 
The sad part is that DA can make a good argument, when he's not busy looking down his nose at everyone else because they obviously aren't the logistical and strategic genius he is.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       10/27/2009 12:33:40 PM
sentinel28, although I have issues with some of DA's positions, I have no use for you bashing him right now.  He understands the problem at hand.  Do you?  I yield to no one in my distaste for the Russian bear but unless you want to destroy them out of hand, which IS problematic even if we could pull it off with zero US casualties, we need other means of exchange than highly machined plutonium to affect their behavior. 
 
And it can't all be sticks and no carrots either.  I'd love you to pile on Darth, but with substance, with lists of things we can offer to give them and things we can offer to take away.  Use your imaginations. 
 
Give the ex-Combloc states a well-regulated handful of Moscow/St-Pete-ranged nukes each?  Bioterrorism, kill their crops, give 'em superflu?  Whack Putin, or some set of generals or scientists or pols?  Step up ferret runs, start sending over regular SR-71 (or Aurora, etc.; or Mathias Rust) flights again?  Arm the Chechens or anybody else with a grudge over there?  False flag ops implicating Iran or China in something nasty?  Put the 1st AD in Georgia?  Sneak an SSN or SSGN into the Black Sea?  Go back to the Poland/Czech ABM system per Bush? (forget the rockets, that would be some nice radar coverage of all the important Russian airspace!)  Promote drug smuggling?  Counterfeit the ruble?  Push to give the Sakhalins (Kuriles) back to Japan?  Lean on the Kaliningrad enclave?  Invent some source of energy to collapse the price of oil and gas?  Screw up Nord Stream or South Stream?  Pictures/videos of Putin or Medvedev or Zhirinovsky or whoever, in bed with a dead girl or a live boy??

And that's all sticks (mostly insane sticks too).  What carrots?  What can we give them that they'd like?  (Hint:  money doesn't work.  There is no reason to give them another cent for anything ever.)  What, sell out Eastern Europe?  (Never mind that it would be evil:  like Daffy Duck blowing himself up on stage to top Bugs Bunny, that trick only works once.)  Say nice things about their eyes and souls?  (Bush got so shat on for that, but in fact I think it paid off out of proportion to the cost.  However, things like reset/overcharge buttons and crapping on your predecessors are NOT the way.)
 
So yeah, DA is soft on Obama - wonder if he was that soft on Carter - but at least he is dealing with this problem.  As I told my liberal friend Mike after 9/11 when he was all woulda-coulda-shoulda - Be Here Now.  How do we INCENTIVIZE Russia to do what we want?  The only thing that would really work that I can see would be to eliminate their nuclear deterrent and then threaten them with destruction unless they obey.  And that's assuming some big-a$$ can-openers, turkeys and cat-bells! (i.e., it would be non-trivial to eliminate their nuclear deterrent)
 
Darth has been brave.  Asked a question, he's answered, "I don't know/there is no answer."  Even if he's wrong, he's not hemming and hawing.  I can't stand a fellow who doesn't know the answer, but will go to his death trying to keep anyone from finding out.  (Mike, God rest his soul, was often that way and I had to constantly remediate him )
 
So has anyone got any ideas?  (Hint:  "Darth is a fool/toady/traitor" is not an idea.)  How do we bell the Russian cat?
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Nichevo   10/27/2009 12:50:30 PM
Thanks for the kind words and the patience to listen even on things we do not agree on. I do wish to state an opinion on what I believe the Russians do want. What Russia wants is INFLUENCE if not outright direct control of many of the FSU states along their periphery. They want the United States to recognize that influence in much the same way as the rest of the world recognizes US dominance of the Western Hemisphere. Over the long term, the Russians want a multipolar world that does not have the United States as the supreme power through which all things are directly or indirectly influenced. These are the Russian concerns. Anyone paying attention to the White House for the last 20 years REGARDLESS of who the POTUS is or what party he is from knows that this is directly opposed to US foreign policy for better or worse. More in a bit...MEETINGS aaaargh....

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @Nichevo   10/27/2009 1:38:56 PM
The correct strategy. I cannot tell you, nor can anyone tell you, what the correct strategy is because the situation is a dynamic one. As Sun Tzu says: Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions. What I can say is what it will achieve and some decisions we will have to make. The correct strategy for the current situation should give us the following:

1. A stable allied or at least non-hostile Iraq that will counter balance Iran

2. An Iran with NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS

3. Afghanistan that does not harbor AQ or any other hostile nonstate actor capable of mass casualty attacks on         CONUS

4. A stable Pakistan

5. All of the above in a timeframe that will free up enough US ground forces fast enough to make decisive             strategic deployments that will check and eventually box in Russia FOREVER. 

 Alternatives would be:

1. Accept a Russian sphere of influence in East-Central Europe in exchange for no Iranian Nukes 

2. Withdrawal from Afghanistan to reinforce Europe and war with Iran

 
These are the tough choices upon us now. The theme is that at some point we will HAVE TO make some compromises at some point because we aren't in a position to take by force what we want. To force used prematurely will not help here. If we over commit to the ME, we suffer in Europe. If we push too hard on the Russians in the FSU, we will have another war in the ME and possibly lose Afghanistan because the Russians have a say so on what happens.

I don't hesitate to suggest war when it's necessary and has achievable objectives. But I also believe it should be a method of last resort and only used in that case. It's not an issue of morality but rather a logistics and practicality concern. We have all be witness to the Russians politically and militarily taking advantage of our decision to fully commit our ground forces to the GWOT. I think it would be prudent not to repeat that if we don't have to. If we do, others WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE of it as the Russians did. 

-DA 


 
 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/27/2009 2:10:16 PM
Nichevo, you misunderstand me.  I agree with what you said: we have nothing to offer Russia, and they have no incentive to cooperate with sanctions on Iran.  Given Russia's rickety economic situation, they need the money the Iranians shell out.  I've heard talk that one reason Putin is letting this spin out is because it's driving gas prices higher, which would help the Russian economy immensely.  Sure, I can criticize him for that, but hey, at least I can see where he's coming from.  Bad economic times breed bad political times, and in Russia that can result in the imminent cessation of life functions of Russian leaders.
 
Where I pile on DA, and will continue to do so, is that he utterly refuses to see anyone else's point of view.  He's right, everyone else is wrong; only he can see, and the rest of the world wears bifocals.  Obama is his guy, and he absolutely refuses to acknowledge when the man screws up.  If Obama went on national TV tomorrow and said "Yeah, I blew it, I never should've given up those ABMs in Poland," and I or other posters came on here and said "Ha, we knew it, we knew he screwed up," DA would be on here seconds later, sneering that Obama knew what he was doing all along, and it wasn't really a screwup, Obama was suckering Putin into a false sense of security, he was feeling Putin out, etc.
 
My problem with Russia is that their leaders just can't seem to grow up and realize the world has changed and is changing around them.  I have no problem with them thinking of themselves as a world power--they are.  What aggravates me is that when world leaders, from Truman to Obama, bend over backwards to reassure them that the rest of the known world is not trying to actively invade them, they don't believe it. 
 
We let the Russians know that we're putting ABMs to defend Europe from an Iranian missile strike--one which Russia is making more likely--and all of a sudden it's 1812 or 1941 again.  DA puts a map of Europe's geography up and points out how great the North German Plain is as an invasion route, but doesn't explain how NATO could possibly invade Russia, and if it did, conquer the largest country on earth that has a solid nuclear deterrent.  Russia itself can't explain how that would be possible--mainly because it isn't.  Instead, we have to play nice with Russia and constantly reassure them that the German boogeyman isn't coming after them, or the American one isn't either.
 
Russia wants a multipolar world.  But it is a multipolar world!  Could the US nuke Russia?  Of course it could, but they'd retaliate and destroy us too.  Same with China.  For that matter, we haven't exactly turned Pyongyang into a radioactive crater or invaded Iran, have we?  We're capable of doing both.  But we don't feel like losing Seoul in the process, or putting the US into another ten-year war.  There is a balance of power here, but yet again, it's not enough for Russia.  Their version of a multipolar world seems to be one where Russia gets to do what it wants, but the US can't.  We out here in Stupid Land call that "double standards."
 
DA asks to judge according to capability, not intent.  Okay--NATO is incapable of invading Russia, or stopping a massive Russian nuclear strike, assuming Putin goes off his rocker.  So why are we having to pull the interceptors again?
 
There's another explanation here too.  Eastern Europe has been Russia's bitch for the past few centuries.  They're sick of it.  Poland has been torn apart by Russia and Germany for just about forever, and they're sick of it.  The Czechs remember 1968, the Hungarians remember 1956.  Russia's holy need to be the Balkans' protector was one of the reasons why World War I started; Czar Nicholas should have told Serbia to shove it and let them take their lumps for assassinating one of Austria's ruling family.  Russia making the unilateral decision to be the Balkans' defender made sense when the Ottomans were overrunning the place and converting the locals by the sword, but now they can't seem to grasp the fact that the Balkans may not want Russia to defend them anymore--especially since there's no threats to defend against.  The biggest threat to Europe right now is radical Islam, and the Russians are aiding and abetting one of that ideology's biggest supporters.
 
Why do you think the countries of Eastern Europe joined NATO?  Because the Germans are great to party with?  No, because they fear a Russian invasion.  But apparently "smart power" is to let Eastern Europe hang while we make nice with a Russia
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       10/27/2009 3:04:12 PM


1. Accept a Russian sphere of influence in East-Central Europe in exchange for no Iranian Nukes 

2. Withdrawal from Afghanistan to reinforce Europe and war with Iran


-DA
 

First on Sun Tsu. The quote you mentioned is about military strategy and tactics, not quite on the national strategy or "Grand Strategy" level.
 
1. There is no boundary to Russian demand. When they get what they are asking, they'd like to expand their influence and mess around in order to get some more. You give them an inch, they'll ask a foot. Like what I've posted in the other thread, it's bloody national interests. When they ask too much, they should be dismissed and ignored. We'll see how they put out a tantrum for that. After all, it is Moscow which is within the range of Iranian missile, not Washington DC.
 
2. Europe does not need reinforcement. The threat to Europe is domestic one, not from Moscow. Although I do like the idea to withdraw from Afghanistan, start with Afghanization by Pakitanization of Kabul, war with Iran is not an option, yet.
 
Expanding NATO further to the east makes little sense. Yuchenko is a fail. Ukraine will elect a pro-Russia president in January. However, Russia must be made clear that Georgia proper (i.e. Georgia without South Ossetia and Abkhazia) strikes to the core of European interests. Nonetheless, I think Obama should make Merkel understand that it's her business, not yet another liability to the US. After all, we don't consume natural gas passing through Republic of Georgia in Chicago.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @sentinel   10/27/2009 4:05:11 PM

Nichevo, you misunderstand me.  I agree with what you said: we have nothing to offer Russia, and they have no incentive to cooperate with sanctions on Iran.  Given Russia's rickety economic situation, they need the money the Iranians shell out.  I've heard talk that one reason Putin is letting this spin out is because it's driving gas prices higher, which would help the Russian economy immensely.  Sure, I can criticize him for that, but hey, at least I can see where he's coming from.  Bad economic times breed bad political times, and in Russia that can result in the imminent cessation of life functions of Russian leaders.


This isn't true. I mentioned what we can offer Russia. Also, it isn't an issue of economics for Russia. It's security. Russia by virtue of their form of government does not need a healthy economy to either survive or be a threat outside their borders.

 

Where I pile on DA, and will continue to do so, is that he utterly refuses to see anyone else's point of view.  He's right, everyone else is wrong; only he can see, and the rest of the world wears bifocals.  Obama is his guy, and he absolutely refuses to acknowledge when the man screws up.  If Obama went on national TV tomorrow and said "Yeah, I blew it, I never should've given up those ABMs in Poland," and I or other posters came on here and said "Ha, we knew it, we knew he screwed up," DA would be on here seconds later, sneering that Obama knew what he was doing all along, and it wasn't really a screwup, Obama was suckering Putin into a false sense of security, he was feeling Putin out, etc.

 Another error. I see and REJECT your point of view on the basis of fact. I make these judgements as a matter of profession and after years of experience. It's not a hobby or casual interest for me. Moreover, it has nothing to do with who the POTUS is. I've stated over and over that Bush=Obama on FP and VERY LITTLE HAS CHANGED other than rhetoric. I do not buy into partisanship or personality cults. Nor will I support Obama if I disagree with a decision he has made. The threads going back 5 years show this.

My problem with Russia is that their leaders just can't seem to grow up and realize the world has changed and is changing around them.  I have no problem with them thinking of themselves as a world power--they are.  What aggravates me is that when world leaders, from Truman to Obama, bend over backwards to reassure them that the rest of the known world is not trying to actively invade them, they don't believe it. 


Bend over backwards? LOL you're kidding right? Have you read VP Bidens statements on Russia? Or noticed INCREASED US-Polish military cooperation?  

We let the Russians know that we're putting ABMs to defend Europe from an Iranian missile strike--one which Russia is making more likely--and all of a sudden it's 1812 or 1941 again.  DA puts a map of Europe's geography up and points out how great the North German Plain is as an invasion route, but doesn't explain how NATO could possibly invade Russia, and if it did, conquer the largest country on earth that has a solid nuclear deterrent.  Russia itself can't explain how that would be possible--mainly because it isn't.  Instead, we have to play nice with Russia and constantly reassure them that the German boogeyman isn't coming after them, or the American one isn't either.

 I did explain it. I showed you the geography and explained to you that US military units in Poland could rapidly expand numbers if intentions changed. I explained how being that close to Moscow puts the VAST MAJORITY of Russian strategic targets in unrefueled range of our combat vehicles. I explained than German and US industrial capacity far exceeds Russia's capability in terms of production capacity and technology. Nuclear deterrents are also not all the same and can be decapitated and made less effective. Russian nuclear capabilities are not what they once were in terms of early warning, response time or reliability and that includes the C2 nodes. It's not the would, its the could.

Russia wants a multipolar world.  But it is a multipolar world!  Could the US nuke Russia?  Of course it could, but they'd retaliate and destroy us too.  Same with China.&
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    In case there is still any confusion...   10/27/2009 4:26:16 PM

The White House

Office of the Vice President

For Immediate Release
October 22, 2009

Remarks By Vice President Biden On America Central Europe And A Partnership for the 21st Century

Central University Library, Bucharest, Romania

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN:  Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.  Director, Mr. Mayor, former Presidents who I've had the honor to meet in the past, it's good to be back in Romania.  And, Mr. Mayor, as we say in America, thank you for the passport to come into your city.  I appreciate it very much.

What a magnificent forum, what a magnificent forum.  And I say to all the students, thank you.  I'm honored that you are here.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's an honor to be back in Romania.  This is not my first trip, nor God-willing, will it be my last.  And it's great to be back in Central Europe to help mark an extraordinary season of change.  Twenty years ago, the world watched in awe and admiration as the men and women throughout this region broke the shackles of oppression and emerged a free people.

It's literally hard to imagine that this beautiful library was the scene of such heavy fighting in 1989.  I was reviewing pictures of what it looked like with tanks stationed outside.  Ladies and gentlemen, when the firing stopped and the smoke cleared, the façade of this building was scarred by shells and bullets.  Five hundred thousand books were burned, part of your history and your legacy.  And just blocks away, in University Square, some of freedom?s young defenders were struck down.  But their courage and conviction prevailed, and I hope and know set an example to all of you who followed.

Quote    Reply


DarthAmerica    In case there is still any confusion...   10/27/2009 4:45:00 PM
"You can help guide Moldova, Georgia, Ukraine along the path of lasting stability and prosperity.  It's your time to lead.  Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus can benefit from your personal experiences.  The E.U. Eastern Partnership Initiative is a good example of how you can energize the effort.  And we will partner with you in working to fulfill the promise of 1989.  But your leadership needs to be bold and your voices loud. " - VP Biden


VP Biden made these statements  in Romania BTW. A country we use as a transit route for the DoD and a country that in 1989...


 


Look at the geography of the countries VP Biden mentioned directly by name...

 
(NOTICE THE MUCH GREATER AREA RUSSIA MUST DEFEND IF UKRAINE JOINS NATO)

Also, regarding missile defense, GBI's could not do much to protect Europe from Russian missiles and cannot shoot Russian aircraft. These can...

 


 
 

 
If the Obama admin is interested in "appeasing" Russia. They are doing a horrible job of it!

 



-DA 
 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       10/27/2009 4:53:04 PM
All I see is the politicians wanting to play empire in Eastern Europe. All for the loftiest goals of course.
Seems nobody wants to actually heed warnings about foreign entanglements.
It will get the US involved in the same sort of global strategic juggling act that ended the British number one position.
 
 
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