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
DarthAmerica       10/29/2009 12:58:48 PM

 You should. If you understand the logistics, technology, industrial capacity and the geography you will understand why Russia is terrified about this.
Russia is overly paranoid...no country is going to invade Russia as long as they have nukes...period...Putin knows this. Putin is playing on the russian national inferiority complex. As long as he fear mongers and sets himself up to be the next Joe Stalin and "saves" Russia from the West he is happy. 

Wrong. 9/11 along with wars against Israel have demonstrated over and over that no nation is secure from attack. Not even if they have nuclear weapons.


We should be inviting all the democratic countries near Russia to join NATO and /or the EU...Russia needs to be slapped down economically. 

VP Biden did that. Also, Russia's military strength is not a function of it's economy. Russia has never had a very strong economy nor does it need one to achieve it's goals.


We need an Administration with the cojones to tell the Russian that we don't give a crap about their "sphere of influence" ...their neighbors have to the right to invite whomever they want into their country and trade with whomever they want. If the Russian bitch and whine let them...they just need to realize that any military adventure against their neighbors will not be allowed by any means necessary...up to and including nukes. 

VP Biden did that. Read the post from me on the matter. CLICK HERE AND READ....


They should be forced thru economic means to be a good neighbor and that their centuries of being the schoolyard bully is over.

Ineffective. Show where the Soviet economy was ever as robust compared to ours. The same is true for Russia.
 

We need NOTHING from Russia...if they want to play Iran against us we should just ignore their crap and invite all their neighbors to join us and guarantee their safety from Russia.  We can be a much bigger Bully than Russia can...but it's better to get along but that is a two way street. 

Wrong and this indicates very little understanding of logistics and manpower.

 
Unfortunately this just won't happen....our Administration is spineless...not that any previous one had the gumption to do this either. I think the State Department is the main problem...If they resolved issues they would be out of work.

Again, the facts do not support any of the assertions made in this post from you. This admin and the admins before it have all been on the same page and said the things you suggest they didn't. Yet we still have a Russia problem. Can you see why yet?
-DA

 

 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/29/2009 1:46:27 PM
DA, I'll admit I see your point: we've got to bend over for Putin to keep the supply lines into Afghanistan going.  But the question still stands: when Bush was President, there was little to no controversy about supply lines.  Putin was largely quiet, with the exception of Ukraine--and he balled that up.  But now, with a lame-duck Bush and later Obama, we've got an invasion of Georgia, bases being closed to American use in the 'Stans, and Putin apparently holding the sword of Damocles over Obama's head: pull out of Poland, quit supporting Eastern Europe, and I'll allow the supplies to keep going into Afghanistan.  If Bush and Obama have essentially the same policy, then why is Russia getting nasty lately?
 
If our efforts in Afghanistan are entirely dependent on Putin's goodwill, then we need to figure out another strategy fast.  He's got us over a barrel, and he'll turn off the tap the minute we do something he doesn't like.  Are we going to allow the Baltic republics to die in exchange for maintaining our supply route to Afghanistan?  If we do, we might as well write off NATO, because no one is going to trust us again.
 
I will disagree that we should isolate Russia economically.  I think that would be counter-productive.  I think we should be engaging the Russian people economically, but make sure the Russian leadership knows we will not be intimidated.  In other words, basically the same attitude we had towards the USSR.  Sell the Russians all the grain they need, but make sure they know quite well that if they screw with Europe, they screw with us.  We should be following the route of Teddy Roosevelt, not Neville Chamberlain. 
 
What Russia needs is more democracy and capitalism, not less--and less is exactly what Putin and his cronies want.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/29/2009 1:49:56 PM
Or do you really believe the sitting VP is just making random inflammatory comments
 
Well, actually...yeah, I do.  Biden's not known for engaging brain before engaging his mouth.  He had to be schooled on the Constitution for the very position he was running for last year.  When a noob like Sarah Palin's outmaneuevering an old Beltway hand like Biden, something's not right.
 
Here I agree with Biden, though.  He reminds me of Clinton: I don't trust him as far as I could throw the White House, but for some inexplicable reason, I kind of like him.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       10/29/2009 2:48:55 PM

Or do you really believe the sitting VP is just making random inflammatory comments

 

Well, actually...yeah, I do.  Biden's not known for engaging brain before engaging his mouth.  
 

 
There is always a temptation to look at politics and politicians like a soap opera or reality TV show. Don't fall for it. Biden, or any other politician statements, are carefully crafted to deliver a message. It may not be one you agree with, but there is a message. In this case, you can be sure Biden didn't just go to Romania and make references to 1989 while directly threatening Russian interest with violence and promising publicly that the United States would support it without the approval of the President or the United States. If otherwise you would be seeing a resignation or 24 hour continuous damage control. IT'S THAT SERIOUS.

Also, politicians LOVE plausible deniability. Biden's reputation allow direct communication from the White House and at the same time allows the White House to change positions for the purposes of leverage in negotiations. For instance, if the Russians decide to cooperate, the White House can always just say that Biden was simply being dramatic and didn't really mean to incite violence "blah blah blah"... vs if it came from Clinton or the POTUS it would be something we would be locked into and any change after would be portrayed as weakness or flip flop. You are witnessing skilled diplomacy.


-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       10/29/2009 3:19:35 PM

DA, I'll admit I see your point: we've got to bend over for Putin to keep the supply lines into Afghanistan going.  But the question still stands: when Bush was President, there was little to no controversy about supply lines.  Putin was largely quiet, with the exception of Ukraine--and he balled that up.  But now, with a lame-duck Bush and later Obama, we've got an invasion of Georgia, bases being closed to American use in the 'Stans, and Putin apparently holding the sword of Damocles over Obama's head: pull out of Poland, quit supporting Eastern Europe, and I'll allow the supplies to keep going into Afghanistan.  If Bush and Obama have essentially the same policy, then why is Russia getting nasty lately?

Thats flat out wrong. You just weren't aware of it because at the time it didn't sell in the media the way Iraq did. Those of us involved knew it and discussed it including me. Russia is getting nasty because they had to wait until we were fully committed to act. They could not and would not do this is the DoD was not at war. 

If our efforts in Afghanistan are entirely dependent on Putin's goodwill, then we need to figure out another strategy fast.  He's got us over a barrel, and he'll turn off the tap the minute we do something he doesn't like.  Are we going to allow the Baltic republics to die in exchange for maintaining our supply route to Afghanistan?  If we do, we might as well write off NATO, because no one is going to trust us again.

This is why the POTUS is not blindly sending 40,000 more troops. That would INCREASE our dependence on other parties to support and decrease our ability to act elsewhere. I hate to say it, but Afghanistan does not represent as great a threat to US security as some other regions so long as we can keep AQ from staging there.

I will disagree that we should isolate Russia economically.  I think that would be counter-productive.  I think we should be engaging the Russian people economically, but make sure the Russian leadership knows we will not be intimidated.  In other words, basically the same attitude we had towards the USSR.  Sell the Russians all the grain they need, but make sure they know quite well that if they screw with Europe, they screw with us.  We should be following the route of Teddy Roosevelt, not Neville Chamberlain. 

What Russia needs is more democracy and capitalism, not less--and less is exactly what Putin and his cronies want.

Russia cannot exist under those systems. People need to understand that. It's overly idealistic to think that Democracy is good for all countries. I wish that were true but from experience I know it's not. Culture and geography have a lot to say about what kind of government people have.  A democracy would dissolve Russia the way it has dissolved Europe. The glue that binds Russia together is strong internal security and direct control.

-DA 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Wrong thinking Darth   10/29/2009 5:07:54 PM
 You should. If you understand the logistics, technology, industrial capacity and the geography you will understand why Russia is terrified about this.
Russia is overly paranoid...no country is going to invade Russia as long as they have nukes...period...Putin knows this. Putin is playing on the russian national inferiority complex. As long as he fear mongers and sets himself up to be the next Joe Stalin and "saves" Russia from the West he is happy. 

Wrong. 9/11 along with wars against Israel have demonstrated over and over that no nation is secure from attack. Not even if they have nuclear weapons.
I would argue that if that there is a difference between TERRORIST attacks and NATION STATE Attacks...Terrorist are not motivated by the threat of annihlation...they welcome the opportunity. Nation states are motivated by a sense of self preservation. The last attack on Israel by a NATION STATE was 1973 and I would argue that if the aggressors knew for certain that Israel had nukes and Israel publicaly stated they would nuke any attackers...that war might not have happened.
 


We should be inviting all the democratic countries near Russia to join NATO and /or the EU...Russia needs to be slapped down economically. 

VP Biden did that. Also, Russia's military strength is not a function of it's economy. Russia has never had a very strong economy nor does it need one to achieve it's goals.
Wrong!...You still need a functioning economy and a somewhat happy populace to even have a Military Industrial capability. Otherwise you have anarchy and dissent and the possiblity of a change in Gov't. The traditional Russian "work around" to this issue to to keep the populace somewhat satisfied and create a forign bogeyman to explain away why the people need to suffer for the "greater good"


We need an Administration with the cojones to tell the Russian that we don't give a crap about their "sphere of influence" ...their neighb
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       10/30/2009 1:53:28 PM
We have a Russian problem because no one want to confront Russia in any meaningful way....hand wringing, apologizing to the world for what the US has done, etc is just useless. Until the West and the US in particular basically says to Russia..."if you keep stirring up shit....we will purposely cause you ecomonic and political hardship in Russia itself"...the west has become too PC to say or do this and the Russians know it
 
Except that is is the West who has been stirring the shit. Unfortunately with the media the way it is everybody thinks that what the West is doing great. For instance the whole granting independence to Kosovo is a major excersize in stupidity and is sure to cause long term problems.
 
I'm sure that our Western Eurpean politicians love to play empire in Eastern Europe and are very willing to lie so they can do that. I also suspect US politicians to be very capable of doing that and being quite bipartisan about it.
 
I'm not sure if this is what the average American is waiting for. It takes a different America to play empire. I'm not sure everyone would appreciate the change.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    Re: FJV   10/30/2009 2:54:37 PM
Except that is is the West who has been stirring the shit. Unfortunately with the media the way it is everybody thinks that what the West is doing great. For instance the whole granting independence to Kosovo is a major excersize in stupidity and is sure to cause long term problems.
 
Please explain to me how the West "granted" independence to Kosovo?...Seems to me Kosovo declared their independence from those Serbian genocidal racist thugs and the West recognized this.  If Serbia has a problem with this maybe they should look at their record of treating ethnic minorities....Serbia has always been Russias bitch so its no wonder the Russians are "outraged" at Kosovo independence....in reality they could probably care less except for the precedence that it gives their former slaves to make a clean break with Russia.
If Kosovo voted to return to Serbia I doubt anyone in the west would oppose it. It just needs to be a decision they need to make.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/30/2009 3:19:25 PM
The Biden thing makes sense.  If Biden says something dumb, Obama can say, "Oh, well...you know Joe."  Hell, I'd believe that.  (To be fair, Obama wouldn't be the first or the last President to just shrug and say, "Well...my VP is kind of a dork sometimes...")
 
However, given that you brought up Clinton and smart diplomacy in the same sentence, how about the ridiculousness that came out of her mouth in Pakistan yesterday?  I expect her to yell "It's Bush's fault!" when she's at home in front of Democrat fundraisers, or the media, but it's not a good idea to be trashing the man abroad--for any politician, Democrat or Republican, because someone will rightfully point out that both sides have done it.  But accusing the Pakistani government of harboring AQ fugitives? 

?Al-Qaeda has had safe haven in Pakistan since 2002,? she said. ?I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn?t get them if they really wanted to.?

Clinton allowed, ?maybe that?s the case; maybe they?re not gettable. I don?t know.?
 
Wow, way to piss off people we need to find and kill AQ, Hillary, and then trying to weasel out of it.  The State Department is already trying to spin this, and I don't blame them.  I won't mention the unintentional hilarity of the "reset" button.  (Which brings up the interesting question: if Obama wants to "reset" relations with Russia, why is he continuing Bush's policy?)
 
As for Afghanistan, I find it rather interesting that you're now saying this, DA: but Afghanistan does not represent as great a threat to US security as some other regions so long as we can keep AQ from staging there.
 
How do you plan on doing that?  The Taliban and AQ are joined at the hip.  Either Obama sends the troops that McChrysta wants--who unlike you and I, DA, he's there--or he pulls us out of Afghanistan.  I agree: the logistics of supporting another 40,000 troops there will be difficult.  But if Obama's not willing to do what it takes to win in Afghanistan, we should leave; otherwise, he's just following in LBJ's footsteps of half-measures and war on the cheap.
 
Finally, your comments on the Russians not being ready for democracy is an insult to them.  Maybe the reason why they're not ready is because they've never been given a real chance to practice it.  You're writing them off, and that's not right.  I think they deserve better than that.  I wonder...do you think people were right in saying that freed slaves weren't ready for democracy and probably wouldn't be smart enough to figure it out for a few decades?
 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       10/30/2009 3:35:59 PM
Thats flat out wrong. You just weren't aware of it because at the time it didn't sell in the media the way Iraq did. Those of us involved knew it and discussed it including me.
 
Fair enough.  Prove it--that's a genuine offer.  I'm not too big a guy to admit when I'm wrong.
 
 
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