Reply With Quote
If it will help them sell more turbines, then absolutely.
[quote=symple19;3695057]Not surprising to see that the hard lefty's in here know nothing of geopolitics.
What most of you fail to understand is that there is a constant pissing contest going on in this particular region between us and the Russians. The missile defense system had nothing to do with deterring Russian ICBMs, and everything to do with showing our new NATO friends that we have a long standing interest in helping to defend them. Symbology, if you will. These two countries, in their various forms over time, were getting invaded by the Russians before the first settler ever stepped on American soil. And like I said, They have a long memory. Russia continues to attempt to exert influence over this area, an area that history has proven time and again to be one of the first to suc b to the horrors of war between the West and the East. If you think Putin and his new Oligarchy have no ambitions, whether economic or militarily, you are sadly mistaken. The only reason the Russians have calmed down of late is because their oil-dependent economy has collapsed in the on-going worldwide recession. The EU is, and will continue to be powerless to be a hedge against the Russians because they are so dependent on them for their oil. Thus, it falls to us to do this job.
The last few times we acted in an isolationist manner a couple wars broke out you guys may have heard of. WW1 and WW2.[/quote]
Yeah, I guess its you who knows a lot about geopolitics. Tons.
If it will help them sell more turbines, then absolutely.
The fact that they are in NATO in the first place shows them that.
The quote on isolationism was a general response to all of the people in here saying ridiculous things like, " em, who cares" "we should just worry about ourselves" etc.
As for being in NATO, do you think the Brits or Germans or whomever are spending any money or overtly showing any tangible military commitment inside those countries? I highly doubt it. Most NATO forces other than ours are pitifully small and under-funded when compared to the Russian military. The Russians currently have over a million active troops that can be brought up to 4+ million in a matter of a few months. That dwarfs what all of European NATO can muster combined. Add in the amount of Tanks/Navy/Airpower and it's even more overwhelming. So yes, it is up to us to flex our muscles in that area.
Next, do you think the Russians were really worried about their security because of a purely defensive missile system? Why would they so vehemently oppose our efforts there? Because if they can wrest this concession from us than they can use it as diplomatic ammunition against Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltics, and many of the "Stan" countries where we are trying to gain influence and business opportunities. It makes the US appear weak. Laugh about that if you will, but so much of diplomacy is all about appearances. This is why backing out of this deal is so bad. None of this was ever really about military matters, but more about influence beyond Czech and Poland. Influence leads to business opportunities, or better bases to re-supply Afghanistan, or airspace rights. It could mean a favorable vote in the UN, or the turning over of an international fugitive. It could mean the lowering of Tariffs on US products, and on and on. The same goes for the Russians. They won this round. Hopefully they won't win the next.
Purely defensive missile system huh? I can't believe you say like this after you scolded the rest of the forum for not knowing about geopolitics. A purely defensive system can have serious implications on the concept of MAD which would have serious geopolitical consequences, don't you think?
And the Russian military has always had superior numubers. They've had a philosophy where they take cheap equipment but more of it. And they've never been as good as feared. You need look no further back than the Georgian invasion to take stock of that. They didn't fare so well against a minor state because they're not very ing good. So please spare me the fear mongering about a giant red invasion coming across eastern Europe because its not 1954, Mr. Geopolitics.
You want to know what makes the US look weak? Projecting our power further than we can and then having the rest of the world realize it. The fact that we're so bogged down in 2 Asian countries right now and that our military can't respond anywhere else is what makes us seem week. Acting as though we give a about Georgia and then being a when it comes to any action makes us seem weak. The point isn't to pick more fights to prove yourself, the point is to STOP PICKING ING FIGHTS.
Its funny though, because your language reminds me a lot of imperialism. Ah yes, our polish and czech colonies will lead to some great new markets. Lets go put military hardware everywhere so McDonalds and McDonald Douglas can both be happy.
As long as this gives us some kind of advantage in the Afghan war, I'm for it. Seems like a pretty solid chip to give up for nothing, though. I don't very much like the timing, on the anniversy of invasion.
Fact is, the people of those nations did not want this, and the people will see Obama in an even better light after this.
Whoever mentioned cutting the deficit by reducing our obligations abroad is spot on. I'm tired of the US trying to profit off of a world that was ed up by the UK and France, tired of them trying to hold still a world that will always be fluid and ever-changing, and tired of them doing it all on the back of US taxpayers. I'd rather the US have a tax rebate for s getting married than making sure precious Israel has cheap access to bad ass military equipment.
BTW, it would be impossible for any great power in the world today to truly be isolationist in the sense that most use it, ie pre WW2.
russia pushes its way back into ukraine
stratfor
russian president dmitri medvedev blasted his ukrainian counterpart, viktor yushchenko, on tuesday, blaming him for creating the worst strain in russo-ukrainian relations since the fall of the soviet union. In a video message posted to his widely read blog and distributed by the kremlin, medvedev emphasized just how bad relations have become.
That relations between moscow and kiev are frayed is not news to anyone. The disconnect started with the 2004 orange revolution, which brought yushchenko to power, and has continued with his government's efforts to join western alliances like nato and support for other former soviet states that hoped to break with moscow. Ukraine also has attempted to expel symbols of russian influence, such as its black sea fleet, from the country. The deteriorated relationship was emphasized in both 2006 and 2009 also, when russian energy supplies to ukraine were shut off - greatly impacting european customers downstream also.
But medvedev's message was very clear in blaming yushchenko - not ukraine as a whole - for the poor relations. Medvedev said t he was certain a new era would soon begin, referring to the shift in public sentiment over the past few years. Since the orange revolution, yushchenko's popularity has nearly disappeared. More russia-friendly political figures, like former prime minister viktor yanukovich, are currently leading in polls - while yushchenko's approval rating is barely in the single digits. With presidential elections just four months away, it seems likely that a pro-russian regime will soon retake the helm in kiev.
But while this would make moscow's goals in the region easier to achieve, it would simply be a shift in personalities. And russia is taking a much deeper and more thorough approach to ensuring ukraine remains a part of its sphere of influence.
ukraine has always been the most important country in russia's border regions for moscow to control. To put it plainly, without that control, russia cannot maintain strategic coherence and continue on its path of returning to great power status. Ukraine holds the key to russia's defense and survival. To begin, ukraine is home to the largest russian community outside of russia, is fully integrated into russia's industrial and agricultural heartland and is the key transit point between russia and europe. Given its location, russia cannot project power politically or militarily into the north caucasus, the black sea or eastern europe unless it controls ukraine. In short, russia would be economically crippled and nearly cut off from the rest of europe without ukraine.
This has made ukraine the top state for russia to keep in its orbit. But its importance has forced russia to take a more subtle approach than it did with georgia. Moscow is pursuing a long-term set of assimilation programs inside ukraine to ensure that the country is more firmly tied to russia's future. This was highlighted in medvedev's video statement, in which he said the ties between russia and ukraine were those of brothers and quoted gogol, saying, "there are no bonds more sacred than the bonds of brotherhood."
this does not mean moscow is trying to create a new soviet union with ukraine, but instead is trying to reintegrate ukraine, formally or informally, back into russia. Russia would not treat ukraine the way it does georgia - as a conquered state - or simply as part of a union, as it did during the soviet era, but instead as a province that is important to moscow and integrated into russia.
At a grassroots level, moscow has been spreading pro-russian ideology across ukraine - not just among the russian citizens there. This was seen in recent weeks with russian orthodox patriarch kirill i's ten-day visit to ukraine, promoting a common historical and spiritual heritage. Medvedev also has announced plans to open russian cultural centers across ukraine to "support their national culture."
this provides a strong foundation for the pro-russian forces that seem to be coming back into power in kiev. But by re-instilling the idea of a common ukrainian-russian culture, moscow ensures that no matter who comes to power, the people of the country for the most part will be faithful to russia. This is a much more permanent way to ensure that the cornerstone to russian foreign policy remains under moscow's control.
a stratfor intelligence report.
http://www.realclearworld.com/articl...ine_97043.html
"russia pushes its way back into ukraine"
Politically. I don't think it's possible to shoot down words with a missile defense system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...ean_militaries
If you exclude NATO member Turkey Europe musters together almost 1.8 mil active troops and additional 5.8 mil reserve. Quite respectable, but there is no common command or goal outside NATO and EU fast response units.
spursncowboys:
seriously?
That has little to do with the subject at hand.
Ukraine is the grain field of mother russia? really? had no idea.
Like i said, if it provides us support for the Afghan war, then good. Even if its under-the-table support that doesn't make press coverage.
Let's just rally up and kill some in ragheads already.
Fair enough. I was wrong. I'll bet the heavy equipment numbers are still in the Russians favor though. (Arty/tanks/aircraft).
You're absolutely right about the command structure of NATO. It's okay at the top but as you get down to smaller units it could get messy.
The Russians were very good at pre-positioning equipment during the Cold War...Wonder if that's sill the case. Should also take into account the sorry condition that most Russian equipment is rumored to be in.
Rumored? Its a known fact they didn't maintain . They're not a first class military by any means. Did you not see what happend to them in Georgia?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
