on russia - Tilted Forum Project - TFP - Sexuality, Philosophy and Political Discussion

roachboy · 08-27-2008, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Russia: we are ready for a new cold war
Relations with the west plummet as Kremlin recognises breakaway states

Russia's relations with the west plunged to their most critical point in a generation yesterday when the Kremlin built on its military rout of Georgia by recognising the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states.

Declaring that if his decision meant a new cold war, then so be it, President Dmitri Medvedev signed a decree conferring Russian recognition on Georgia's two secessionist regions. The move flouted UN security council resolutions and dismissed western insistence during the crisis of the past three weeks on respecting Georgia's territorial integrity and international borders.

Last night, Medvedev accused Washington of shipping arms to Georgia under the guise of humanitarian aid.

The Kremlin's unilateral decision to redraw the map of the strategically vital region on the Black Sea surprised and alarmed the west, and raised the stakes in the Caucasus crisis. Moscow challenged Europe and the US to respond, while calculating that western divisions over policy towards Russia would dilute any damage.

Washington condemned the move. Britain called for a European coalition against Russian "aggression". Sweden said Russia had opted for a path of confrontation with the west, and international organisations denounced Medvedev's move as illegitimate and unacceptable.

"We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a new cold war," Medvedev said. "Russia is a state which has to ensure its interests along the whole length of its border. This is absolutely clear."

While Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, accused the US, a strong backer of President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, of gunboat diplomacy by using its airforce and naval vessels to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia, Medvedev last night went further.

He said Russian forces were not blockading Georgia's Black Sea port of Poti. "There is no blockade. Any ship can get in, American and others are bringing in humanitarian cargoes. And what the Americans call humanitarian cargoes - of course, they are bringing in weapons," he told the BBC.

Last night a source close to the US embassy in Tbilisi said US warships had abandoned a plan to deliver supplies to the port. The USS McFaul had been due to arrive in Poti tomorrow after unloading supplies in the Georgian port of Batumi.

The Nato secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, said: "Russia's actions in recent weeks call into question Russia's commitment to peace and stability in the Caucasus."

But Moscow oozed confidence that the western response would be mostly bark and little bite, restricted to sharp words and some tolerable diplomatic sanctions. "I don't think we should be afraid of isolation. I don't believe isolation is looming," said Lavrov. "This should not really be a doomsday scenario."

The Kremlin decision, prepared on Monday by the Russian parliament's unanimous vote in favour of independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia, is widely seen as presaging Russian annexation at least of South Ossetia, a poor, crime-ridden mountain region of only 70,000 people which has little prospect of becoming a viable state.

South Ossetia was the spark that ignited the crisis this month after Saakashvili launched a disastrous attempt to recapture the region and met a Russian invasion which crippled his country.

"Russia's actions are an attempt to militarily annex a sovereign nation ...in direct violation of international law," Saakashvili said last night. "The Russian Federation is seeking to validate the use of violence, direct military aggression, and ethnic cleansing to forcibly change the borders of a neighbouring state."

But senior Russian officials, from Medvedev down, launched a concerted attack on Saakashvili, accusing him of "genocide", of seeking to "exterminate" the people of South Ossetia, and of leaving Russia no alternative.

"This is not an easy choice to make, but it represents the only possibility to save human lives," said Medvedev. "Saakashvili opted for genocide to accomplish his political objectives. By doing so, he himself dashed all the hopes for the peaceful coexistence of Ossetians, Abkhazians and Georgians in a single state."

Lavrov said Russia's decision was "absolutely inevitable, short of losing our dignity as a nation".

Dmitri Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to Nato, likened the international climate to the summer of 1914 before the first world war, and compared the Georgian leader to Gavrilo Princip, the Balkan assassin who shot the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne in Sarajevo.

Russia's decision to recognise the two regions effectively killed off the ceasefire and peace plan negotiated a fortnight ago by France's President Nicolas Sarkozy on behalf of the European Union.

Exasperated by Russia's refusal to observe the terms of the truce, Sarkozy has already called an emergency EU summit for Monday in Brussels. The meeting was supposed to chart a common EU position on Russia, but is as likely to expose Europe's dilemmas and divisions over how to deal with an increasingly assertive Kremlin.

David Miliband, Britain's foreign secretary, said he wanted to forge "the widest possible coalition against Russian aggression in Georgia. We fully support Georgia's independence and territorial integrity, which cannot be changed by decree from Moscow."

But Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, while denouncing the Russian move as "absolutely unacceptable", said she wanted to keep dialogue running with Moscow.

Miliband is due to fly to Kiev today to express British support for the Ukrainian government, which fears it could be next in line for Russian pressure aimed at thwarting its efforts to join Nato.

Miliband is due to meet Ukraine's president, Viktor Yushchenko, and its prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, whose government is in a precarious position: seeking membership of Nato and the EU in the face of determined opposition from the country's Russian minority.

Under a lease agreement, Russia's Black Sea fleet is based on Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, increasing Russian sensitivity to Ukraine's westward trajectory and Ukrainian vulnerability to pressure from Moscow.

Miliband will make a speech today to a university audience in Kiev, in which he will laud Ukrainian democracy and warn Russia that its actions will cause long-term harm to its standing on the world stage.

Russia: we are ready for a new cold war | World news | The Guardian

while the collective attention was being directed to the olympics then the next sporting events in the political nomination rituals, things have continued to play out around georgia, south ossetia, abkhazia--and poland.

it seems pretty obvious that the signing of the "defense" deal with poland is a far more significant factor than is being acknowledged here in the land of mediated superficiality. this article from 15 august outlines the deal and russian objections to it:

Quote:

Russia Lashes Out on Missile Deal
By THOM SHANKER and NICHOLAS KULISH

WASHINGTON — The United States and Poland reached a long-stalled deal on Thursday to place an American missile defense base on Polish territory, in the strongest reaction so far to Russia’s military operation in Georgia.

Russia reacted angrily, saying that the move would worsen relations with the United States that have already been strained severely in the week since Russian troops entered separatist enclaves in Georgia, a close American ally. At a news conference on Friday, a senior Russian defense official, Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, suggested that Poland was making itself a target by agreeing to host the anti-missile system. Such an action “cannot go unpunished,” he said.

The deal reflected growing alarm in a range of countries that had been part of the Soviet sphere about a newly rich and powerful Russia’s intentions in its former cold war sphere of power. In fact, negotiations dragged on for 18 months — but were completed only as old memories and new fears surfaced in recent days.

Those fears were codified to some degree in what Polish and American officials characterized as unusual aspects of the final deal: that at least temporarily American soldiers would staff air defense sites in Poland oriented toward Russia, and that the United States would be obliged to defend Poland in case of an attack with greater speed than required under NATO, of which Poland is a member.

Polish officials said the agreement would strengthen the mutual commitment of the United States to defend Poland, and vice versa. “Poland and the Poles do not want to be in alliances in which assistance comes at some point later — it is no good when assistance comes to dead people,” the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, said on Polish television. “Poland wants to be in alliances where assistance comes in the very first hours of — knock on wood — any possible conflict.”

A sense of deepened suspicions — and the more darkly drawn lines between countries in the region — were also apparent in the emotional reaction from Russia.

“It is this kind of agreement, not the split between Russia and United States over the problem of South Ossetia, that may have a greater impact on the growth in tensions in Russian-American relations,” Konstantin Kosachyov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Russian Parliament, told the Interfax news agency on Thursday in Moscow.

South Ossetia is the pro-Russian enclave inside Georgia where Russia sent troops last week, following a military crackdown by the pro-Western government in Georgia.

The missile defense deal was announced by Polish officials and confirmed by the White House. Under it, Poland would host an American base with 10 interceptors designed to shoot down a limited number of ballistic missiles, in theory launched by a future adversary such as Iran. A tracking radar system would be based in the Czech Republic. The system is expected to be in place by 2012.

In exchange for providing the base, Poland would get what the two sides called “enhanced security cooperation,” notably a top-of-the-line Patriot air defense system that can shoot down shorter-range missiles or attacking fighters or bombers.

A senior Pentagon official described an unusual part of this quid pro quo: an American Patriot battery would be moved from Germany to Poland, where it would be operated by a crew of about 100 American military personnel members. The expenses would be shared by both nations. American troops would join the Polish military, at least temporarily, at the front lines — facing east toward Russia.

Russia has long opposed the deal, saying the United States was violating post-cold-war agreements not to base its troops in former Soviet bloc states and devising a Trojan Horse system designed to counter Russia’s nuclear arsenal, not an attack by Iran or another adversary.

Stop-and-start negotiations over the arrangement that was sealed Thursday had been under way for almost two years, with the Polish government reluctant to press the deal in the face of strong opposition — and retaliatory threats — from Moscow.

For its part, Washington had balked at some of Poland’s demands, in particular the sale of advanced air defense systems that were unrelated to shooting down ballistic missiles.

But in a sign of the widening repercussions of the conflict in Georgia, those concerns were cast aside, as the offensive by Russia’s military across its borders was viewed around the world as a sign of Moscow’s determination to reimpose its influence across the old Soviet bloc.

Polish officials, in announcing the agreement, said it would be presented to the National Legislature, although it remained unclear whether the American base would require a vote of approval.

The other half of the American missile defense system in Europe would be an advanced radar in the Czech Republic for tracking specific targets and then precisely guiding an interceptor to destroy a warhead. Likewise, that deal has been signed by the country’s leaders, and is awaiting debate in the Czech Parliament.

At the White House, the press secretary, Dana M. Perino, confirmed that senior officials had initialed the agreement. “In no way is the president’s plan for missile defense aimed at Russia,” she said. “In fact, it’s just not even logically possible for it to be aimed at Russia, given how Russia could overwhelm it. The purpose of missile defense is to protect our European allies from any rogue threats, such as a missile from Iran.”

The Bush administration, in an attempt to prove its sincerity and transparency, had invited Moscow to join as a partner in a continentwide missile defense system, sharing information and technology with NATO allies.

While Russian and American experts have discussed cooperation, senior officials in Moscow have kept up a nonstop stream of complaints about the system.

The agreement also poses potential political problems for Democratic critics of missile defense who would be fighting to cut financing for the program in the face of the specific request from Poland and in light of the Russian offensive into Georgia.

There is no such ambivalence on Russia’s periphery, where Moscow’s attack signaled danger, and offered logic for closer ties with Washington and NATO.

In Poland, the war in Georgia has dominated the front pages of newspapers, where it has been starkly characterized as Russian invaders attacking Georgia. For Poles, Russia’s actions also come as a vindication of Poland’s distrust of its former conqueror and was a warning about issues like energy security, one of the primary areas in which a resurgent Russia first began to exert itself.

“We are worried that we are facing, under the strong arm of Russia, a situation where some kind of understanding would be reached that Russia would be given a free hand in the region,” said Eugeniusz Smolar, director of the Center for International Relations, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research group in Warsaw.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/wo...3E&oref=slogin

so first off, as much as i dislike putin, i have to say that i do not blame his government for reacting as it has to the poland deal---i think the parallel might well be the attempt of the soviets to put missles in cuba in 1962....

beyond selling expensive missle systems to poland, however, i am at a loss as to what rationale there could possibly be for this agreement apart from setting something like this into motion with russia---not the situation in georgia---but rather the "we are ready for a new cold war"

typically, the bush people felt no particular need to address this question around the 20th--i saw a press conference in which a question "what do you think the implications of signing this deal now?" was greeted with "we were working on this before"....

what do you think is going on here?
what do you make of the russian reactions?
who is driving this devolution? (this not in a conspiracy theory sense, but rather --- how do you explain this and where is this heading?)

Sun Tzu · 08-27-2008, 08:18 AM

It seems like its difficult to speculate without sounding like conspiracy. It really seeems backwards to me. The Cuban missle crisis is a good analogy. The verbiage Rice keeps blurting out is concerning to me. Can we afford to be pushing like this?

Daval · 08-27-2008, 09:32 AM

I think the world is very quickly going to hell again. Putin and his puppet president is making bolder and bolder moves and a new cold war is upon our doorstep. The timing of all of this just all works beautifully into Putins hands with the Olympics and US presidential race.

Baraka_Guru · 08-27-2008, 09:34 AM

I think history is just repeating itself, no? This is a game the Russians know (and play) very well.

Russia's been fairly docile recently with that whole "democracy" thing and the economic troubles. But corruption is still running rampant and now Russia has the means and the will to protect their interests. Since the turn of the millennium, Russia has been the fastest growing economy in the G8. Economic recovery can post those kinds of results.

And now, with that, they have these concerns about their integrity as a nation, both in terms of economy and security. They don't want these sorts of things to undermine their power, and so they take action.

Doesn't the U.S. do this sort of thing too, only on a much larger scale?

I think this is heading to another cold war, unless NATO can get its act together. Moreover, the U.S. needs to be careful; they don't need to have Russia turn completely against them when it comes to the mess in the Middle East and the looming Iranian issue.

Rekna · 08-27-2008, 10:38 AM

I would rather not be in a war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, and Iran.... We need diplomatic solutions fast, our country cannot handle a military solution to all of these problems.

roachboy · 08-27-2008, 10:48 AM

i'll have more to say about all this later, but for the time being:

if you assume a "new cold war" is now a possibility--and a cold war is a matter of pure logistics---then would it not be a form of diplomatic "solution" for putin in particular and for the united states more generally?

a "cold war" plays to the benefit of weak authoritarian regimes, yes? what could be better than a situation which provides stabilization of power relations and an Enemy to provide the pretext for it? and after 7 years of a "war on terror" the americans are not in a position to complain about the move...

also, a "cold war" is great for business, particularly if your economy is set up around an extensive military-based patron/client system.

but this is all cynical, yes?
on the other hand, how else to parse what the bush people were thinking in offering this deal to poland in the first place?

Baraka_Guru · 08-27-2008, 11:11 AM

The Poland deal was either idiotic or a provocation (or both) on the part of the U.S. The diplomatic thing to do would have been to delay the signing of it.

As far as cold wars go, yes there is a benefit to the powers involved. You have heightened economic activity, nationalist propaganda as thought control, and "simplified" relations with each other. You don't get the war weariness you tend to see in democratic countries engaged in hot wars.

Thinking about this more, it seems much like a Russian game—one that it has historically liked to play. Russia is trying to position itself as a power player in the mode it knows best. It can't conduct this business in the same mode as, say, the U.S., Japan, and China. It does what it can with what it has.

How else would we expect Russia to handle its concerns about security? That is, without being idealistic.

Willravel · 08-27-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

so first off, as much as i dislike putin, i have to say that i do not blame his government for reacting as it has to the poland deal---i think the parallel might well be the attempt of the soviets to put missles in cuba in 1962....

You read my mind! This is the next logical conclusion after the GWOT, which isn't quite making enough money right now. The cold war was responsible for the military industrial complex, and in the eyes of war profiteers it's quite frankly the best thing that's ever happened.

The US has tried to antagonize China, but it seems that falling into the old relationship with the USSR... erm Russia is the next logical fallback for military buildup. If they can set in motion this cold war before a Democrat sits in the oval office, it will be much more difficult for the left to slow military spending. Maybe even 8 years; long enough for the ptb to line up another profiteer for the presidency.

I also think that Putin is a horrible leader, reminiscent of Russian days gone by, but I find that faulting his reaction is difficult.

pan6467 · 08-27-2008, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i'll have more to say about all this later, but for the time being:

if you assume a "new cold war" is now a possibility--and a cold war is a matter of pure logistics---then would it not be a form of diplomatic "solution" for putin in particular and for the united states more generally?

a "cold war" plays to the benefit of weak authoritarian regimes, yes? what could be better than a situation which provides stabilization of power relations and an Enemy to provide the pretext for it? and after 7 years of a "war on terror" the americans are not in a position to complain about the move...

also, a "cold war" is great for business, particularly if your economy is set up around an extensive military-based patron/client system.

but this is all cynical, yes?
on the other hand, how else to parse what the bush people were thinking in offering this deal to poland in the first place?

This takes us back to Reagan.

What Reagan did was out spend the USSR, but in the process he also cut all that "expensive spending", think the ten thousand dollar screwdriver.

What that did was hurt our own companies and thus we lost Boeing, Marrion Martin and so on, even GE, the automakers and appliance companies felt the squeeze.

When Reagan stopped overpaying, these manufacturers started losing money and raising rices just leads to raising wages not necessarily profits.Thus some went under, some merged, some are on the verge of bankruptcy and some shipped everything overseas.

Our economy was based on our military spending, right or wrong it was. Reagan never took the initiative to move our economy into a different direction so the military cuts wouldn't be as harmful.

That brings us to today. Our economy is still in the shitter and getting worse, patrtiotism and our domestic situation is turbulent. To some the only answer to bring the country back up without it declining further is to create a "boogeyman". Terrorism didn't work. But the "Cold War" did very effectively and will again.

So, it begins. We start pumping back into the military, the economy booms again.

Now, this is also just a band aid and will not be effective forever. This time around, hopefully, they learned a lesson and diversify so that the economy isn't just built on military spending.

Leto · 08-27-2008, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

How else would we expect Russia to handle its concerns about security? That is, without being idealistic.

Maybe the US could offer to sell some expensive missile programmes to Russia as well. Be egalitarian. That way the Poland sale wouldn't seem to be military posturing.

ottopilot · 08-27-2008, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

How else would we expect Russia to handle its concerns about security? That is, without being idealistic.

Or... Poland still remembers how things used to really be under Moscow and had an "oh-shit" moment. They saw what Russia did to Georgia and signed the dotted line as fast they could. The Czechs aren't far behind.

roachboy · 08-27-2008, 04:33 PM

so by that logic, otto, if the russian were to sell elements of a missle defense shield to a country that has a past taste of the delights of american domination--say haiti--and said to the us, when "concerns were expressed"---"hey whaddya mean? it's in case iran does something"---you could expect the us to say "o...ok then. no problem."

you cannot possibly be serious.

this is an interesting little analysis in realpolitik terms that's been published in a few places over the past week--the one with the biggest print is on the japan focus website:

M K Bhadrakumar: War in the Caucasus and the Global Repositioning of China, Germany, Russia and the US - Russia,China,Russian,will,its,Moscow,missile defense,South Ossetia

but if you want some more interesting stuff, go here:

Géorgie-Russie, les enjeux de la crise

in french, though (can't seem to find anything as interesting in english...or at least i haven't yet---i don't think these are translated on le monde diplo's english page---http://mondediplo.com/)

o and then there's this new development:

Quote:

Russia Sees New Realm of Concern: Black Sea
By ANDREW E. KRAMER

MOSCOW — Russian commanders said Wednesday they were growing alarmed at the number of NATO warships sailing into the Black Sea, conceding that NATO vessels now outnumbered the ships in their fleet anchored off the western coast of Georgia.

As attention turned to the balance of naval power in the sea, the leader of the separatist region of Abkhazia said he would invite Russia to establish a naval base at his territory’s deep-water port of Sukhumi.

And in a move certain to anger Russia, Ukraine’s president, Viktor A. Yushchenko, said he would open negotiations with authorities in Moscow to raise the rent on the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, which is in Ukraine’s predominantly Russian province of Crimea. The United States is pursuing a delicate policy of delivering humanitarian aid on military transport planes and ships, to illustrate to the Russians they do not fully control Georgia’s airspace or coastline.

The policy has left American and Russian naval vessels maneuvering in close proximity off the western coast of Georgia, with the Americans concentrated near the southern port of Batumi and the Russians around the central port of Poti. It has also left the Kremlin deeply suspicious of American motives.

"What the Americans call humanitarian cargoes — of course, they are bringing in weapons," the Russian president Dmitri Medvedev, told the BBC in an interview on Tuesday, adding: "We’re not trying to prevent it."

The White House dismissed all assertions that the Pentagon is shipping weapons under the “guise” of humanitarian aid, calling them “ridiculous.”

Apparently testing Russian assurances that their forces have opened the port of Poti for humanitarian aid, the United States Embassy in Tbilisi said a Coast Guard cutter, the Dallas, would attempt to dock there on Wednesday, well within a zone controlled by the Russian military during the war.

The Dallas, however, docked instead at Batumi, to the south. It was carrying 34 tons of humanitarian aid. Georgian military officials said the other port may have been mined, The A.P. reported.

During the conflict with Georgia, Russian soldiers occupied the port and sank Georgian ships in the harbor. Russian officials have said their forces are now out of the city, but that they are still occupying positions at checkpoints just to the north. Russian ships are also patrolling off the coast.

In Moscow, the naval maneuvering was clearly raising alarms. Russian commanders said the buildup of NATO vessels in the Black Sea violated a 1936 treaty, the Convention of Montreux, they maintain limits to three weeks the time non-coastal countries can sail military vessels on the sea.

Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy head of the Russian general staff, told a briefing in Moscow that under the agreement, Turkey, which controls the straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles, must be notified 15 days in advance before military ships sail into the sea, and that warships cannot remain longer than 21 days.

“The convention stipulates a limited number of vessels,” he said. “That is, the same state cannot deploy a certain group without any limit.”

He said any sustained NATO deployment would require rotating ships through the straits.

It was unclear Wednesday how many NATO ships were currently in the Black Sea.

A spokesman at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers in Europe, in Mons, Belgium, said there were four NATO warships there on a previously scheduled exercise called Active Endeavor, for training in anti-terrorist and anti-pirate maneuvers. But he cautioned that other NATO countries could have ships in the sea not operating under NATO command.

“Obviously, there are other NATO-affiliated nations out doing things,” Lt. Col. Web Wright, the spokesman, said. “But I can’t speak for those nations.”

The United States guided missile destroyer McFaul, for example, docked over the weekend in Batumi to deliver humanitarian aid. A report on the Russian news agency Interfax cited this ship, along with three others, as operating in the sea though it was unclear whether it referred to vessels taking part in the previously scheduled exercise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/wo...hp&oref=slogin

which of course, like the poland deal, was scheduled beforehand.

there's alot going on here:

problems generated by kosovo.
the relations between the eu, the united states and nato
the geopolitical situation more generally
putin's internal political situation
cowboy george's internal political situation
the needs of the american war economy at a moment of looming economic troubles, some of which are already here
the specific fumblings and bumblings of neocon foreign policy doctrine
and, of course: oil

jorgelito · 08-27-2008, 04:45 PM

Wow, there's a lot of Russian sympathizers here. They are a real threat and must be dealt with appropriately. Many of the ex-satellite states are wary of Russia and eager to join NATO. Poland was correct, I really don't see the problem there. Ukraine could be next in line. Russia created its own mess. Their own brand of ultra nationalism is tipping the scales. We are drawing down in Iraq and shifting to Afghanistan. No problem there. Next, prepare for Iran and remind the Russians to behave. Hopefully the money we save from Iraq and when the Iraqis pay us back, can go to increase our much needed military spending. Along with diplomacy of course. But you need to back up soft power with hard power.

roachboy · 08-27-2008, 05:06 PM

i dont think it's accurate to refer to folk as "russia supporters" because they are baffled by the actions of the bush administration in this particular situation.

a) the timing of the missle deal with poland could not have been worse.
b) putin's political situation is such that he kinda needs an Enemy to legitimate an increasingly autocratic order. i read several analyses (all in french because i was doing it in the context of a work project) the argued the transition out of the early 90s phase have been such that the entire idea of democracy has been undermined and replaced with a kind of neo-statist ideology, which meshes well with putin's more authoritarian style--but at the same time, he is in a shaky position in terms of legitimacy.
c) the foreign policy expressions of this situation have played out in a more or less straight line since last february (kosovo) and are outlined pretty well in the articles i posted above.
d) the interests of the neocons, who to my dismay continue to exercise power in the foreign policy context, seem to be heading toward a replacement Enemy for the "terrorist" ghost in order to justify both continued massive (and unnecessary) military expenditures on the part of the united states and to prop themselves up politically at the same time.

this just seems like a vast confederacy of dunces, all the way around.
dunces with nukes.
so no ordinary confederacy.

The_Dunedan · 08-27-2008, 06:18 PM

Quote:

They saw what Russia did to Georgia and signed the dotted line as fast they could. The Czechs aren't far behind.

Umm...no.

This deal has been in the works for some time. It's WILDLY unpopular in Poland and the Czech Republic, with the CR in particular being 65-90% opposed, with 80% opposed being the most reliable and frequently-quoted number. Various political and financial powerhouses (especially the Schwartzenberg family) within these two countries are after the deal for economic reasons, but the missile-defense system is extremely unpopular with the populace. They're a whole lot more worried about what Russia will do if the system -is- emplaced (turn off the gas in January, nuke Mlada Boleslav, or simply invade) than what Russia might do if the system stays a pipe-dream. They've dealt with Russians before, they don't wish to do so again, and they're well aware that the U.S. and NATO will be perfectly happy to let them twist in the radioactive wind. They don't trust NATO to do anything, but they damned sure trust Russia to back up their threats. Putin cut Russia's oil exports by 8% for one week back in Feb. of 07, and gasoline prices in Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia shot up 15% overnight. Imagine if Russia turned off the tap altogether...in January. Living in Prague in January with no heating oil would -not- be pleasant, and most of central and eastern Europe has noplace else to -get- oil: what we aren't using, the Chinese are. These folks reap -zero- benefit from this system while becoming targets for a nuclear-armed superpower with an historically short temper and severe target-discrimination issues, and they know all this.

Russia's objections are multivalate:

1: NATO is breaking its' commitment not to expand. Not only has NATO expanded, it's expanded into the former Warsaw Pact.

2: Such a missile-defense system destroys nuclear parity, invalidates MAD, and radically and dangerously changes the nuclear worldwide balance of power.

3: The U.S. was offered the joint use of an Azeri radar station and airbase to house the system, with dual oversight and data-sharing with Russia. The Azeri station would have been in a better position to monitor Iran in any case, but the U.S. said no. This in particular is seen by Russia as a deliberate snub an a not-so-thinly-veiled threat in their direction.

4: These allegedly unarmed missiles could easily be replaced with medium-range ballistic missiles which would then be in ideal firing position against Russia.

For once, I find myself in full agreement with roachboy. A confederacy of nuclear dunces indeed.

Charlatan · 08-27-2008, 06:26 PM

I wonder what that rush was to bring Eastern Europe into NATO. Both Clinton and Bush ("W") pushed hard to bring the former eastern block countries into NATO knowing full well that Russia would never be invited to join and, more to the point, that Russia would see this as an aggressive stance.

Add to this, the fact that the IMF (and by extension the State Department) worked hard to destabilize the Russian economy during Yeltsin's time in power. Instead of pushing for democracy and something like Scandinavian socialism, the push was for an increasingly neoliberal economy of open markets at any cost. That cost was the very birth of democracy in Russia. It lead to Yeltsin attacking Russia's parliament, it lead to the war in Chechnya and it ultimately lead to Putin.

As usual we reap what we sow.

jorgelito · 08-27-2008, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i dont think it's accurate to refer to folk as "russia supporters" because they are baffled by the actions of the bush administration in this particular situation.

a) the timing of the missle deal with poland could not have been worse.
b) putin's political situation is such that he kinda needs an Enemy to legitimate an increasingly autocratic order. i read several analyses (all in french because i was doing it in the context of a work project) the argued the transition out of the early 90s phase have been such that the entire idea of democracy has been undermined and replaced with a kind of neo-statist ideology, which meshes well with putin's more authoritarian style--but at the same time, he is in a shaky position in terms of legitimacy.
c) the foreign policy expressions of this situation have played out in a more or less straight line since last february (kosovo) and are outlined pretty well in the articles i posted above.
d) the interests of the neocons, who to my dismay continue to exercise power in the foreign policy context, seem to be heading toward a replacement Enemy for the "terrorist" ghost in order to justify both continued massive (and unnecessary) military expenditures on the part of the united states and to prop themselves up politically at the same time.

this just seems like a vast confederacy of dunces, all the way around.
dunces with nukes.
so no ordinary confederacy.

Ok, I understand now I think. This I can agree with. Your post is well articulated, clear, and understandable.

With regards to Poland, I believe it was in the works for awhile. As such, the timing may have been unfortunate. Or deliberate - to send a message to Russia.
-----Added 27/8/2008 at 08 : 47 : 05-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Dunedan

Umm...no.

This deal has been in the works for some time. It's WILDLY unpopular in Poland and the Czech Republic, with the CR in particular being 65-90% opposed, with 80% opposed being the most reliable and frequently-quoted number. Various political and financial powerhouses (especially the Schwartzenberg family) within these two countries are after the deal for economic reasons, but the missile-defense system is extremely unpopular with the populace. They're a whole lot more worried about what Russia will do if the system -is- emplaced (turn off the gas in January, nuke Mlada Boleslav, or simply invade) than what Russia might do if the system stays a pipe-dream. They've dealt with Russians before, they don't wish to do so again, and they're well aware that the U.S. and NATO will be perfectly happy to let them twist in the radioactive wind. They don't trust NATO to do anythiRussia's objections are multivalate:

1: NATO is breaking its' commitment not to expand. Not only has NATO expanded, it's expanded into the former Warsaw Pact.

2: Such a missile-defense system destroys nuclear parity, invalidates MAD, and radically and dangerously changes the nuclear worldwide balance of power.

3: The U.S. was offered the joint use of an Azeri radar station and airbase to house the system, with dual oversight and data-sharing with Russia. The Azeri station would have been in a better position to monitor Iran in any case, but the U.S. said no. This in particular is seen by Russia as a deliberate snub an a not-so-thinly-veiled threat in their direction.

4: These allegedly unarmed missiles could easily be replaced with medium-range ballistic missiles which would then be in ideal firing position against Russia.

For once, I find myself in full agreement with roachboy. A confederacy of nuclear dunces indeed.

Some good points here. This is good insight I have not thought of before.
-----Added 27/8/2008 at 08 : 47 : 52-----
Still, I am wary and cautious of Russia, especially Putin and his cadres. We should proceed with caution regardless.

08-27-2008, 08:18 AM	#2 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The Event Horizon	It seems like its difficult to speculate without sounding like conspiracy. It really seeems backwards to me. The Cuban missle crisis is a good analogy. The verbiage Rice keeps blurting out is concerning to me. Can we afford to be pushing like this? __________________ *None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. -Johann Wolfgang Goethe*

08-27-2008, 09:32 AM	#3 (permalink)
Daval Super Moderator Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: The True North Strong and Free!	I think the world is very quickly going to hell again. Putin and his puppet president is making bolder and bolder moves and a new cold war is upon our doorstep. The timing of all of this just all works beautifully into Putins hands with the Olympics and US presidential race. __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill Have you Donated to the TFP yet? If not Click Here!

08-27-2008, 09:34 AM	#4 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru In the 6th percentile Moderator Join Date: May 2006 Location: Toronto	I think history is just repeating itself, no? This is a game the Russians know (and play) very well. Russia's been fairly docile recently with that whole "democracy" thing and the economic troubles. But corruption is still running rampant and now Russia has the means and the will to protect their interests. Since the turn of the millennium, Russia has been the fastest growing economy in the G8. Economic recovery can post those kinds of results. And now, with that, they have these concerns about their integrity as a nation, both in terms of economy and security. They don't want these sorts of things to undermine their power, and so they take action. Doesn't the U.S. do this sort of thing too, only on a much larger scale? I think this is heading to another cold war, unless NATO can get its act together. Moreover, the U.S. needs to be careful; they don't need to have Russia turn completely against them when it comes to the mess in the Middle East and the looming Iranian issue. __________________ "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. [...] In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer." —"Politics and the English Language," George Orwell "Humankind cannot bear very much reality." —"Burnt Norton," Four Quartets, T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 08-27-2008 at 09:41 AM. Reason: Fixed punctuation.

08-27-2008, 10:48 AM	#6 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: chicago	i'll have more to say about all this later, but for the time being: if you assume a "new cold war" is now a possibility--and a cold war is a matter of pure logistics---then would it not be a form of diplomatic "solution" for putin in particular and for the united states more generally? a "cold war" plays to the benefit of weak authoritarian regimes, yes? what could be better than a situation which provides stabilization of power relations and an Enemy to provide the pretext for it? and after 7 years of a "war on terror" the americans are not in a position to complain about the move... also, a "cold war" is great for business, particularly if your economy is set up around an extensive military-based patron/client system. but this is all cynical, yes? on the other hand, how else to parse what the bush people were thinking in offering this deal to poland in the first place? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-27-2008, 11:11 AM	#7 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru In the 6th percentile Moderator Join Date: May 2006 Location: Toronto	The Poland deal was either idiotic or a provocation (or both) on the part of the U.S. The diplomatic thing to do would have been to delay the signing of it. As far as cold wars go, yes there is a benefit to the powers involved. You have heightened economic activity, nationalist propaganda as thought control, and "simplified" relations with each other. You don't get the war weariness you tend to see in democratic countries engaged in hot wars. Thinking about this more, it seems much like a Russian game—one that it has historically liked to play. Russia is trying to position itself as a power player in the mode it knows best. It can't conduct this business in the same mode as, say, the U.S., Japan, and China. It does what it can with what it has. How else would we expect Russia to handle its concerns about security? That is, without being idealistic. __________________ "The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. [...] In our age there is no such thing as 'keeping out of politics.' All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer." —"Politics and the English Language," George Orwell "Humankind cannot bear very much reality." —"Burnt Norton," Four Quartets, T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 08-27-2008 at 11:14 AM. Reason: Damned grammar

08-27-2008, 10:38 AM	#5 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie Join Date: Nov 2003	I would rather not be in a war in Afghanistan, Iraq, Russia, and Iran.... We need diplomatic solutions fast, our country cannot handle a military solution to all of these problems.

08-27-2008, 04:45 PM	#13 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Wow, there's a lot of Russian sympathizers here. They are a real threat and must be dealt with appropriately. Many of the ex-satellite states are wary of Russia and eager to join NATO. Poland was correct, I really don't see the problem there. Ukraine could be next in line. Russia created its own mess. Their own brand of ultra nationalism is tipping the scales. We are drawing down in Iraq and shifting to Afghanistan. No problem there. Next, prepare for Iran and remind the Russians to behave. Hopefully the money we save from Iraq and when the Iraqis pay us back, can go to increase our much needed military spending. Along with diplomacy of course. But you need to back up soft power with hard power. __________________ "The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter

08-27-2008, 05:06 PM	#14 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: chicago	i dont think it's accurate to refer to folk as "russia supporters" because they are baffled by the actions of the bush administration in this particular situation. a) the timing of the missle deal with poland could not have been worse. b) putin's political situation is such that he kinda needs an Enemy to legitimate an increasingly autocratic order. i read several analyses (all in french because i was doing it in the context of a work project) the argued the transition out of the early 90s phase have been such that the entire idea of democracy has been undermined and replaced with a kind of neo-statist ideology, which meshes well with putin's more authoritarian style--but at the same time, he is in a shaky position in terms of legitimacy. c) the foreign policy expressions of this situation have played out in a more or less straight line since last february (kosovo) and are outlined pretty well in the articles i posted above. d) the interests of the neocons, who to my dismay continue to exercise power in the foreign policy context, seem to be heading toward a replacement Enemy for the "terrorist" ghost in order to justify both continued massive (and unnecessary) military expenditures on the part of the united states and to prop themselves up politically at the same time. this just seems like a vast confederacy of dunces, all the way around. dunces with nukes. so no ordinary confederacy. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-27-2008, 06:26 PM	#16 (permalink)
Charlatan Drinking Your Milkshake Super Moderator Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Lion City	I wonder what that rush was to bring Eastern Europe into NATO. Both Clinton and Bush ("W") pushed hard to bring the former eastern block countries into NATO knowing full well that Russia would never be invited to join and, more to the point, that Russia would see this as an aggressive stance. Add to this, the fact that the IMF (and by extension the State Department) worked hard to destabilize the Russian economy during Yeltsin's time in power. Instead of pushing for democracy and something like Scandinavian socialism, the push was for an increasingly neoliberal economy of open markets at any cost. That cost was the very birth of democracy in Russia. It lead to Yeltsin attacking Russia's parliament, it lead to the war in Chechnya and it ultimately lead to Putin. As usual we reap what we sow. __________________ “I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.” - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes