Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After the Soviet Union fell into chaos and social upheaval, things settled down and the business of rebuilding began. During this time America was supposed to reap a "peace dividend" in which we could save some cash since we no longer needed vast military resources and could instead now focus on our own infrastructure and domestic needs. This of course was all changed on September 11th when our newest war on the latest threat to the American existence came into being, terrorism.
Since then the United States has spent considerably larger sums of money in its war against terrorist thugs than it did trying to counter the perceived Soviet threat. While the US has been engaged in an ever deepening war, the Russians (and China, India and the EU) have all been focusing more on their domestic needs. Quietly and while all focus has been given to the Middle East, Russia is again asserting herself in a series of bold statements.
Now stop for a moment and listen to what is being said in the following statements as they are rather profound and are in fact a shot across the bow of the USS America in the most blunt of fashions.
"But we believe all our partners in the international community should understand clearly and have no doubts that in order to protect its and its allies' sovereignty and territorial integrity, Russia will use its armed forces, including nuclear weapons, and it can do it pre-emptively," he told a scientific conference in Moscow.
In Soviet times, military doctrine stated Moscow would not use nuclear arms first in any confrontation with the West. With the decline of its conventional forces in the 1990s, Moscow dropped this element of its policy.
It is going to be interesting to see how President Bush or our next President will address this line of thinking. After all, the United States has repeatedly adopted a preemptive stance in foreign policy, it has repeatedly stated that "all options are on the table" with regards to using tactical or standard nuclear weapons, or any other means to assert US power abroad.
We now have the US bogged down in two ongoing wars, even if the press and media doesn't bother to report on them much. Even the Taliban in Afghanistan is reasserting itself in larger regions of the country. The US continues to seek confrontation with Iran over their alleged nuclear weapons program despite the fact that the Russians have publicly stated they will come to the aid of Iran since Russia has a strategic and vital interest as well as partnership with Iran. The US economic forecast is getting more bleak by the day as the value of the US dollar continues to free fall and the biggest dumping of US dollars is out of China, the country that has financed our debt for the past decade.
We are fast loosing our ability to defend ourselves both economically and militarily from outside influences. Our policy of global intervention is finally calling for its bill to get paid and there isn't much left in the pockets but lint.
I'm fully aware of what is going on with Russia, but believe that they have a ton of vulnerabilities that can be exploited. They need to be handled gingerly, but China and India can be of significant value to us over the long term. Also, they have a problem with Georgia and Ukraine that can easily be managed by a smart US.
I'm fully aware of what is going on with Russia, but believe that they have a ton of vulnerabilities that can be exploited. They need to be handled gingerly, but China and India can be of significant value to us over the long term. Also, they have a problem with Georgia and Ukraine that can easily be managed by a smart US.
I don't like Putin, but you already knew that.
Well I think all nations have their vulnerabilities, this goes without saying, but whether or not we are able to take advantage of them is a question I have.
Lets face it, this administration hasn't exactly had the most comprehensive understanding of foreign policy or affairs. There is a time for the rootin tootin tough guy cowboy and there is a time for sophisticated diplomacy and dialog and we have been seriously lacking in the latter. One of the ironies being that Condi Rice made much of her career studying the Soviet Union, but in her role as Sect. of State and in particular in the Middle East, she has been ineffectual bordering on incompetent. Now to be fair to Condi Rice, I believe a large part of this is due to orders from above and the script she is required to follow. (another reason for her lack of effectiveness)
I am mostly curious as to how this administration and the next one will respond to the Russian's taking a parallel stance on their foreign policy as does the US. What if Russia decided today to claim that Georgia was a sponsor of terrorism and launched attacks or an invasion. How exactly will the US respond when it has does asserted these very tenets itself?
How would the US counter Russian aggressions in either the military or economic area in the current climate? What tools do we have left as we are mortgaged to the hilt and the bills are coming due, our military is stretched to the breaking point, and our ability to assert our will abroad has diminished substantially in the past 5 years.
Where we split is that I don't see this as a US and Russia issue, I think other countries play into the equation in a major way. Frankly, I think Russia has major internal problems, and basically leaving them alone would go a long way.
I don't see expansion on the horizon, actions against Georgia or the Ukraine would be pretty well met with effective resistance, along with their allies. China isn't about to take a back seat to Russia either.
So in summary, I don't yet share your concerns about their behavior. Let's keep an eye on how the Serbia/Kosovo situation unfolds, it will tell us a lot about the future evolutions of Russia.
Where we split is that I don't see this as a US and Russia issue, I think other countries play into the equation in a major way. Frankly, I think Russia has major internal problems, and basically leaving them alone would go a long way.
I don't see expansion on the horizon, actions against Georgia or the Ukraine would be pretty well met with effective resistance, along with their allies. China isn't about to take a back seat to Russia either.
So in summary, I don't yet share your concerns about their behavior. Let's keep an eye on how the Serbia/Kosovo situation unfolds, it will tell us a lot about the future evolutions of Russia.
My concerns are not in as much of what Russia will do, but how the US will respond to said words or if Russia were to take a course of action contrary to our position.
I don't believe Russia will engage in another Afghanistan as the memory of its effects are still fresh in their minds. As it should be in ours.
As you mention above in the first paragraph is oddly, "non-interventionist" and I concur. Now if only we would take this approach in other areas.
In any case, Russia's statements of using preemptive actions, military intervention, and even the use of nuclear weapons isn't so much as what they plan to do as much as a statement of what they will do in response to an attack on Iran. I may be wrong but the timing of this is no coincidence.
*edit*..........you know I just typed a long statement,but deleted it because my thoughts are already known about Ron Paul.
So I'll just say to some that think like McCain that a 1oo more years in Iraq if we have to,while you're worried about "these colors don't run" and we are the "baddest kick arse military in the world" and that goobers in a cave are the next Third Reich,.........yes America is kick arse,but the biggest and the baddest won't win against a unconventional war because that is not what regular army is designed for,nation building that is.And the thought that victory at any cost to a conflict that is not conventional and we wouldn't be even bothered with it if we were not deploying all over the world is dragging us down........
our adoption of pre-emptive warfare,is it no surprise that others are picking up on that now also?And thry get stronger,while we get weaker,because we have involved ourselves in a not so humble foriegn policy
Last edited by lionking; 01-20-2008 at 09:15 PM..
Reason: more.
*edit*..........you know I just typed a long statement,but deleted it because my thoughts are already known about Ron Paul.
So I'll just say to some that think like McCain that a 1oo more years in Iraq if we have to,while you're worried about "these colors don't run" and we are the "baddest kick arse military in the world" and that goobers in a cave are the next Third Reich,.........yes America is kick arse,but the biggest and the baddest won't win against a unconventional war because that is not what regular army is designed for,nation building that is.And the thought that victory at any cost to a conflict that is not conventional and we wouldn't be even bothered with it if we were not deploying all over the world is dragging us down........
our adoption of pre-emptive warfare,is it no surprise that others are picking up on that now also?And thry get stronger,while we get weaker,because we have involved ourselves in a not so humble foriegn policy
Well I have pretty well established my feelings towards interventionist/non-interventionist foreign policy but I am just curious as to how the US will respond to the Russians not laying claim to taking such a course in their foreign policy. I am wondering what kind of wording will be used to address this language coming out of Moscow these days. In addition, if and that is a big IF, the Russians were to intervene in say Georgia or as NTC pointed out, Kosovo, what would or could the US response be to such actions given our current state?
Putin is too busy stealing their oil to be concerned with the U.S. Just old line generals flexing their muscle and yes the timing is designed to scare us away from Iran. I fear the next nuclear confrontation is near rather than far and that it will be right here. If the Chinese or the Russians or any interested power chose to assist muslim thugs it would be so devastating as to leave not much of a footprint. We wouldn't attack the Russians or the Chinese. We would attack Tehran. Why? Because we have to attack someone under that circumstance. There exists only one objection from Russia or China. Would it advance their world position or diminish their world position? I think they have evolved sufficiently that we have become irrelevant. Therefore, we should be very afraid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and I concur. Now if only we would take this approach in other areas. 
