Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ClearedHot

With Russia's $650 billion rearmament plan, the bear sharpens its teeth

Recommended Posts

I agree in Russia policy; we've clearly been trying to thaw relations for 6 years and have gotten nowhere, especially since Putin moved back in as president.

However I'd saw our overall foreign policy has been a mixed bag of intervention and discretion.

2009 troop surge in Afghanistan, significant increase in RPA use in Pakistan, Yemen, etc., Libya, some raids in Somolia...I'd put those in the intervention column. For whatever talk there was during the now long-ago 2008 campaign, I'd say Obama has more than fully embraced many of the bush-era policies he originally campaigned against. The wisdom of high office I guess.

Syria, Georgia, now Ukraine (so far)...discretion. Guess what all three of those last ones tie back into...Russia.

So to me it looks like we're willing to intervene to put the hurt in the Taliban, AQ, Qadaffi, and AQ affiliates in Africa but not start a war with Russia in their backyard or deal with the shitstorm in Syria.

I'm ok with those choices.

I still ask: what's the policy alternate to our current posture WRT Ukraine? We've called it an invasion, we're sending our top diplomat, boycotted the G8 meeting in Sochi. Go back and now build the missile defense stations in Poland? Maybe. What else?

Overall, I obviously don't buy the apology tour, no-spine meme based on all the intervention that's taken place recently. The McCain/Graham coalition of the GOP would have troops in Syria, Georgia, Ukraine, Libya, etc. is that honestly the right answer?

Edited by nsplayr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawnman summed it up pretty well. Our foreign policy standing is in shambles, perception is everything and there used be a day where we could call KIO and people would listen, however, the current administrations continual blunders and apology tour has compromised any ability for us to be taken seriously. If you have the clout you don't have to take action, only threatening action can be enough. However, this administration's lack of street cred has lead to them standing there with egg on their face (Syria and the Red Line anyone?).

Furthermore this whining by Kerry shows that they really have no clue how things work on a international level in the real world, not the liberal utopia world they wish for. Putin isn't using 19th century tactics in the 21st century becuase he's not up on the times, he's doing it because its the most direct route to his goal and he doesn't fear the U.S. Also invading can be be a position of weakness or insanity but when you neither respect or fear your rival it is a position of power. Lets face it this administration is/will continue getting outplayed by Putin at every turn, and the U.S. will continue to look like a fool.

Its sad we used to have the "Speak softly and carry a big stick" as our foreign policy and now we have "Threaten loudly and do nothing". Obama has shown his cards by making his bluffs and the world has called them, he is now the player at the table with zero credibility.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we are going to boycott the paraolympics...that will teach those nasty Rooskies.

You gotta admit, Putin has a set of balls...without a second thought he is saying F You to America and everyone else...some much for the reset.

Edited by ClearedHot
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutely nothing surprising in this except for all the highly educated DC types that are saying that they did not see this coming. Rule number 1 in foreign diplomacy:

Never trust the Russians.

(grammar edit)

Edited by OverTQ
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article. Surely we wouldn't have been meddling in Ukrainian internal affairs to nudge the country in a particular direction while gambling Russia wouldn't be so bold as to invade.

http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government-documents-show/

Pando has confirmed that the American government – in the form of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) – played a major role in funding opposition groups prior to the revolution. Moreover, a large percentage of the rest of the funding to those same groups came from a US billionaire who has previously worked closely with US government agencies to further his own business interests. This was by no means a US-backed “coup,” but clear evidence shows that US investment was a force multiplier for many of the groups involved in overthrowing Yanukovych.

...

What all this adds up to is a journalistic conflict-of-interest of the worst kind: Omidyar working hand-in-glove with US foreign policy agencies to interfere in foreign governments, co-financing regime change with well-known arms of the American empire — while at the same time hiring a growing team of soi-disant ”independent journalists” which vows to investigate the behavior of the US government at home and overseas, and boasts of its uniquely “adversarial” relationship towards these government institutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did President Obama (mockingly) say to Romney with regard to Russia during the last debates? Something to the effect of, "The 1980s called and wants its foreign policy back."

In hindsight, I'll bet he wishes he'd chosen his words better.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not wise to get into the middle of, what is by all respects, a civil war. Where one happens to live there, pretty much determines where their loyalties lie. We've made this mistake too many times. This, at worst, is an EU problem that the combined EU nations should determine what needs to be done.....sacntions, diplomacy, military action, peacekeeping or peace enforcement.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two! flankers are armed to the teeth! them and these ing piss ants to themselves, like we did with the Georgia conflict.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russian military has given Ukrainian forces in Crimea until 5 a.m. Tuesday (10 p.m. ET Monday) to surrender or face a "storm," Interfax news agency reported.

"If they do not surrender by 5 a.m. tomorrow, we will start a real storm in Ukrainian bases in Crimea," according to the statement sent by the Russians to the Ukrainian Defense Ministry, a ministry source told Interfax. NBC News could not immediately confirm the report.

The ultimatum was attributed to Alexandr Vitko, chief commander of Russia's Black Sea fleet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, hypothetical here -- what happens to our astronauts currently aboard the ISS in the unlikely scenario of an all-out military conflict? We have two Americans, one Japanese, and three Russians (one of which is coincidentally Crimean) up there. Do they bug-out on their docked Soyuz's and abandon station?

Though I suppose in an all-out military conflict, orbit might be the safest place to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not be surprised to see the US send a signal to Putin by suspending indefinitely DoD Force Reductions/budget

cuts , particularly if this situation continues to escalate.

We may also end up sending ships into the Black Sea, hopefully with better results then the last time we did this. The

US Navy recently sent two ships into the Black Sea in support of the Sochi Winter Olympics and based on their performanceI don't think the Russians will be shaking in their boots if we do it again. One of these US Navy ships ran aground in

the Black Sea putting it out of action and the Commander was promptly fired just last week.

US Navy/Russian Navy in the Black Sea = Its a contact sport and you may get rammed (2010).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N4jQhnXrWbg#t=2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not be surprised to see the US send a signal to Putin by suspending indefinitely DoD Force Reductions/budgetcuts , particularly if this situation continues to escalate.

Really? Not going to happen...don't forget, our top civilian officials and GO's have been saying that even with the cuts that our military will still be just as capable as before with regards to achieving our natural security objectives. So according to those folks, 'we're good'.

But seriously, does anybody seriously think we should get militarily involved with this one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, hypothetical here -- what happens to our astronauts currently aboard the ISS in the unlikely scenario of an all-out military conflict? We have two Americans, one Japanese, and three Russians (one of which is coincidentally Crimean) up there. Do they bug-out on their docked Soyuz's and abandon station?

Though I suppose in an all-out military conflict, orbit might be the safest place to be.

Hopefully the Japanese dude knows Karate...

Really? Not going to happen...don't forget, our top civilian officials and GO's have been saying that even with the cuts that our military will still be just as capable as before with regards to achieving our natural security objectives. So according to those folks, 'we're good'.

But seriously, does anybody seriously think we should get militarily involved with this one?

Keep the drawdown coming...this is nothing we need to worry about. This is 80s era foreign policy. My "leaders" assure me that there is no threat here, and I believe them. The rest of the world will remain threat free...we've seen this kind of thing before.

How about those Oscars? Shiny things!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting vid from Vice showing the standoff between Russian and Ukrainian forces at a Crimean base.

Unfortunately, we don't get to see this style of reporting from the mainstream media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNKsLlK52ss

Edited by gearpig
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting vid from Vice showing the standoff between Russian and Ukrainian forces at a Crimean base.

Unfortunately, we don't get to see this style of reporting from the mainstream media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNKsLlK52ss

Good video; Balaclava = Charge of the Light Brigade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I'm not tracking: Putin says the Crimea invasion (or whatever euphemism he used) is a result of "an anti-constitutional coup and the armed seizure of power". Didn't this happen in Kiev? What does taking over the Crimean Peninsula accomplish if you're worried about a coup in Kiev?

Edit: Okay I missed this earlier but most likely common knowledge already. Apologies.

"With Ukraine torn between a desire to be part of the west, and its past as part of the Russian empire, and with the Kiev-based revolution forcing the issue, Crimea was the logical flashpoint. As the revolution unfolded, ethnic Russians attacked minority Ukrainians in Crimea's capital, Simferopol, even as Ukrainians persecuted ethnic Russians in the northern cities, including Kiev." http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/03/crimea-caught-in-middle-as-russia-ukraine-drama-plays-out/

Edited by 338skybolt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×