Obama's domestic agenda has been a living hell for quite some time, but now his foreign policy is starting to totally unravel at a breakneck pace. Total capitulation on the defence shield with nothing in return from Russia.
News Article
Poland has said that this change is a catastrophe.
Wasn't Obama supposed to _improve_ relations with other countries, especially the allies?
Jimmy Carter II.
the defence shield was neither targetted at russia, nor capable of doing anything against russia anyways, nor was it good for anything at all except for wasting lots of money. The problem of a nuclear defense is that you must be able to shoot down 100% of the incoming missles in 100% of the cases or it is fail which is a lot more expensive than just building more nukes as countermeasure or transporting the nukes by other means (ship, car, in backpack).
And Poland is pissed because they got a lot of money promised for it. Why exactly is it a catastrophe for Poland anyways? A dozen anti-nuke missles surely would have made them safe from Russia ...
A completely partisan post, with a completely blind view of the situation.
The BMD Shield drop happened because Obama needs Russia's non-interference in sanctions against Iran. Obama promised to do such "crippling" sanctions before September 25th to Israel, and Russia's potential blocking of the sanctions PLUS the capacity of Russia to supply refined fuel to Iran through land access forced Obama's hand to make a deal with them.
Poland still will get military and techology support from the United States, and that help will only increase in the following year. It is in the U.S.'s best interest to support Poland, but where Obama will appease the Russians with one hand, he will simply find other ways to support Poland. STRATFOR has more than a few analysis on the topic. Get informed before posting more Obamaphobe propaganda.
What is important on the short run is being able to appease Israel from attacking Iran, and to do that, you need to strike Iran economically. That might happen in the next days.
(as TheBigOne said, the BMD Shield would not have been effective against Russia's high-tech weaponry, and Iran is far from having deliveriable bombs yet. The BMD Shield was simply a way for the U.S. to have a casu belli to support Poland, and show in the region they have a strategic interest. they will do so in a different way...
But the U.S. will have to stop infringing so overtly in the ex-S.U.. Ukraine will shift back to support Russia soon anyway, and Russia is already strangling Georgia without us having any capacity to do otherwise. Plan to see more U.S.-backed support of Turkey influence in the Caucase)
When we "appease Israel", will we do what we usually do to appease evil dictators, like organising huge demonstrations for the place and demonising any politician saying anything negative about it?
Or does "appease" mean something else when it is directed at Israel?
When has appeasment ever been proven effective? This isn't ancient history either.... look no further than "peace in our time." Lets say for the sake of argument that there are more effective ways to protect Eastern Europe from attack, why not get the Russians to give up something before just scrapping the plans? Pure folly.
"Appease" = Doing concessions that will make another country modify it's behavior to gain time. Be it an ally or a rival (but not an "ennemy", since when you got down to open war, you just wanna win)
In Israel's case, we don't want Israel to attack Iran on its own, something that they might do very well, as they are specially concerned with their safety, regardless of Iran's actual capacity of launching a Nuke,
In Russia's case, it means lessening U.S.'s military influence in Eastern Europe like the Caucase, the Baltic States, and the very important axis of countries that are Poland, Ukrain and Belorussia. Russia cannot accept to have Ukraine or Belorussia to become pro-USA (or members of NATO) as it will leave them extremely vulnerable. And they are cringing their teeth when they see Poland being military upgraded like hell by the U.S.
The Missile Shield was the highest-profiled project of military support to Poland and the Tchech Republic, but they are far from being the majority of the money invested by the U.S. in those countries. The amount of money spent by U.S. taxpayers on building up Poland, of all the nations, is staggering. STRATFOR's analysis thinks that will lead to Poland becoming a very influencial nations in the region if ("when" actually) Russia will be broken (again) by the United States. This time, for good.
But that's 15 years ahead
For now, you can see Russia's chessplay: accepting to throw a few bones at Venezuela for free. support of Iran, bullying of Georgia, trying to cut off Ukraine from the EU and NATO. Russia's strategy is to throw the US out FSU (Former Soviet Union), and it might very well work. There is a limit to U.S.'s influence in those regions, specially when Russia is aggressively using their energetic leverage so overtly.
Because you don't want to confront the Russians head-on. It never has been the solution. You have to make small concessions from time to time, and you have to make them spend a lot of money and ressources on trying to get leverage over the U.S.
The U.S. will crush economically Russia in the long run. The trick is to contain them long enough so that their ambitions will overcame their capacity, without provoking a showdown. During the Cold War, the U.S.'s strategy was to isolate Russia by allying a lot of countries, and what better way to ally someone than to offer open U.S. market? U.S.S.R. could offer technological support and military backing to the rulers, while USA could offer economical success.
Now, Russia can offer energy. Fossil energy, USA will probably help to modernise the industries of the countries that will support them, to break Russia's advantage. the "Green Industry" money recently spent by Obama is more than just money throw to please the tree-huggers, you know. When the USA will have perfected cheap alternative energy production, they will be the spearhead that will revolutionize their allies' industries across the world to further undermine Russia.
It was more than environemental concern that made him do what he did, it was in the U.S.'s strategic interest.
Leuki, he was supposed to "improve foreign relationship" according to the liberal dictionary. Wherein it means "stab our allies in the back in order to attempt proven to not work appeasement policies with our enemies".
Point me one element where the USA under Obama has strategically stabbed an ally in the back.
And you *are* talking out of your ass. The strategy DID worked in the past, especially against that very ennemy. You won Cold War, didn't you? You are simply trying to pick whatever bone possible against Obama, even if it's a thought-up one.
If it worked 10% of the time it is worth it. Especially if you happen to be in that 10%. Something is better than nothing, but you seem to think that no defense is better than partcial defense. Why?
Why not, thier capability is 90% lower than is was during the cold war. Most of their missile subs are rusting unused. Their bombers are more that out dated they are in really bad shape. Thier army is less than a quarter than it once was. Their nuclear missiles are also in bad shape. This is not the time to let them catch up.
You do understand that it took the US under President Reagan to break their back and cause them to collaps. We don't have the cash to do that now with us in hock to the Chinese that also want to see us fall. The people that want technological support don't need a lot of cash and the stuff they want to do is nuke Israel and the USA. They care not about politics until they have destroyed USA, Russia is also under attack from the same people that hate us. That free market crap you speak of only works when the USA is strong and we have just told the world we are not. No one supports the loser and we are looking like the loser while Russia is looking like the winner.
okay I get it, you are insane! Please name for me one green energy that makes money without government subsidies? There are none. Proof of that is we are still using gasoline. If green was profitable gas would be ten cents a gallon. there is a lot of stuff that might work in 50 or 60 years but not today. There is nothing that we can use in the next 10 years to replace oil, and until there is Russia will win on the containment game.
Oh please tell me how. Wind energy does not work for a nation because you never know when it will blow. Solar energy does not work because half the day is dark. Bio fuels don't work because to make it you have to take food out of peoples mouths. Using all three will only reduce our oil needs by about 3% on a good windy sunny day. If there was money to be made in alternative fuels people would be doing it.
It worked because while we were building our military they had to do the same, they were the biggest enemy on the block and fell for a trick that has now been well documented. Example: I walk up to you and punch you in the face. you fall down. You see me coming again years later and I ball my fist. you pull out a gun and shoot me. The same trick rarely works twice in a row unless you are an idiot. So now you expect them to ignore history and not be ready for the same old trick? Today we have Iran that has funded about 6 terrorists organizations world wide and they are looking for a nuclear weapon to use against us. The terrorist are keeping us busy and Russia sees the weakness and is starting to build up again only this time they are doing it smarter and slower. Iran is our enemy thanks to Jimmy Carter, now his son is in the White House and we see the same weakness that Mr. Carter displayed. The current Idiot in Chief is telling the world we will not support our friends, and we will help our enemies get stronger. Just like Mr. Carter did. Mr. Reagan is dead, I don't see another waiting in the wings to come in and fix this mess. By the way, when Mr. Reagan began his strategy to take down the USSR liberals said it was dangerous and pushing us to war. They were wrong then just as you are wrong now. Mr. Obama is an empty suit and the world sees it. That makes him a danager to our nation.
Obama's middle eastern leg of the apology tour... he threw Israel under the bus, emboldening Iran, and their proxies in the region.
Sure lets not offend the Russians. Apparently they are unconcerned about our sensitive feelings (Iran sanctions, fuel cut-off to the Ukraine in winter, weapons (well beyond what is needed) to Chavez, clamp down of their own opposition parties and media). Putin smells weakness in the White House and will exploit it to the fullest. We are not in a position to out-spend Russia as we were in the 80"s (of course many left-wing types would like to see us fall by this method as the USSR did), and they know it (I can't believe someone would make such an uniformed suggestion). If Canadians love global weaklings like Obama, they are welcome to take him. Then again, I suppose living under the US sphere of protection for so long, elicits such comments.
I don't place the blame entirely on Obama, Bush seemed a bit gun shy in dealing with Russia as well. Putin is doing everything he can to stay in power and restore a Soviet-like apparatus. Elements of the left both here and abroad are all too eager to give them a pass. They couldn't wait for Bush's 8 years to end, yet welcome dictators in Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, with open arms, to all the power they want.
Bull, make the Ukraine and Georgia full NATO members now. Last I looked they were sovereign nations and don't need Russia's permission. Do you really believe Russia will "be nicer" to these countries if we let them dangle in the wind? Idiotic. Russia's "benevolence" is still fresh in the many Eastern Europeans, a fact overlooked by western sympathizers.
Yeah, I'm sure they'll put an ad in the New York Times when the get one. You don't wait until wait until you're in a car wreck to buy car insurance (unless you're liberal minded and think it's your right).
That would be true, too bad it wasn't designed for "Russian" threats, though if they are really scared about 10 interceptor missiles you have to wonder about their "high-tech weaponry". Iran on the other hand would have difficulty fielding 10 long range nuclear tipped missiles at any given time.
Russia has no desire to end the tensions it has helped create. What makes you think they have any incentive to stop? They are making a small fortune selling nuclear technology and weapon (S-300 surface to air missiles comes to mind) to Iran. Obama is the only one that thinks crippling business is a good thing. Russia just learned that they have to do nothing, yet the US will bend to their will. While Obama's naivety might have been "charming" during the campaign, it will not work now.
Again, Russia could easily overwhelm the 10 missiles to be installed. They know this. One should ask, "Why is Russia so concerned about having the ability to taking out Europe without impediment"? Kind of like your neighbor being upset because you installed a lock on your front door that might slow down his sledge hammer.
Is that a joke?
And you *are* talking out of your ass. The strategy DID worked in the past, especially against that very enemy. You won Cold War, didn't you? You are simply trying to pick whatever bone possible against Obama, even if it's a thought-up one.
How exactly did the Cold War proceed according to your memory?
In my book in the Cold War the two sides were increasingly aggressive about building up their arsenals in order to guarantee mutually assured destruction. The American strategy was _not_ to withdraw from positions close to Russia and do what Russia wanted America to do.
It took 50 years of containment policy, starting with Roosevelt and ending with Bush Sr. Reagan was simply the one that managed to pull the most credit out of it.
The strategy had been to circle USSR to make sure they could not get proper inroads to influence the whole of Eurasia. The U.S. has always been overdramatic over small tactical defeats (Vietnam being one of them), but you were crushing the USSR during those 50 years.
Allying Western Europe, Turkey, Pakistan and Iran was the classic move to block them on their eastern and southern border. The master achievement of that Strategy had been Nixon's creating ties to China, effectively finishing encircling Russia. To add it, you made sure whatever countries supported USSR got poor (ex: Cuba, Eastern Europe), while your allies were becoming rich. It was a winning, long-term strategy.
But short-term political elements might interfere in that strategy, but never actually treathening it. Vietnam intervention wasn't the cleverest thing, since it concerned China. (Same thing could be said about Korea's war), but in the end, winning or tie-ing those wars did not cause the U.S.'s Grand Strategy to crumble.
Russia is much weaker economically than they were during the Cold War, and thus their ambitions are much smaller. They are concerned about self-defence, and they will limit their priorities to keeping buffer countries around them (Ukraine and Belorussia being key figure), and keeping the U.S. out of the Caucase. Their world-spanning tentacles are meant not to actually gain power bases, but to create as much distraction to the U.s. as possible.
In the end, the U.S. will win. One president cannot change the U.S.'s Grand Strategy, as this strategy is rooted to the core into the United States' mindset. You don't see it as agression, you see it as natural self-defense. Russia's actions are exactly the same: they see it as natural self-defense, and this is where the interests collide.
Money has been put into those industries, and linked with economical realities, this will probably help improving the effeciency of such alternative energetic production. Just because the tech isn't top-notch right now doesn't mean that it won't be on the long run.We have seen improvement in the technologies in the past 10 years, incredible improvement. Now, with those huge governement subsidies, the research might proceed at an even faster pace.
But then again, I know you are incredibly biaised against everything on that topic, Paladin, so I don't hope to get trough that thick head of yours.
Are you implying that the huge sociologico-political fundamental shifts in Iran's society that happened in the 70's are all Carter's fault?
My my, you ARE delusional.
No, I think he was referring to the revolution.
That's called posturing. While it's often deep with significance, it's not always followed by actual actions.
I am putting those two quote to underline the hypocrisy of both your statements. You say (ironically) that we should not "offend the Russians", blablabla.. that Obama is actually bowing down to them. You even criticizing Bush for his (weakling) attitude toward Russia. In short, you think we are giving Russia more than a little breath room.
But at the same time, you are saying that she should not care about Russia's feeling about Ukraine and Georgia.
Ukraine, Georgia, Poland, Baltic States (and to a lesser extend, the central-asian republics north of Afghanistan) are all countries where the U.S. have made inroads in the past 20 years, economically, ideologically and military. Under Clinton, Bush and now Obama the U.S. of A. have been systematically aggressing the Russians by getting influence in those regions.
Russia is unique in it's geography: they don't have any real natural borders. In order to properly defend their territory, they need buffer zone to slow down and slowly crippling an invading army (that's how they have beaten both Napoleon and Hitley). They don't see it as having dominance over a lesser people: they see it as establishing a security perimeter. Maybe the nations under Russia's heel aren't happy about the whole thing, but Russia needs those nations.
And U.S.'s building up in influence in those regions isn't going to end. It's U.S.'s natural tendency to act like that. U.S. are on the extreme opposite of "calming down the Russian". You gave a concession on 1 issue. It's 1 out of 4000 that the Russians are genuinely worried about regarding their security.
(you were commenting about Iran's current lack of nuclear nuking capacity). You are comparing nuke-building (and not just the nuclear device; we are talking about the whole delivery system too), which is a huge economical commitment from any nation, to a CAR CRASH?
How stupid are you?
I don't see a Nuke-building as a "random event" mate.
Russia has no desire to let down its guard against the tension the U.S. created in Ukraine, Georgia, Kosovo and Poland either. Most of their actions around the world is aimed at distracting you and make you spend lots of ressources.
But U.S.'s economy is far from being crippled. You have so much potential, and your current economical strenght is only beginning to be properly tapped. You can afford to spend 10 times more money on strategic positionning around the world (which you historically have done), and still beat the Russians in a long-run race.
Russians are building up again against the U.S., and there is nothing we can do about it directly. The U.S. will simply use a winning strategy again, with different realities and different tactics.
He still said that because of Carter, Iran is our ennemy. Iran would have been your ennemy regardless of who was in the White House, regardless on how skilled he was. Iran needed to break independant of the U.S.'s influence to try to build up regional influence, and the U.S. simply reacted by drawing them into a war against Iraq.
U.S.'s Grand Strategy, while not making many people happy around the world, is incredibly effective to preserve your security.
Iraq/Iran balance of power has been preserve up until recently, and Iran now for the first time can afford to spend time on building up influence.
He still said that because of Carter, Iran is our enemy.
Yes. And that had nothing to do with "fundamental shifts in Iran's society".
Iran's society didn't change fundamentally in the 70s. The people remained as pro-western as they were. What did change was the regime. And that was partly and to a great part Carter's fault.
Iran would have been your enemy regardless of who was in the White House, regardless on how skilled he was.
No. It would have been perfectly possibly for a more competent and less dreamy US president to prop up the imperial regime or make sure that of all the rebel groups it wouldn't have been the mad mullahs who took over. Heck, Carter could have made sure that Khomeini wouldn't return to Iran. Or he could have supported Shapour Bakhtia's regime that was toppled by the mad mullahs.
The president was not exactly powerless; except that Carter was because he didn't make the decisions.
Iran needed to break independant of the U.S.'s influence to try to build up regional influence,
Iran had regional influence and never needed a break from US influence. Germany never had a break from US influence and that was ultimately good.
What Iran needed was a break from fundamentalist Islamist influence which it had suffered for a decade in the 70s ever since the mad mullahs started using their network of mosques to agitate against women, Bahais, Christians and Jews in the country.
Carter misread the situation and because of that the world lost the greatest country in the world to the closest we have to "forces ov evil" in this century.
You'd be surprised how many people in the world want to be more like Americans. But they usually don't demonstrate on the streets because those who don't are a violent lot. But whenever people anywhere have a chance, they buy American products and become more western. That's why countries like Iran have laws against Barbie dolls. The truth is that most of the people there do not really hate the US or what the US do. But those who do hate the US (regardless of what the US do) are louder and more violent.
Liberals tend to listen to the loud (and often violent) rather than observe the markets. That is true for foreign and domestic policy.
In general liberals will have to learn that the truly oppressed are not the ones we see protesting openly on the streets with gigantic posters displaying their demands.
Iran had plenty of influence under the Shah. The world listened to Iran and the Shah was widely respected. Before the Iranian revolution there was no need for an Iraq/Iran balance of power because the two were not fundamentally and utterly opposed in every way.
The enmity between Arab nationalism and the Shah was nowhere near as bad as the enmity between Sunni-supported Arab nationalism (the Iraqi Baath party) and Shiite fundamentalism.
What the US should have done was support the Kurds against the Baath government. The Shah supported them too (until it wasn't possible to do so any more) and a victory for Kurdistan (the Kurds are like the Persians an Iranian people) would have been a huge boost for the Shah's popularity in Iran.
and the U.S. simply reacted by drawing them into a war against Iraq.
And you yet you don't think Carter screwed up...
In order to properly defend their territory, they need buffer zone to slow down and slowly crippling an invading army (that's how they have beaten both Napoleon and Hitley)
Russia itself is a buffer zone. Neither Hitler nor Napoleon were slowed down by the countries surrdounding Russia.
Are you crazy? Napoleon lost most of his army become getting to Moscow, due to attrition. It was a freaking long march.
Hitler's had to went trough Poland, the Baltic States, Belaruss!
1) The missile shield doesn't work, and it's a VERY expensive failure. Why? In tests, the interceptors can hit other missiles -some- of the time, and the experiments are already a farce because they know ahead of time the exact details of the other missile- it's trajectory, source, destination, when it's going to be fired, AND that other missile is travelling in a nice straight line.
The Russians invented missiles years ago that do not travel in nice straight lines -and- I highly doubt that if anyone ever were to launch that they would call ahead of time and tell us the location of the launch site, when they were going to fire, the target they were trying to hit and the speed and altitude their missile would be reaching.
2) You can't afford it. This is billions and billions of dollars down the drain, as well as the couple trillion spent on the Iraq war, as well as hundreds of billions spent of Afghanistan, as well as the hundres of billions spent on the 700 military installations outside of U.S borders around the world, meanwhile the U.S economy is still in the crapper and things aren't looking too rosy anytime soon.
3) The missile shield should have never -ever- gone into eastern Europe in the first place and Russia doesn't have to 'give anything' in return. Why? Because back when the Soviet Union dissolved, there was an agreement between George Bush (senior) and Gorbachev. The USSR would disband, take it's troops out of eastern european countries and so forth and in exchange, NATO forces were not to move any further east than Germany.
This agreement was honored by Bush senior but then broken by Clinton and then openly rejected by Bush junior. In exchange for currying favor with a few small countries the U.S lost Russia as an ally.
And it didn't have to be that way. Putin actually wanted and tried to be an ally with the States but was essentially backstabbed several times in a row and now they're pretty much aligning with China when they could be on our side instead.
Yep, that was real smart indeed.
That freaking long march was _through Russia_, not through buffer states.
The "buffer state" at the time was Prussia, which provided tens of thousands of soldiers for Napoleon. In fact a quarter of Napoleon's army were Germans. Which buffer states did you have in mind between Prussia and Russia at the time?
Poland didn't exist when Hitler attacked the Soviet-Union. The Baltic states and Belarus were part of the Soviet-Union at the time.
In that case I don't understand why Russia is so worried about a system that cannot possibly work against their rockets and was said not to be about Russia at all.
I would like to see a source for the agreement.
I know about a treaty that forbids NATO troops (except German such) from being stationed in East-Germany (and as far as I know there are no non-German NATO troops in the area). But while I have heard about the agreement you mention, I cannot at the moment recall which treaty it was.
The territory that was once part of Russia at the time isn't anymore (Belaruss) Any with mechanised military, you need longer buffer zone anyway.
Oh, I must be mistaken then. What country Hitler attacked that caused England to declare war on Germany?
I know that country was separated between Russia and Germany.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
