Russia threatens military response to US missiles

[DrYB/C]

a. Russia threatens military response to US missiles
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...RMpJAD92Q53VO0

b. Russia recognizes independence of Georgian regions
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...j53mAD92Q5MU00

related:

c. Gold reserves more important than before-Bundesbank
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7744536

p.s.

Anyone capable of of providing credible, logical geopolitical analysis regarding this situation?? I can find no sources of info i find suitably thorough when discussing the events. To me, it seems US/Western political leadership is provoking its Russian counterpart. But why???

[FRED]

Re: Russia threatens military response to US missiles

a. Russia threatens military response to US missiles
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...RMpJAD92Q53VO0

b. Russia recognizes independence of Georgian regions
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...j53mAD92Q5MU00

related:

c. Gold reserves more important than before-Bundesbank
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7744536

p.s.

Anyone capable of of providing credible, logical geopolitical analysis regarding this situation?? I can find no sources of info i find suitably thorough when discussing the events. To me, it seems US/Western political leadership is provoking its Russian counterpart. But why???

Our sources inform this assessment.

[Mega]

Re: Russia threatens military response to US missiles

When the old USSR fell apart one of the options discussed was a limted war with the West. However it dawned on all in the room that wars tend not to be limted for very long..........and EVERYONE gets nuked!

(Atomic bombs have saved a hell of a lot of lives).

I would not put it past this scumbags we have in power here to be thinking the same way. The root cause is Oil/Gas etc.........they tried to bait the Ismaic types to battle, but only got a limted war (Which they lost/losing).

The basic truth is that the West has had it GREAT for hunderds of years. Think about it this planet has be ruled by White-euro types since the 16 th centry?

Well move over White-e...Asia is here!

Mike

[ASH]

Re: Russia threatens military response to US missiles

Anyone capable of of providing credible, logical geopolitical analysis regarding this situation?? I can find no sources of info i find suitably thorough when discussing the events. To me, it seems US/Western political leadership is provoking its Russian counterpart. But why???

I too would be interested in a comprehensive analysis of American motives. From my perspective, I can see a lot of the ins and outs of "what", but I am not convinced of the "why". Here are some candidate motivations which occur to me -- none of which I find wholly convincing.

Theory 1: We are provoking the Russians accidentally because no one is minding the shop, and we are gravely underestimating Russia's level of concern because we naively feel they have no justification for taking offense at our activities. Our best foreign policy minds, such as they are, have been focussed on the Middle East for most of Bush's Presidency. Half our policies are on the autopilot of institutional inertia, and the other half are informed by the strange mixture of aspiration, bellicosity, and half-arsed execution which typify this administration. I think the United States is treating Russia as if it is 1998 rather than 2008, and I think we are implicitly acting as if our present military dominance is a permanent strategic fact rather than a transitory phenomenon. Thus, our actions could be motivated by a simple-minded aspirational desire to draw Russia's former satellites into the Western sphere, the strategic perception that Russia is too weak to do anything about it, the self-righteous view that our missile-defense-related motives are obviously pure (and so should seem neither threatening nor arrogant), and the assumption that Russia will be unable to do anything about it in the future. Of the thoughts that occur to me, I find the theory that we are witnessing a badly mismanaged foreign policy the most plausible.

Theory 2: We are provoking Russia because someone is indeed minding the shop, but they are simultaneously malevolent, reckless, and aggressive. Limited missile defense is INDEED about achieving nuclear primacy over Russia (by creating the potential to mop up a Russian counter-attack after an American first strike), and the expansion of NATO is INDEED about isolating Russia. Our leaders are playing with fire. I find this theory somewhat less plausible, but to the extent that it is roughly consistent with the official doctrine of "full spectrum dominance", I cannot discount it entirely. I think this viewpoint is the majority viewpoint in much of the rest of the world.

Theory 3: We are not, in fact, provoking Russia. We are taking the opportunity afforded by their temporary weakness to contest their illegitimate dominance of their neighbors, and in so doing, are virtuously serving the cause of liberty. The missile defense installations in Europe are partly about the potential threat from Iran, but have become a means of demonstrating our long-term commitment to defend democracy in Poland and the Czech Republic. Our refusal to be deterred by Russia's bluster is both principled and wise, as their apparent resurgence will be short-lived. Their export wealth from energy resources will be temporary, and cannot reverse the inevitable collapse in strength that accompanies their demographic decline. They will never again be a conventional military threat on parr with the United States, and our nuclear deterrent guarantees they will not engage in a shooting war with us, regardless of their bluster. Actions like their intervention in Georgia only serve to remind the more important Eastern European states why they should gravitate toward the Western sphere, and will ultimately marginalize Russia. This is the best rationalization I can come up with for why our recent policies are a "good idea." Needless to say, I don't think this is an entirely accurate strategic picture, both because of Russia's nuclear arsenal and their control over energy supplies to Europe. However, one supposes that this is what our foreign policy establishment THINKS it is doing. (See #1 above.)

Theory 4: We are provoking Russia because the fix is in! Conspiracy theorists rejoice! Foreign tensions typically strengthen the political party presently in possession of the executive branch. They have both motive and opportunity. The prospect of war keeps public funds flowing to the military-industrial complex, and with the War in Iraq petering out, something has to replace it. (I am not a fan of this theory, but I offer it for the sake of completeness; it is what I imagine the more conspiracy-minded crowd thinks.)

Anyone else have an opinion?

[ASH]

Re: Russia threatens military response to US missiles

This just in! US Advises Allies Not to Border Russia

[Master Shake]

Re: Russia threatens military response to US missiles

I too would be interested in a comprehensive analysis of American motives. From my perspective, I can see a lot of the ins and outs of "what", but I am not convinced of the "why". Here are some candidate motivations which occur to me -- none of which I find wholly convincing.

Theory 1: We are provoking the Russians accidentally because no one is minding the shop, and we are gravely underestimating their level of concern because we naively feel they have no justification for taking offense at our activities. Our best foreign policy minds, such as they are, have been focussed on the Middle East for most of Bush's Presidency. Half our policies are on the autopilot of institutional inertia, and the other half are informed by the strange mixture of aspiration, bellicosity, and half-arsed execution which typify this administration. I think the United States is treating Russia as if it is 1998 rather than 2008, and I think we are implicitly acting as if our present military dominance is a permanent strategic fact rather than a transitory phenomenon. Thus, our actions could be motivated by a simple-minded aspirational desire to draw Russia's former satellites into the Western sphere, the strategic perception that Russia is too weak to do anything about it, the self-righteous view that our missile-defense-related motives are obviously pure (and so should seem neither threatening nor arrogant), and the assumption that Russia will be unable to do anything about it in the future. Of the thoughts that occur to me, I find the theory that we are witnessing a badly mismanaged foreign policy the most plausible.

Theory 2: We are provoking Russia because someone is indeed minding the shop, but they are simultaneously malevolent, reckless, and aggressive. Limited missile defense is INDEED about achieving nuclear primacy over Russia (by creating the potential to mop up a Russian counter-attack after an American first strike), and the expansion of NATO is INDEED about isolating Russia. Our leaders are playing with fire. I find this theory somewhat less plausible, but to the extent that it is roughly consistent with the official doctrine of "full spectrum dominance", I cannot discount it entirely. I think this viewpoint is the majority viewpoint in much of the rest of the world.

Theory 3: We are not, in fact, provoking Russia. We are taking the opportunity afforded by their temporary weakness to contest their illegitimate dominance of their neighbors, and in so doing, are virtuously serving the cause of liberty. The missile defense installations in Europe are partly about the potential threat from Iran, but have become a means of demonstrating our long-term commitment to defend democracy in Poland and the Czech Republic. Our refusal to be deterred by Russia's bluster is both principled and wise, as their apparent resurgence will be short-lived. Their export wealth from energy resources will be temporary, and cannot reverse the inevitable collapse in strength that accompanies their demographic decline. They will never again be a conventional military threat on parr with the United States, and our nuclear deterrent guarantees they will not engage in a shooting war with us, regardless of their bluster. Actions like their intervention in Georgia only serve to remind the more important Eastern European states why they should gravitate toward the Western sphere, and will ultimately marginalize Russia. This is the best rationalization I can come up with for why our recent policies are a "good idea." Needless to say, I don't think this is an entirely accurate strategic picture, both because of Russia's nuclear arsenal and their control over energy supplies to Europe. However, one supposes that this is what our foreign policy establishment THINKS it is doing. (See #1 above.)

Theory 4: We are provoking Russia because the fix is in! Conspiracy theorists rejoice! Foreign tensions typically strengthen the political party presently in possession of the executive branch. They have both motive and opportunity. The prospect of war keeps public funds flowing to the military-industrial complex, and with the War in Iraq petering out, something has to replace it. (I am not a fan of this theory, but I offer it for the sake of completeness; it is what I imagine the more conspiracy-minded crowd thinks.)

Anyone else have an opinion?

Well, as long as we're talking conspiracy theories, how about this: Russia is concerned about falling oil prices. Oil is down over 20% from its peak, and the demand destruction brought on by worldwide recession has them thinking it has farther to fall. They know that political instability, especially in their part of the world, will lead to higher prices. So, given that they're getting fed up with the uppity Georgians and their other former commie bigmouth neighbors anyway and want to put them in their place, they decide to flex some muscle, knowing they're dealing with a lame duck and unpopular US President. What do they have to lose? Sanctions from the UN? LOL! The disapproval of Europe? Where are the marchers and protests? Seems like a no-brainer from the Russkies POV.

[ASH]

Re: Russia threatens military response to US missiles

Well, as long as we're talking conspiracy theories, how about this: Russia is concerned about falling oil prices. Oil is down over 20% from its peak, and the demand destruction brought on by worldwide recession has them thinking it has farther to fall. They know that political instability, especially in their part of the world, will lead to higher prices. So, given that they're getting fed up with the uppity Georgians and their other former commie bigmouth neighbors anyway and want to put them in their place, they decide to flex some muscle, knowing they're dealing with a lame duck and unpopular US President. What do they have to lose? Sanctions from the UN? LOL! The disapproval of Europe? Where are the marchers and protests? Seems like a no-brainer from the Russkies POV.

Well done, sir!

And bravo on your handle/avatar. Do you watch The Venture Bros. by any chance? Since we're talking foreign policy, I have to say: how awesome is Dr. Henry Killinger! "... and this is my magic murder bag!"

[Master Shake]

Re: Russia threatens military response to US missiles

Well done, sir!

And bravo on your handle/avatar. Do you watch The Venture Bros. by any chance? Since we're talking foreign policy, I have to say: how awesome is Dr. Henry Killinger! "... and this is my magic murder bag!"

Not familiar with The Venture Bros., but if the humor is anything like ATHF, Space Ghost CTC, or Robot Chicken, I'll have to check it out.

[metalman]

Re: Russia threatens military response to US missiles

Well done, sir!

And bravo on your handle/avatar. Do you watch The Venture Bros. by any chance? Since we're talking foreign policy, I have to say: how awesome is Dr. Henry Killinger! "... and this is my magic murder bag!"

henry killinger. nice. how many countries can't he visit for fear of getting arrested as a war criminal? and i have to watch him on charlie rose? ugh. :mad:

[Guest]

Re: Russia threatens military response to US missiles

Hey ASH -

Sorry to rag on you about your comments regarding which age groups are worth keeping solidly within the continuing American social contract. I may have a strong opinion about that, but I am nobody's ideologue, and have little ambition even, to "save the world"! I disagree (even quite strongly) on that comment and that point, but there's no need for me to be a moralizing bore about it. I'll just be voting counter to you on this issue at the ballot box.

Well done, sir! And bravo on your handle/avatar. Do you watch The Venture Bros. by any chance? Since we're talking foreign policy, I have to say: how awesome is Dr. Henry Killinger! "... and this is my magic murder bag!"

[c1ue]

Re: Russia threatens military response to US missiles

The events unfolding seem to be a combination of US/Brzezinski/Chaostan power maneuvering (long term) plus McCain-politicizing (Georgia lobby, US Presidential election 2008) - running headlong into Russia's overflow of emotion regarding Russia's historical border security and Russia's feeling ignored in its recent demands.

Keep in mind the combination of Georgia and Ukraine also cuts off Russia from its warm water port - a historical imperative since the wars with the Ottoman empire.

What is really interesting is the confluence of events in Europe: A formerly non-partner to the US (France) is now much more middle of the road.

A formerly fairly pro-Russian Germany is now on the neutral line.

Certainly Russia has WAY overstepped any reasonable response with the post-battle occupation.

What I'm still not getting is where Russia expects to go from here.

Is the de-facto redrawing of the boundaries of South Ossetia and Abkhazia the line in the sand to emphasize the US temporary weakness due to Iraq/Afghanistan?

Does Russia feel the present world order is such that there is no point in playing ball?

Note the timing:

8/8 - Olympics start, Georgia shells South Ossetia then Georgian armored column moves in

8/10 - Georgian forces in full retreat from South Ossetia
Cheney warns: [Russian aggression]"must not go unanswered"

8/12 - Georgia and Russia agree to ceasefire
McCain states: "We are all Georgians"

8/13 - Georgian troops withdraw from Abkhazia as part of ceasefire terms
US announces the sending of a military force to deliver humanitarian aid
Bush threatens Russia's place in "the diplomatic, political, economic and security structures of the 21st century"

8/14 - Poland signs pact with US for missile defense

8/25 - US warns Russia not to recognize independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia

8/26 - Russia recognizes independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia

Sure looks like a tit for tat going on right now...

[Guest]

Re: Russia threatens military response to US missiles

In 20 years petroleum will trump everything. Everything. All subtleties fly out the window. He who has a lock on petroleum will carry a very long stick for a few decades. Putin is a realist. Put it together and what do you get?

[Supercilious]

Re: Russia threatens military response to US missiles

A formerly non-partner to the US (France) is now much more middle of the road.

That has a simple explanation: Sarkozy's (half-)brother is co-head and managing director for Carlyle's Global Financial Services Group ;)

No mystery here!

[ASH]

Re: Russia threatens military response to US missiles

Hey ASH -

Sorry to rag on you about your comments regarding which age groups are worth keeping solidly within the continuing American social contract. I may have a strong opinion about that, but I am nobody's ideologue, and have little ambition even, to "save the world"! I disagree (even quite strongly) on that comment and that point, but there's no need for me to be a moralizing bore about it. I'll just be voting counter to you on this issue at the ballot box.

No offense taken. Based upon your posts, I like you, and I respect your opinion to the point that such strong disagreement is cause for reflection. When differences like this arise (with someone who thinks clearly, that is), the central question I ask myself is whether the divergence of opinion is the result of us having a different set of axioms and/or facts, or whether there is a problem with my logic. On matters of political philosophy, one might substitute the word "values" for axioms. There's no helping a difference of opinion about what is "good", but problems with my reasoning can and should be corrected.

In any case, although I suspect we have very different ideas about what is "good" (for the reason that I know of no other human being who shares my own views in this regard), I have also found weaknesses in some of my thinking about the basis of legitimate government. It will require further thought on my part to determine whether these weaknesses are incidental, or destructive to my position... but not tonight! Let us carry on with other topics.

[Guest]

Re: Russia threatens military response to US missiles

ASH -

You have a natural twin on these pages. That maverick character answering to the name of C1ue. Both of you are drawn to "economic cost benefit analyses" regarding how to handle, let alone heal, the fraying social contract. Your analytic process towards "social contract" positions relies to a great extent on straight logic, and the relevant point here is that regardless of what I disagree to within it, it probably arrives at a good bit more truth than many of our elected representatives in Cogress and the Senate, whose stances are completely shaped by what will "fly" past or "get successfully sold to" their electorates. You are a pair of archetypical engineers. Two peas from the same pod.

I have a funny little animated cartoon which I'm unable to post on these pages as it's a .MOV file over 1.5 MB in size. A little boy and his mom are at the doctor's office and the doctor has just finished examining the little tyke. His mother askes anxiously what may be ailing him. Meantime the doctor mentions that he wanted to give the boy another test with a piece of diagnostic equipment that has malfunctioned. In the corner of the window you can see the little tyke has wandered away from the mother's anxious hand, and has opened the equipment, deftly tweaked an internal contact and the machine has booted right up again. The doctor turns and gestures towards her happy faced little tyke, now beaming in triumph at the success of his little repair job, and murmurs fearfully to the mother, like an solicitous undertaker, announcing a death in the family or a child born with a fatal disadvantage:

"Your son is destined to become an engineer!".

The mother blanches and nearly faints at the prospect and the good doctor does his best to console her.

The comic is drawn with a wonderful and deft "1950's" tinge to the graphics, and the whole thing comes off as a neat and nostalgic reference to our country when it was coming up fast as the world's most dazzling upsart superpower. It's undertone is one of optimism, mixed with a wry jab at the role of the engineer and also at petit bourgeois society's narrow social horizons.

Returning to the point, I am aware that often an needed social prescription may not have the "cosmetic" attributes ("easy to grasp populist cartoon stereotypes") needed to be a popular sell to the electorate. Meanwhile a coldly logical set of conclusions as to what works and what doesn't, provides a way to escape merely posturing for electioneering. I agree on that 100%, Politicians who posture and pander to populist issues are hacks that need to get summarily booted in times of real crisis. A certain (overly slick) Senator Joe Biden comes to mind in the midst of our looming economic crisis, not to speak of the spotty grasp of that same internal fiscal crisis which is reflected in John McCain's priorities and general grasp of what really constitutes America's "security" in 2009-2012 and beyond.

Like C1ue, over the years I've also (perhaps a little more vaguely) liked John McCain for his maverick voting record which ignored party lines. But he may be (probably is!) getting (more than a little) foggy around the edges and this cold warrior will be playing a permanent catch-up to the gravity of the US fiscal situation probably through his entire term in office, which is simply unsatisfactory at this juncture. Altogether, like so many others here, I find all of these candidates and their two parties in 2008 to be yet another dreary go-around of the ever more drearily candy-coated and dumbed down American political process, now flailing about increasingly dysfunctionally relative to the economic and socio-political crack-up which we all see looming.

So at the end of the day our differences of opinion on this one question of "social contracts for the retired cohorts" are notably overshadowed by the broader, deeper dysfunction of the entire American electorate in coming to grips with what ails us which is so bad and critical that it's to the point of risking national economic suicide. In this regard, the vast majority of iTulipers are solidly on the same page with you and C1ue both on ensuring that any social contracts actually can function, as am I. And on that note, I leave you with this remarkably trenchant coverage of our upcoming electoral drama: [ :rolleyes: ].

Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters