Russia

Obama told Medvedev he'll have "more flexibility" on Missile Defense after the election

Romney says Russia is Geopolitical Foe #1

And of course we can remember The Georgian War.

One can remember Russia advising Kirgyzistan to allow the US to use a base, and then pressuring it to close it some years later. One can remember Russia's opposition to the expansion of NATO eastward, or Russia's conflict with the Ukraine over gas prices.

So, is it reasonable to call Russia an enemy of the USA? The number one enemy?

Russia isn't sponsoring terrorist groups which attack our attack our troops abroad like Iran did with Khobar Towers, so no, Russia is no more a threat than say, China or India.

Mitt calling Russia our "#1 foe" is just another example of the old politicians who are either still stuck in the Cold War or trying to use whatever bitter feelings are left from that time period to give themselves a perceived political edge, e.g., "I can see Russian from my house".

I won't say Russia is our enemy, but they're not our friend either.

They try and stir up fear as a way of attracting votes from those who don't really understand foreign policy, and still have that 'cold war view'. At the end of the day, all countries will fight for their own interests, whether they be Russia, China, India, Australia or Papua New Guinea, if not doing what the US wants all the time makes them an 'enemy', then such is life.

Number one enemy, I don't think so. Perhaps the war on terror has bought new # 1 enemies to the state. But perhaps without the increased Western Dominance, that is advocated by super-powers such as the US these would not be an issue. Islam has become more conservative in recent years than ever, mainly because they see westernisation as a threat to their culture.

The Taliban not only oppose this, but they oppose governments that oppress their people, or are lackey's to the US government. Studies in Saudi Arabia for instance showed that if Osama Bin Laden was to ever run for a political office in that country, say President (if the King was removed, and Osama not dead) he would have won that election absolutely out right and democratically. Thats why the US supports some of these dictators, as they see their iron fist rule, abuse of human rights, and murder of civilians as a last bastion preventing al-qaeda/taliban from taking over.

Being very tired, i have taken this debate in a radical and different direction, sorry about that :/

Russia could definitley improve its position in the West, if it moved more so towards democracy and away from the oligarchy that it is today.

mcmasterdonia:

The Taliban not only oppose this, but they oppose governments that oppress their people, or are lackey's to the US government.

Click to expand...

Woah, woah, back the hell up here. The Taliban opposes governments that oppress their people? That's basically what the Taliban was all about when they were in power, oppressing any view that did not conform with their very strict (and in some case flat out incorrect) interpretation of the Koran. Afghanistan may be a shithole after the US-backed overthrow, but it was an even bigger shithole before the invasion. Remember the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan? Even China offered to outright buy that bit of history, but no, the Taliban wanted it destroyed because it wasn't part of their religion, and that's just the start of it.

They massacred people, the engaged in human trafficking and drug trade, they oppressed, beat, and executed women for things like "learning to read" or "not wearing a burqa", they banned music, and held formal and public executions to terrorize local populations into compliance.

No, the Taliban was an oppressive government, they do not oppose them in the slightest.

mcmasterdonia:

Russia could definitley improve its position in the West, if it moved more so towards democracy and away from the oligarchy that it is today.

Click to expand...

Counter-example: Western behavior toward Russia 1992-2000.

I still remember the Kursk tragedy, how Russia basically waited until someone up in the Kremlin told them to get off their stubborn arses and call NATO to help. By that time though tehy were already dead. Had they acted sooner when NATO first offered to help, there would still be at least a few dozen more men in the Russian Federal Navy alive today.

They were already dead Govindia. ~Gerald

The evidence is that the crew survived for several hours if not days after the accident.

Yes, if I remember correctly, it was reported that tapping and banging was heard along the hull for days after the incident occurred. Sort of off topic, however.

Eluvatar:

The evidence is that the crew survived for several hours if not days after the accident.

Click to expand...

Yea, but the Russians didn't have anything to get them out like NATO units did. They delayed and cost those guys deaths because of stubbornness in asking NATO beforehand for help

Govindia I was basically agreeing with you.

I wonder if there's any response to my counter-example though.

Eluvatar:

Govindia I was basically agreeing with you.

I wonder if there's any response to my counter-example though.

Click to expand...

I was wondering that too. Things were improving in the 90s, and now the 2000s things regressed...why?

Not the slightest of clues...

I meant more that "the West" was quite hostile, or at least acted with disregard toward Russia in the 90s as well.

There used to be an old joke in the intel community during the cold war:

Q: What's the difference between an optimist and a pessimist?

A: An optimist learns Russian. (meaning a pessimists therefore would learn Chinese).

Russia is fairly inert in terms of being a threat to the US. The one thing that has to be understood about the Russians in diplomatic and political terms is that they tend to be perceived as being a bit blustery and prone to hyperbole. But that is just due to linguistic differences and how Russian translates into English and other non-Slovic languages.

There are three things the Russians have always wanted for the past 200 years:

1. A warm water port that doesn't freeze solid in winter.

2. Ownership of Eastern Europe.

3. Total control over Western Europe.

The Russians (when not invaded) always engage in 'Byzantine Diplomacy' - the paradigm that you don't actually engage your neighbors in open warfare; you supply your neighbors' enemies with the material to annoy your neighbors. And, by the same token, if you have two neighbors or potential enemies you supply both sides with weapons and then set them against each other so they don't attack you.

I give it another 20 years or so, and Russia will restore the monarchy, at least in terms of a symbolic 'Head of State' (and there are still plenty of Romanovs still hanging around and getting ready for that possible event).

In terms of how the US should deal with Russia, the US would be better off having the Russians as an ally in the economic arena. There are a number of reasons for this: Oil, oil and oil.

But here's the catch that really pisses off the Russians - the US and OPEC don't every want the Russians to get their oil to a world market (which would ruin OPEC) and this is one of the reasons why Obama is doing everything to stop the development of US domestic oil reserves and shut down domestic production (and turn it over to foreign interests if he can get away with it)...he doesn't want to piss off his Arab buddies. This was also true to some extent with Bush and every other president since Bush, Sr.

And this is why, for the past 100 years the UK, Germany and the US have done everything to stop the Russians from getting a warm water port. And there is a historical point about this that they won't tell you in the standard history books (and Russia plays a major part in this):

WWI was fought primarily over oil. By the late 1800's Germany had become the world's premier developer of petroleum synthetics (everything from using oil and coal to produce fuel, petrochemicals, pharmaceuticals and plastics). Most of the Middle East was wide open and that was where it was known that most of the oil was located.

So, the Germans and the Austro-Hungarians decided to construch a "Berlin to Baghdad" railway to ship all that nice oil from Iraq to Germany for industrial purposes. This was why the Balkan wars were fought and why Turkey (who was in on it too) turned over the Balkans to Austria-Hungary which was capable of stabilizing the region so that such a railway could be constructed. But there was a monkey wrench in the works: Serbia.

Serbia wanted to become independent. Add to that the fact that Archduke Franz Ferdinand was a believer in "Triadism" which would make the Slavs equal partners in the Austro-Hungarian Empire (and this really scared the Austrians and the Hungarians. So, essentially it is believed that they set up the assassination of Franz Ferdinand so that they would have a pretext to smash the Serbs. It is generally believed that the Brits, who wanted the oil in Iraq and feared a German presence in their sphere of influence (the Near East, Far East, Middle East and Africa), financed the Serbs in their bid for independence and to prevent the Berlin-Baghdad railway.

Confused yet? it gets worse.

To make a long story even longer, Britain, France and Russia had a convoluted alliance as did the German, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empire (the Turks, that is) in which if one went to war, they all did.

Russia wasn't entirely on board with this so the Brits and the French promised the Russians literal ownership of the Bosphorus Straights and thus a warm water port in return for their cooperation.

Fast forward to the end of WWI - the Brits and the French decided to not keep up their end of the Bargain (and the US was in on this too) after the Tsar was overthrown by the Bolsheviks. No one recognized the communist regime in Russia and since the treaties involved were made with the person of the Tsar, and the Tsar was dead, all bets were off as per the Bosphorus treaty. Hence, the Brits, French and US had exclusive control over the world petroleum market and Russia couldn't get in on the deal and increase the supply of oil and drive world priced down. See where this is going?

At any rate, this policy of containing Russia to prevent it from getting its oil and other resources directly to the world market is still in place today, archaic as it seems, mainly because a once again prosperous Russia scares the crap out of the rest of the Western World, but wrongly so. Russia's foreign policy is mainly 'contiguous' in the sense of the fact that the Russians have little interest in anyone that doesn't directly border them, for the most part. Every foray into non-contiguous expansing of their sphere of influence has been a disaster - Cuba, Angola, Central America, China, Vietnam, etc.,,,. So, the Russians have very little desire to get directly embroiled in regions that do not directly border with Russia and the CIS.

But mainly, the US and NATO needs to update its threat analysis and be more open to a climate of US/NATO-Russia cooperation. An economic and industrial alliance between the US and Russia would literally dominate the world economically and otherwise and really change the landscape in terms of international affairs. Think about that one.

Romney Campaign Again Warns Of ‘Soviet’ Threat

Ok, this is getting moronic, they're not even attempting to act like the Cold War ended at this point. At one point this guy even criticizes Obama for not protecting Czechoslovakia which, as the article points out, is a country that hasn't existed since 1993.

You know, we have Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and a crap ton of terrorists to worry about...why are we trying to rekindle the Cold War? Bonus points or something?

Blue Wolf II:

You know, we have Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and a crap ton of terrorists to worry about...why are we trying to rekindle the Cold War? Bonus points or something?

Click to expand...

Referencing terrorists and rogue states allies ones self with the shit cascade that is Afghanistan/Iraq, and of the up and coming economic powerhouses the US can't afford to piss off China, and it would look even more ridiculous having a pop at any of the rest.

Namyeknom:

Referencing terrorists and rogue states allies ones self with the shit cascade that is Afghanistan/Iraq, and of the up and coming economic powerhouses the US can't afford to piss off China, and it would look even more ridiculous having a pop at any of the rest.

Click to expand...

That's especially true considering China holds most of our national debt.

But look on the bright side - when the US economy really collapses (and another four years of the same old economic policies on steroids that got us here in the first place) the rest of the world goes with it.

The irony is that the current administration in the US is rushing down the same path that the Weimar Republic in Germany of the 1920's did. The Federal Reserve is engaging in "Quatitative Easing" which is the silly and inane process of printing up bonds, then printing money to by those bonds and then printing more money using the debt created as an 'asset' to expand the money supply which, in turn, devalues the money supply. This process is fine and dandy as long as foreign powers don't own a substantial part of your debt and your currency is the reserve currency of the rest of the world. When that's the case, you get hyper-inflation like Germany had in the 1920's and it results in some nasty little unforeseen consequences that I need not mention.

Because the Chinese have so much of their money invested in our debt, the Chinese find themselves in a precarious position. Their currency is devalued because we are devaluing our currency by running the printing presses like the Weimar Republic. Remember, prices aren't really rising - the value of the money is decreasing because there's more of it. Simple supply-demand processes that the supply-side economist types fail to understand.

This forces the Chinese to manipulate their currency in order to stay afloat which, in turn, damages the US position of having the US Dollar being the 'reserve currency' for the rest of the world.

In essence, what has happened is that the Obama Administration along with those other idiots called the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank think that they can simply prop up a service-based economy that produces very little industrial goods any more by simply printing more money. What started out as a 'Tax and Spend' policy now has become a 'Spend and then Tax" policy which is the very nature of Economic Socialism/Fascism.

It's also worth remembering that Fascism is a division of Socialism (read Mussolini's Fascist Manifesto) and is not 'right wing' unless it is considered as a part of socialism as a whole. That means that Fascism is a 'nationalistic' version of Socialism which is 'internationalistic'. Currently, the US is operating in both spheres of 'socialism'. It's policy has become somewhat Soviet in it's social programs but fascistic (like Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany) in terms of trying to create a 'command economy' and this is doomed to utter failure when mixed in with Weimar Republic style financial programs. And this is what worries the Chinese whose Maoist-Marxist form of "State Capitalism" (another euphemism for Stalinist Communism) cannot survive without free-market capitalist nations to leech off of.

If I were to put my bets on the real rising economic power in the world, it would be Russia. And this is why the US and Russia should economically cooperate (and even militarily for that matter). At least the Russians are European; the Chinese are something entirely alien to everyone but China - they have no respect for the individual which only exists as a function of the state to service the state. China is a dystopic version of Orwell's 1984 above and beyond Stalin styled socialism.

But economically speaking, it's pretty pathetic when the communist Chinese leaders have to lecture Obama on capitalism and how to make it work. This, of course, means that China is defecating cinderblocks at the economic idiocy that is happening in the US right now. They know that if we go down, they go down and that will force China to invade its neighbors and pillage them for resources as every socialist/fascist nation in history has had to do and did do. History is repeating itself but only the players have switched seats.

As an amusing observation, though, the idiots in the Obama Administration think they can follow an economic scheme that is a mixed metaphor of FDR, Mussolini and Stalin from the 1930's and apply it to the 21st century and then expect the same old thing to turn out differently than it did before.

And why does history repeat itself (or at least rhyme)? I have a personal theory about it: in all matters of economic, human and international interaction, no matter what idiotic or oppressive system you seek to enforce, the forces of the free market will always manifest itself and resume supremacy in the end. The Soviet Union found this out and China will find it out in the near future.

The whole theory can be reduced to one short quote so eloquently put by Frank Zappa: "The reason Communism and Socialism are doomed to failure is because people like to own shit."

Blue Wolf II:

Russia isn't sponsoring terrorist groups which attack our attack our troops abroad like Iran did with Khobar Towers, so no, Russia is no more a threat than say, China or India....

Click to expand...

Oh, yes they are. Russia is the prime supporter of Iran which, in turn, is the prime supporter of Islamic terrorist groups pointed directly at the US. Who do you think is financing and supplying the technology that Iran is using to forward their nuclear weapons programs? Russia. Oh, and China too for that matter.

But this is just a typical 'Byzantine' form of foreign policy that the Russians have always followed for centuries. Russians generally avoid direct conflict with anyone that they see as a foe. Instead, they use the same policy that the Byzantine Empire (and there is a historical relationship between Russia and the Byzantine Empire*) used: Supply your potential enemies on your border with money and weapons so they become dependent upon you and leave you alone and encourage them to bother you and not them. See how it works? This is the one thing that all diplomats and political scientists have failed to understand about Russia. And I can't understand why they all have missed that glaring point that's bitting them right in the arse.

One of the reasons why the US always sees Russia as a foe is Russia's nasty little historical habit of attacking its allies when it does choose to actually directly engage a nation it sees as a foe or potential foe (and why not? Russia is used to being betrayed or left twisting in the wind by its allies as a pure matter of business).




* Note: Remember, the first Romanov Tsars of Russia were the last emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire which is also known as the Byzantine Empire (Remember Emperor Diacletian?). When the Ottoman Turks overran the Byzantine Empire, the last Roman Emperors and heirs to not only the Byzantine Empire but the Roman Empire as a whole, hence the name Romanov (Which literally means "Sons of The Romans"). Hence, Russia (at least up until the last Tsar in reality) is the living, breathing 'what's left of' the Ancient Roman Empire. Understanding this bureaucratic line of history makes understanding how the Russians behave a whole lot easier to comprehend.

Which brings up an interesting little historical observation that proves that while governments and regimes come and go, the bureaucracy always remains. Point in example: When Imperial Russia fell to the Bolsheviks, the same bureaucrats that ran Imperial Russia remained in place to run the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union fell, that same long line of bureaucrats remained to run the machinery of Russia today. And their lineage is uninterrupted all the way back to the Roman Republic.**


** Note: See what happens when someone says something that piques the interest of a PhD in History who is used to lecturing endlessly on arcane points of historical interest that most people have no interest in?

Romanoffia:

Oh, yes they are. Russia is the prime supporter of Iran which, in turn, is the prime supporter of Islamic terrorist groups pointed directly at the US.

Click to expand...

Maybe so, but I highly doubt that Russia directly woke up one day and said to itself "hey, lets go kill some US Airmen for no reason what-so-ever"

No, not at all. All the Russians are up to is to give their potential enemies (countries like Iran) a hobby (like bother the US). That way, they point the Iranians away from Russia and towards the US who once sufficiently pissed off bomb the crap out of Iran, thus solving Russia's potential problems with Iran. Why go to war to neutralize a potential threat when you can point that threat away from you towards someone else who will wipe the floor with them?

It's actually a really great strategy in practical terms, and one, incidentally, that has been actively been employed in NationStates by TNP in past years, only very few people noticed it.

Isn't that basically what Pakistan is doing with the Taliban? Pointing them at Afghanistan so Pakistan can keep them occupied there and not doing other things with their idle time, like attacking Pakistan? Although I can't say that strategy has been working out so well for them as of late.

Exactly. But Pakistan is incompetent at best. ;D

Romanoffia:

** Note: See what happens when someone says something that piques the interest of a PhD in History who is used to lecturing endlessly on arcane points of historical interest that most people have no interest in?

Click to expand...

What I find interesting is your complete lack of knowledge of Russian history.

* Note: Remember, the first Romanov Tsars of Russia were the last emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire which is also known as the Byzantine Empire (Remember Emperor Diacletian?). When the Ottoman Turks overran the Byzantine Empire, the last Roman Emperors and heirs to not only the Byzantine Empire but the Roman Empire as a whole, hence the name Romanov (Which literally means "Sons of The Romans"). Hence, Russia (at least up until the last Tsar in reality) is the living, breathing 'what's left of' the Ancient Roman Empire. Understanding this bureaucratic line of history makes understanding how the Russians behave a whole lot easier to comprehend.

Click to expand...

The Romanovs were a minor aristocratic family in Russia before they married into the Riurikid dynasty (Ivan IV). "Romanov" is a patronym, not some seeming connection to the ancient romans. It literally is a name that means "Son of Roman", not "sons of Romans", in this case Roman Zakharin-Yuriev, father of the bride of Ivan IV.
I point this out to call into question your credibility, because frankly you are saying a lot of things in here that are not accurate at all, and seem more like your opinion of things than anything factual.

And this idea of Byzantine diplomacy is laughable as well. Russia generally speaking only adopted ecclesiastical authority from the Byzantine empire through the selection of the Eastern Orthodox Church (Funny story btw, if apocryphal). The Russians had far more of an education in politics, strategy, and administration from the Tatars (Mongols) than they ever did from Constantinople.


All of my info comes from Janet Martin's "Medieval Russia" and Zenkovskys translated russian tales

That‘s right gentlemen, it‘s a Russia-off!

Fair fighting, Queensbury rules apply, no punching below the Cossacks.

How can we take a country seriously when one of their rulers was named Semen?

Well DD, it is a fact that the Russian Empire at least claimed succession to the legacy of the Eastern Roman Empire, but then again everyone who was anyone was attempting to claim that they were the successor state to Rome back then. Doesn't make it true, but at least the fact that they made the claim is historically accurate.

Hmmm, I don't know, and I'm used to conflicting but yet valid opposing historical opinions.

I'm going on what I worked with and was provided with as a paradigm when working in the RL DoS.

Oh, I know, my perceptions on this are a bit 'colored' given that I have a substantial actual amount of Romanov blood in my veins which is probably why I got conned into the DoS to do Russian/Soviet policy crap in the past.

I have a solution to the whole problem:

Russia should just kidnap the heir to the throne and install him as Tsar and Autocrat of All The Russias and have done with it.

Then when Putin's out of a job, I can hire him to come shovel horse crap at my barn because at least he speaks English. LOL!


Actually, BW's assessment of the Romanov lineage is correct. The Romanovs were descendants of a small boyar family into which descendant of the last Byzantine Emperor married. That's where the bloodline claim is.

The actual government functionaries came along with it too.

The last Tsar of Russia, Nicholas II, is by blood my 1st cousin 6 times removed (by generations - my maternal grandmother was legitimately a insignificant Romanov who legitimately held the name "Romanoff/Romanov" instead of "Romanosky" which is an arcane difference) - and that would be me and about 1000 other people - the Russia monarchy was very prolific at bedding other people, quite legitimately. LOL!. He was only 1/256th Russian. The rest was 99% German and the rest was English.

Russia's an opposition, but I wouldn't call it an enemy... yet. Though they do supply one of their main enemies (Iran), and pretty much disagree with them on many international issues (Kosovo, Iran, Syria, etc)