Time for a little fear: Let's talk foreign policy

[NJlonghorn]

 

[Musburger1]

Deez, if there is no change in policy, here is my forecast. The US continues to bring in heavy weaponry, tanks, jets, etc. to the countries which border Russia. Russia warns the US to stop (they basically did that today). Russia launches a surprise powerful first strike against one of the countries hoping it serves as a warning they are willing to go all the way to Armagheddon if the US (NATO) continue the buildup. Depending on who is in charge in the US, we back off or respond in kind and eventually nuclear exchanges begin; probably small nukes, but you never know.

 

[Seattle Husker]

So they create a conventional army bogey man in Russia to justify build ups in countries where the US has no historical interests.

I wouldn't classify Russia as a bogey man. Their activity in Crimea and Ukraine are proof enough unless you buy into the Putin claim that Russia didn't have soldiers in those parts. Remember Crimea where Russia initially took their logo off the military vehicles and soldiers and tried to claim they weren't Russian soldiers?

 

[Musburger1]

I wouldn't classify Russia as a bogey man. Their activity in Crimea and Ukraine are proof enough unless you buy into the Putin claim that Russia didn't have soldiers in those parts. Remember Crimea where Russia initially took their logo off the military vehicles and soldiers and tried to claim they weren't Russian soldiers?

Remember, the regime change in Ukraine ushered in US appointed leader "Yats," threatened the Russian speaking population, the possibility of NATO expansion, and the expulsion of the contracted Russian naval base. You might say what happened here is exactly what Russia is warning against. Contrary to the one-sided propaganda, the takeover of Crimea was a reaction against a coup, and something the people in Crimea favored well over 90%.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Let's look at each reason in isolation:

threatened the Russian speaking population

That's the worst excuse ever for an invasion. With that logic Mexico would be justified with invading Texas if Trump becomes POTUS. The logic works well to trump up patriotism in the homeland but not to invade another sovereign nation. If they were really concerned why not simply open the borders to take in any refugees?

the possibility of NATO expansion

It was preemptive? This argument carries a little more weight but again it can be used in any situation to justify Russia's actions. I think you might do sohadmething so I acted is if you

the expulsion of the contracted Russian naval base.

That's the most salient argument. It was strategic to ensure Russia's access to the Black Sea.

the takeover of Crimea was a reaction against a coup, and something the people in Crimea favored well over 90%.

A coup? Were laws broken in how the Russia backed leader was removed from power? 90% favored Russia...a vote that occurred with unmarked Russian soldiers standing outside each voting booth to "protect the sanctity of the voting process". Sadam Hussein won elections with greater than 90% support too.

 

[Musburger1]

Let's look at each reason in isolation:



That's the worst excuse ever for an invasion. With that logic Mexico would be justified with invading Texas if Trump becomes POTUS. The logic works well to trump up patriotism in the homeland but not to invade another sovereign nation. If they were really concerned why not simply open the borders to take in any refugees?



It was preemptive? This argument carries a little more weight but again it can be used in any situation to justify Russia's actions. I think you might do sohadmething so I acted is if you



That's the most salient argument. It was strategic to ensure Russia's access to the Black Sea.



A coup? Were laws broken in how the Russia backed leader was removed from power? 90% favored Russia...a vote that occurred with unmarked Russian soldiers standing outside each voting booth to "protect the sanctity of the voting process". Sadam Hussein won elections with greater than 90% support too.

You need to explore additional sources to complement Fox, CNN, and Time. The reporting we received here in the US was completely ridiculous. You might begin here.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

And followup here:



There's no reason for further discussion until you are exposed to other frameworks of what happened.

 

[Seattle Husker]

You need to explore additional sources to complement Fox, CNN, and Time. The reporting we received here in the US was completely ridiculous. You might begin here.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

And followup here:



There's no reason for further discussion until you are exposed to other frameworks of what happened.

Wait, did you just lecture me on one-sided sources? You do realize that you ONLY post from a Russian perspective, right?

Is there an anti-Russian minority in Ukraine? Yes. The Russian narrative is that they are the ruling class. That happens when you lived under the boot of the Iron Curtain for decades with puppet leaders and relocation programs that brought Russians into your countries to be the ruling class. Then again, outside of a few lightly attended marches by right wing extremists (like in the videos you've shown) there is limited evidence of this extreme Nazi movement that Putin consistently refers to.

Of course, Russia needs that narrative to justify their actions as the "protector" of the Russian-speaking people of Ukraine. Without it they are simply "thugs". This is not to say that there isn't some support for Russian intrusion within Ukraine. Afterall, these transplanted Russians were the ruling class for decades. Losing their grip on that corrupt system has economic consequences to groups not in power.

 

[Musburger1]

Wait, did you just lecture me on one-sided sources? You do realize that you ONLY post from a Russian perspective, right?

Is there an anti-Russian minority in Ukraine? Yes. The Russian narrative is that they are the ruling class. That happens when you lived under the boot of the Iron Curtain for decades with puppet leaders and relocation programs that brought Russians into your countries to be the ruling class. Then again, outside of a few lightly attended marches by right wing extremists (like in the videos you've shown) there is limited evidence of this extreme Nazi movement that Putin consistently refers to.

Of course, Russia needs that narrative to justify their actions as the "protector" of the Russian-speaking people of Ukraine. Without it they are simply "thugs". This is not to say that there isn't some support for Russian intrusion within Ukraine. Afterall, these transplanted Russians were the ruling class for decades. Losing their grip on that corrupt system has economic consequences to groups not in power.

Where to begin. Sigh.

First of all, the east and southeastern region of Ukraine is very different from the Western part of the country. If you go back to WWII you'll find the Western inhabitants largely supported Hitler while the Eastern peoples fought for the Red Army. Much of the animosity toward Russia dates back to Stalin, for good reason. But Crimea was part of Russia until Kruschev gifted it to the Ukraine. There is simply no natural allegiance in Crimea to Ukraine. None. Zero.

The "ruling class" in Ukaine is a division of powerful, corrupt oligarchs. That was true under the former President (which is one reason why there was a popular movement to oust him) and it is true today under Poroshenko. In that respect, nothing has change. The anti-Russian right wing crazies are indeed a minority, but they wield a great deal of power. The ruling oligarchs aren't crazy about the far right groups, but those groups made possible the coup, and the government is basically forced to share power with them; not that the government gives a **** about the general population. The US isn't crazy about these extremists nor is the US happy about all the stolen funds that disappear under the oligarchs, but just like in Afghanistan, the US works with whomever has the most power and is willing to do the bidding of the US.

The US has quite a few stakes in Ukraine, none of which has anything to do with democracy. Economically, the US and Europe would like for the government to privatize industry. This provides a windfall to the western corporations and Wall Street. In fact, one of Joe Biden's son is a major shareholder of a gas company that has big plans for Eastern Ukraine. Monsanto wants access to the farmland, and Westinghouse has already landed contracts to service nuclear plants.

On the geopolitical side, landing Ukraine would allow NATO to move further eastward and place more pressure on Russia.

Zero of these topics are ever discussed in Western news media. You generally only find them in the one-sided foreign news reports, or non-mainstream blogs that prejudice minds against the US.

 

[Musburger1]

Deez, if there is no change in policy, here is my forecast. The US continues to bring in heavy weaponry, tanks, jets, etc. to the countries which border Russia. Russia warns the US to stop (they basically did that today). Russia launches a surprise powerful first strike against one of the countries hoping it serves as a warning they are willing to go all the way to Armagheddon if the US (NATO) continue the buildup. Depending on who is in charge in the US, we back off or respond in kind and eventually nuclear exchanges begin; probably small nukes, but you never know.

In a related story: Link.

Over the past year, the US has called out what it sees as “irresponsible” Russian comments about using nuclear weapons. Ashton Carter, Defence secretary, complained of “Moscow’s nuclear sabre-rattling” while General Philip Breedlove, Nato commander, has called the statements “destabilising”.

Yet the Obama administration — which is hosting a big summit this week on nuclear security — is facing its own criticism at home over plans to modernise the US nuclear arsenal, a project that could cost as much as $1 trillion over the next three decades.

“We now are at a precipice of a new nuclear arms race,” William Perry, former secretary of defence and a one-time mentor to Mr Carter, said this year.

Yet supporters of the nuclear upgrade reject all suggestions that the weapons will encourage thoughts of a limited nuclear war. “It is a complete fallacy that any American leader would say, ‘this is a low-yield weapon, so I am going to use it’,” says Franklin Miller, former senior White House official in charge of arms control.

When President Barack Obama signed the 2010 New Start Treaty with Russia to reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons, he reached a separate side agreement with the US Senate: the treaty would only be ratified if the administration modernised the nuclear arsenal.

As a result, the Pentagon is putting in place ambitious plans to upgrade each section of the nuclear triad, including adding a long-range bomber, submarines and missiles.

Mr Perry has become the most prominent critic of the nuclear cruise missile. He says such missiles increase the risk of miscalculation because they can be launched without warning and because adversaries would not know if they contained a nuclear or a conventional warhead. He argues that the US can easily maintain deterrence with submarines and bomber aircraft, and no longer needs intercontinental ballistic missiles as well.​

 

[Mr. Deez]

Mus,

I'll try to respond to you soon, but to be honest, I'm having a hard time keeping up with everything you post on this. Considering that I don't even have a job, that's pretty remarkable.

 

[BevoBeef]

Musberger1,
Although I have not posted in this thread, I have followed it with interest and have scratched my head somewhat, so to speak. Foreign policy and fear, in general, is too broad to cover within one thread. However, the thread has focused more on eastern Europe and Ukraine in particular. Because I personally am not that familiar with the geography and the natural resource limitations in that area, I do not have a conclusion about what we should do there. Trying to eliminate election year politics out of this topic, I would like to pose a hypothetical question to you:

Hypothetically speaking, you have just been elected president of the USA. You will become the commander-in-chief of our military in 2-3 months. Your new secretary of state is quite good and thinks he/she can politically handle the European leaders to follow your lead. You evidently are quite knowledgeable with that area around Ukraine. What exactly would you do with the US forces in eastern Europe, and what would your cohesive policy be there to make the US citizens more secure in the next four years of your administration? For brevity reasons, I am not asking about the eastern Mediterranean or Middle East area unless you think your actions there would impact eastern Europe.

P.S. >> The reason for the question is to subtract out the opinions of others in order to understand better what are your recommendations.

 

[Musburger1]

Musberger1,
Although I have not posted in this thread, I have followed it with interest and have scratched my head somewhat, so to speak. Foreign policy and fear, in general, is too broad to cover within one thread. However, the thread has focused more on eastern Europe and Ukraine in particular. Because I personally am not that familiar with the geography and the natural resource limitations in that area, I do not have a conclusion about what we should do there. Trying to eliminate election year politics out of this topic, I would like to pose a hypothetical question to you:

Hypothetically speaking, you have just been elected president of the USA. You will become the commander-in-chief of our military in 2-3 months. Your new secretary of state is quite good and thinks he/she can politically handle the European leaders to follow your lead. You evidently are quite knowledgeable with that area around Ukraine. What exactly would you do with the US forces in eastern Europe, and what would your cohesive policy be there to make the US citizens more secure in the next four years of your administration? For brevity reasons, I am not asking about the eastern Mediterranean or Middle East area unless you think your actions there would impact eastern Europe.

P.S. >> The reason for the question is to subtract out the opinions of others in order to understand better what are your recommendations.

First, I would set up several meetings with both Russia and representatives of the eastern European country present. When dealing with the Baltic states for example (Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) perhaps it would mean three separate meetings or maybe individual meetings with each country at a time. I suppose Belarus would be included as they also border both Russia and the Baltic countries.

Moving south, the same process would begin with meetings held between the US, Russia, and Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia.

With the first group, something would need to be ironed out so that these countries felt secure, and that Russia didn't feel threatened. Like with Ukraine, I suspect much of the problem is caused because of a non-homogeneous population where the government currently favors the US and the West, but the less prosperous and/or ethnically Russian portion of the people do not. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't think further militarization by both sides is helpful.

In the south around the Caspian See, part of the equation has to do with oil, gas, and who controls the flow. There is also the Muslim question. That is, Wahhabi influences as exported from Saudi Arabia can radicalize segments of the population and create instability. It is Russia's belief (with justification in my opinion) that the US has turned a blind eye, and even encouraged radicalization - the 80's Afghanistan being the obvious example - as an asymmetric weapon to fight against Russia. Russia believes the CIA was instrumental in supporting the Chechnya "rebels" (radicalized Muslims) but in a clandestine manner unlike the open support for the "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan that later became Al Qeda.

I tend to believe that in America, we are conditioned to only believe the point of views that the US government approves, because that is the only point of view that is presented. If the Russian point of view has legitimacy, and if we don't adapt our policy and be prepared to compromise some of our hegemony, I think the prospects for a nuclear confrontation down the road are great. And there would be no winners.

 

[Musburger1]

Sounds like the Czecks need to have a regime
Change.
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/04/czech-republic-and-slovakia-reject.html?m=1


Der Spiegel, April 4, 2016
Translated from German by Tom Winter
The new US security plan for Eastern Europe got nowhere in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Both countries reject the stationing of US troops - albeit for different reasons.
Prague: The Czech Republic and Slovakia have rejected the stationing of NATO troops offered by US President Barack Obama.

"I can not imagine foreign soldiers in their own bases in our country," the Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said on Wednesday. Fico said that since the 1968 invasion by Soviet troops, there are special sensitivities in Slovakia.

The Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka has rejected the stationing of US troops. "The Czech Republic is not among the countries calling for a strengthening of NATO forces in Europe," the Social Democrat announced through his press secretary on Tuesday during a visit to Vienna. "The security situation does not require it."

The Czech Christian Democrat coalition partnership KDU-CSL criticized Sobotka's decision as "unacceptable and irresponsible."

Obama announced on Tuesday an offer of support for those Eastern European member states in the military alliance, who felt threatened by the Ukraine crisis in Russia. This would include the presence of US troops in Europe as reviewed "in light of new security challenges." Up to a billion dollars (735 million euros) will be made available for the augmented military presence on the continent.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Sounds like the Czecks need to have a regime
Change.
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/04/czech-republic-and-slovakia-reject.html?m=1


Der Spiegel, April 4, 2016
Translated from German by Tom Winter
The new US security plan for Eastern Europe got nowhere in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Both countries reject the stationing of US troops - albeit for different reasons.
Prague: The Czech Republic and Slovakia have rejected the stationing of NATO troops offered by US President Barack Obama.

"I can not imagine foreign soldiers in their own bases in our country," the Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said on Wednesday. Fico said that since the 1968 invasion by Soviet troops, there are special sensitivities in Slovakia.

The Czech Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka has rejected the stationing of US troops. "The Czech Republic is not among the countries calling for a strengthening of NATO forces in Europe," the Social Democrat announced through his press secretary on Tuesday during a visit to Vienna. "The security situation does not require it."

The Czech Christian Democrat coalition partnership KDU-CSL criticized Sobotka's decision as "unacceptable and irresponsible."

Obama announced on Tuesday an offer of support for those Eastern European member states in the military alliance, who felt threatened by the Ukraine crisis in Russia. This would include the presence of US troops in Europe as reviewed "in light of new security challenges." Up to a billion dollars (735 million euros) will be made available for the augmented military presence on the continent.

No regime change. If they don't want NATO troops stationed there, then that's their prerogative. When that arrangement occurs, it's generally with the consent of the host nations. Nobody can or should force it on them.

Nevertheless, I think the Slovak leader chose his words interestingly and carefully by referring to "their own bases." I wonder what his view would be of NATO troops being stationed at Slovak bases, as we do with the UK and Portugal.

Either way, this isn't a huge shock. Both of these countries are somewhat at odds with Western Europe. Franky, they've had reason to distrust the West since the Munich Agreement. Furthermore, they're not fans of how Western Europe is trying to get them to take migrants, and at least in the case of the Czechs, they don't want to adopt the Euro anymore. I think the Greece mess spooked them out for good reason.

 

[BevoBeef]

Sounds like the Czecks need to have a regime
Change.
http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/04/czech-republic-and-slovakia-reject.html?m=1

I think such interpretations are not exactly correct. You need to know that culture. Cultures can change over the long run, but, if there is anyone I understand best, it is that culture because it is part of my heritage here in Texas. My mother was a first generation Czech and spoke that language. My grandfather was from Prague, and I spent considerable time growing up with people who came from the first generation of immigrants that are from that part of Europe.

The Czechs are fiercely independent to the point of being blindly stupid. They respect the military but they foolishly do not fear military force. It is not that they do not want western Europeans or US forces in their country (home territory). They would not want any foreign forces on their homeland. If Russian tanks rolled over their countryside, they would let them do want they want. But those soldiers better not turn their backs on the peasants that they overrun. One way to describe that culture is that it is very "cliquish". However, it is not that they are unfriendly, but you better not mess with them because people raised in that culture are not predictable. That immigrant culture would be one of of the last to be absorbed into our country.