Reckless Congress declares war on Russia

[Skybird]

This resolution seems to have passed unnoticed...?!

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/december/04/reckless-congress-declares-war-on-russia/


These are the kinds of resolutions I have always watched closely in Congress, as what are billed as “harmless” statements of opinion often lead to sanctions and war. I remember in 1998 arguing strongly against the Iraq Liberation Act because, as I said at the time, I knew it would lead to war. I did not oppose the Act because I was an admirer of Saddam Hussein – just as now I am not an admirer of Putin or any foreign political leader – but rather because I knew then that another war against Iraq would not solve the problems and would probably make things worse. We all know what happened next.


It seems some idiots there are who cannot reach war with Russia too early. Cowboys, drunk of themselves.

[Oberon]

It's been mentioned in the Ferguson thread...which is exactly where you'd look for discussion on such a thing... :doh: :haha:

Anyway, it's no surprise that this has come about, I doubt it'll lead to war with Russia though, no more than arming the Mujahideen lead to war with the Soviet Union. There might be clashes between proxy troops, but not actual US vs Russia fire, both sides have too much to lose to let it get that far.

[Rockstar]

http://iggydonnelly.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/war-is-a-racket.jpg?w=500&h=346

In his 1935 book, War Is a Racket, Butler presented an exposé and trenchant condemnation of the profit motive behind warfare. His views on the subject are well summarized in the following passage from a 1935 issue of "the non-Marxist, socialist" magazine, Common Sense – one of Butler's most widely quoted statements:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

[magicstix]

Considering Putin has already threatened nuclear war, I'd say a little "harsh language" from a Congress that never does anything isn't a big deal...

[ikalugin]

Considering Putin has already threatened nuclear war, I'd say a little "harsh language" from a Congress that never does anything isn't a big deal...
I could be wrong, but from what I remember such resolutions lead to armed intervention.

[Jimbuna]

Politicians, don't we all just love em.

[August]

Oh so now instead of not being able to stop Russia from gobbling up pieces of it's neighbors we're not even supposed to say that we don't like it?

:roll:

[Oberon]

The full text of the Resolution:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hres758/text

To be honest, it's nothing really that hasn't already been said and done:

(1)strongly supports the efforts by President Poroshenko and the people of Ukraine to establish a lasting peace in their country that includes the full withdrawal of Russian forces from the territory of Ukraine, full control of Ukraine’s international borders, the disarming of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine, the adoption of policies to reduce the ability of the Russian Federation to use energy exports and trade barriers as weapons to apply economic and political pressure, and an end to interference by the Russian Federation in the internal affairs of Ukraine;


This is perhaps one of the stronger parts of the resolution, however it does not state that there would be military intervention.

(2)affirms the right of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and all countries to exercise their sovereign rights within their internationally recognized borders free from outside intervention, and to conduct their foreign policy in accordance with their determination of the best interests of their peoples;



As normal



(3)condemns the continuing political, economic, and military aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova and the continuing violation of their sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity;


Nothing that hasn't already been said by Biden



(4)states that the military intervention by the Russian Federation in Ukraine—
(A)is in breach of its obligations under the United Nations Charter;
(B)is in clear violation of each of the 10 principles of the 1975 Helsinki Accords;
(C)is in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances in which it pledged to respect the independence, sovereignty, and existing borders of Ukraine and to refrain from the threat of the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine; and
(D)poses a threat to international peace and security;


Standard procedure, although the Helsinki Accords are not binding and have been trodden over by numerous states since '75, however the 1994 Budapest Memorandum has definitely been broken.

(5)calls on the Russian Federation to reverse its illegal annexation of Crimea, to end its support of the separatist forces in Crimea, and to remove its military forces from that region other than those operating in strict accordance with its 1997 agreement on the Status and Conditions of the Black Sea Fleet Stationing on the Territory of Ukraine;


Urinating into the wind here, but they can't except the loss of Crimea without inviting the possibility of more concessions down the line.



(6)calls on the President to cooperate with United States allies and partners in Europe and other countries around the world to refuse to recognize any de jure or de facto sovereignty of the Russian Federation over Crimea, its airspace, or its territorial waters;


Pretty much already being done by the US allies anyway.



(7)calls on the Russian Federation to remove its military forces and military equipment from the territory of Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, and to end its political, military, and economic support of separatist forces;


That ain't going to happen.



(8)calls on the Russian Federation and the separatist forces it supports and controls in Ukraine to end their violations of the cease-fire announced in Minsk on September 5, 2014;


I believe the reply will be "prove it"



(9)calls on the President to cooperate with United States allies and partners in Europe and other countries around the world to impose visa bans, targeted asset freezes, sectoral sanctions, and other measures on the Russian Federation and its leadership with the goal of compelling it to end its violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, to remove its military forces and equipment from Ukrainian territory, and to end its support of separatist and paramilitary forces;


Already being done.



(10)calls on the President to provide the Government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty;


The only part of that which could be sticky is the training, especially if it results in US troops on Ukrainian soil, but no mention made of bases or major deployments of US forces



(11)calls on the President to provide the Government of Ukraine with appropriate intelligence and other relevant information in a timely manner to assist the Government of Ukraine to defend its territory and sovereignty;

To be expected, I dare say Russia has been doing the same to its friends in Eastern Ukraine

(12)calls on North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies and United States partners in Europe and other nations around the world to suspend all military cooperation with Russia, including prohibiting the sale to the Russian Government of lethal and non-lethal military equipment;


Already been pretty much done



(13)reaffirms the commitment of the United States to its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, especially Article 5, and calls on all Alliance member states to provide their full share of the resources needed to ensure their collective defense;


As has been exhaustingly pointed out by Skybird, Article 5 has wording which is fairly ambiguous, and the 'aid' supplied could be anything from an SSBN of SLBMs to an infantryman and a can of beans. In this instance though, it's just basically a reaffirmation of the US's commitment to the defence of Europe...all fairly basic stuff.


(14)urges the President, in consultation with Congress, to conduct a review of the force posture, readiness, and responsibilities of United States Armed Forces and the forces of other members of NATO to determine if the contributions and actions of each are sufficient to meet the obligations of collective self-defense under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty and to specify the measures needed to remedy any deficiencies;


Well, since we're going back to having Russia as the bad guy there's no point in being geared to fight a desert war, time to bring all the Cold War gear out of the mothballs again! :haha:



(15)welcomes the decision of France to indefinitely suspend the delivery of the Mistral-class warships to the Russian Federation and urges the United States, France, NATO, and other partners to engage in consultations and consider all alternative acquisition options for such warships which would not include transfer of the ships to the Russian Federation;


The Royal Navy could have them...but we'd still have nothing to fly from them... :/\\!!



(16)urges the President to publicly hold the Russian Federation accountable for violations of its obligations under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and to take action to bring the Russian Federation back into compliance with the Treaty;


Again, I can foresee the answer to this being "Prove it" and unless the US is willing to disclose pictures of Russian nuclear forces in or near Ukrainian territory ala the Cuban Missile Crisis then that's just urinating into the wind again.



(17)urges the President to work with Asian, European, and other allies to develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure the Russian Federation is not able to gain any benefit by its development of military systems that violate the INF Treaty;


Probably relates more to Eastern Europe and that missile shield, I can't see them making any head-way with China, so perhaps building up the defences on Japan would work...but since Japan is already sliding towards anti-Americanism, the best bet might just be to nudge them into dropping Article Nine of their constitution and bring them on board as a fully fledged alliance member. Would really annoy China but would also help provide a counterbalance in the Pacific.


(18)believes the emplacement by the Russian Federation of its nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory would constitute a provocative and destabilizing move;


Would, note the wording there, would. Perhaps Russia has put word through that they intend to, perhaps to counter the missile shield, I believe there was a threat of putting nuclear weapons in that Oblast of theirs near Poland, so that makes sense.



(19)calls on Ukraine and other countries to support energy diversification initiatives to reduce the ability of the Russian Federation to use its energy exports as a means of applying political or economic pressure, including by promoting energy efficiency and reverse natural gas flows from Western Europe, and calls on the United States to promote increased natural gas exports and energy efficiency;


No surprises there.



(20)calls on the President and the United States Department of State to develop a strategy for multilateral coordination to produce or otherwise procure and distribute news and information in the Russian language to countries with significant Russian-speaking populations which maximizes the use of existing platforms for content delivery such as the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Incorporated, leverages indigenous public-private partnerships for content production, and seeks in-kind contributions from regional state governments;


I hope I get the BBC World Service back on the local old Radar masts. They used to broadcast that at Eastern Europe but shut it down a few years back. :hmmm:



(21)calls on the United States Department of State to identify positions at key diplomatic posts in Europe to evaluate the political, economic, and cultural influence of Russia and Russian state-sponsored media and to coordinate with host governments on appropriate responses;


Good luck with that, RT has been very active over the past decade, will be a rush for them to catch up.


(22)calls on the Russian Federation to cease its support for the Assad regime in Syria;

:har::har::har::har: Yeah...

(23)calls on the President to publicly and privately demand the Russian Federation cease its destabilizing behavior at every opportunity and in every engagement between the United States and its officials and the Russian Federation and its officials;


No more than he's already been doing, and failing.



(24)calls upon the Russian Federation to seek a mutually beneficial relationship with the United States that is based on respect for the independence and sovereignty of all countries and their right to freely determine their future, including their relationship with other nations and international organizations, without interference, intimidation, or coercion by other countries; and


Usual spiel, not likely to happen but they have to put it in otherwise it's deemed as too aggressive.



(25)calls for the reestablishment of a close and cooperative relationship between the people of the United States and the Russian people based on the shared pursuit of democracy, human rights, and peace among all nations.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXCEdrnaFlY


So, whilst it lays the groundwork and leaves the door open for further involvement in Ukraine down the line, at the moment this resolution is fairly straightforward and is, essentially, just a continuation of what the US has been doing already. The only bit that is a little concerning is the training part of giving the lethal and non-lethal weaponry to the Ukraine, but I imagine they'll probably bring the Ukrainians into Eastern Europe, Poland maybe, to train them there. I think actually putting US soldiers into Ukraine in any role would be a little too aggressive for the message which is being put out.

The US people don't want a war with Russia, and any US President or Congressman who inititates one will be lynched from the streetlamps in Washington. I imagine the same is true in Moscow.
The rest is just pushing boundaries to see what gives and what doesn't.
We've been in worse places than this, during the Cold War, and military action between the US and the Soviet Union didn't take place then, I see no reason why it should now.


http://asset-e.soup.io/asset/2380/2322_e80c.jpeg

[Skybird]

Oh so now instead of not being able to stop Russia from gobbling up pieces of it's neighbors we're not even supposed to say that we don't like it?

:roll:
Just for you:


...
The resolution (paragraph 3) accuses Russia of an invasion of Ukraine and condemns Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty. The statement is offered without any proof of such a thing.
...
why isn’t it a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty for the US to participate in the overthrow of that country’s elected government as it did in February?
...
We heard US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland bragging that the US spent $5 billion on regime change in Ukraine. Why is that OK?
...
The resolution (paragraph 11) accuses the people in east Ukraine of holding “fraudulent and illegal elections” in November. Why is it that every time elections do not produce the results desired by the US government they are called “illegal” and “fraudulent”? Aren’t the people of eastern Ukraine allowed self-determination? Isn’t that a basic human right?
...
The resolution (paragraph 14) states with certainty that the Malaysia Airlines flight 17 that crashed in Ukraine was brought down by a missile “fired by Russian-backed separatist forces in eastern Ukraine.” This is simply incorrect, as the final report on the investigation of this tragedy will not even be released until next year and the preliminary report did not state that a missile brought down the plane. Neither did the preliminary report – conducted with the participation of all countries involved – assign blame to any side.
...
Paragraph 16 of the resolution condemns Russia for selling arms to the Assad government in Syria. It does not mention, of course, that those weapons are going to fight ISIS – which we claim is the enemy -- while the US weapons supplied to the rebels in Syria have actually found their way into the hands of ISIS!
...
The resolution (paragraph 22) states that Russia invaded the Republic of Georgia in 2008. This is simply untrue. Even the European Union – no friend of Russia – concluded (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8281990.stm) in its investigation of the events in 2008 that it was Georgia that “started an unjustified war” against Russia not the other way around! How does Congress get away with such blatant falsehoods
...
In paragraph 34 the resolution begins to even become comical, condemning the Russians for what it claims are attacks on computer networks of the United States and “illicitly acquiring information” about the US government. In the aftermath of the Snowden revelations about the level of US spying on the rest of the world, how can the US claim the moral authority to condemn such actions in others?
...
Chillingly, the resolution singles out Russian state-funded media outlets for attack, claiming that they “distort public opinion.” The US government, of course, spends billions of dollars worldwide to finance and sponsor media outlets including Voice of America and RFE/RL, as well as to subsidize “independent” media in countless counties overseas. How long before alternative information sources like RT are banned in the United States? This legislation brings us closer to that unhappy day when the government decides the kind of programming we can and cannot consume – and calls such a violation “freedom.”
...
The resolution gives the green light (paragraph 45) to Ukrainian President Poroshenko to re-start his military assault on the independence-seeking eastern provinces, urging the “disarming of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine.” Such a move will mean many more thousands of dead civilians.

To that end, the resolution directly involves the US government in the conflict by calling on the US president to “provide the government of Ukraine with lethal and non-lethal defense articles, services, and training required to effectively defend its territory and sovereignty.” This means US weapons in the hands of US-trained military forces engaged in a hot war on the border with Russia. Does that sound at all like a good idea?


Maybe choose better what you don't like and what you want to say. Don't take half-truths for truths, and possibilities for certainties. Especially not in policy and law making.

Why this resolution matters? Because it is a constitutional body's formal release, inclduing demands for forming foreign policy and implied legislation where needed.


These are the kinds of resolutions I have always watched closely in Congress, as what are billed as “harmless” statements of opinion often lead to sanctions and war. I remember in 1998 arguing strongly against the Iraq Liberation Act because, as I said at the time, I knew it would lead to war. I did not oppose the Act because I was an admirer of Saddam Hussein – just as now I am not an admirer of Putin or any foreign political leader – but rather because I knew then that another war against Iraq would not solve the problems and would probably make things worse. We all know what happened next.
Especially the still total ignoration of the example with Georgia, pisses me. One could also add the lousy experiences withg the Arab "Sprinbg" one was celebrating, and that now has lead to a nightmare and to good degree right the opposite of what one expected from it.


This means US weapons in the hands of US-trained military forces engaged in a hot war on the border with Russia. Does that sound at all like a good idea?

[Oberon]

Just for you:

http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/RV-AE443_STINGE_G_20110930030341.jpg

[Buddahaid]

I'm sorry but all this sounds like Star Trek's Federation which bends every direction to not offend any new aliens, but those very same aliens are offensive as hell. Too bad.

[August]

Just for you:

Dude this is nothing but a Tempest in a Teapot from a politician known for making such stormy micro brews, but you go ahead and worry about it for the both of us.

[Oberon]

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ly0baxynYW1qg6gjx.png

[Kaptlt.Endrass]

Considering Putin has already threatened nuclear war, I'd say a little "harsh language" from a Congress that never does anything isn't a big deal...

Threatened, yes. But actually doing it? Unlikely. Despite what many of my fellow Americans think, Putin is smart. The Russians know that they'd lose as much as we would, even if they won't admit it. The retaliation from even a single nuclear launch, from either side, would be devastating. And remember the Cuban Missle Crisis. The two were literally playing a game of chicken towards the end that would have ended with cockroaches the dominant species (and perhaps the Swiss).

At the worst level, a conventional war, possibly WWIII, will break out, with either\all sides refusing to launch, and the result being the true end of the Cold War and the establishment of THE superpower.

For now, lets all throw threats, point WMDs, and flex the martial muscles at each other.

[vanjast]

Hey.. USA.. don't start another war you'll lose...again.
Hell's you cannot whip a bunch of non-techno-savvy sand crawlers with towels on their heads, now you want to pick a fight with better technology :har:

If you look at recent history, the USSR also has a history of getting their butts whipped. Just let them continue.. it'll blow up in their faces... again. :03:
:sunny:

[ikalugin]

@Oberon
Urinating into the wind here, but they can't except the loss of Crimea without inviting the possibility of more concessions down the line.
Well, this leaves no room for negotiation then, as Crimea is there to stay. Refer to the address Putin made last Thursday.

I believe the reply will be "prove it"
The reply (most likely) would be - the other guy (Ukrainian loyalists) didn't uphold it either. That and more complains about double standards.

The only part of that which could be sticky is the training, especially if it results in US troops on Ukrainian soil, but no mention made of bases or major deployments of US forces
Sales of weapons are consistent with the expected summer offensive by Ukrainian loyalists, thus this is not surprising.

Again, I can foresee the answer to this being "Prove it" and unless the US is willing to disclose pictures of Russian nuclear forces in or near Ukrainian territory ala the Cuban Missile Crisis then that's just urinating into the wind again.
The issue is less with -proving- it, but with the fact that US broke the INF treaty long time ago... by deploying armed UAVs. You could see that in the deffenition of the "cruise missile" here:
2. The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. The term "ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)" means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.
As far as I remember - Reaper UAV has sufficient range to fall under the INF treaty limitations. Though I could be ofcourse wrong - and any correction by a more knowledgeable person would be welcome.
(25)calls for the reestablishment of a close and cooperative relationship between the people of the United States and the Russian people based on the shared pursuit of democracy, human rights, and peace among all nations.
This essentially calls for an establishment of a puppet regime.

p.s. in my opinion the issue with this resolution is less to do with the fact that it states the known (and logical) policy points, but that it precludes a compromise with Russia and goes for a regime change/territorial dissolution type strategy.

[Betonov]

(2)affirms the right of Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and all countries to exercise their sovereign rights within their internationally recognized borders free from outside intervention, and to conduct their foreign policy in accordance with their determination of the best interests of their peoples;

I love this one. And I'll love how it will be ignored when western powers will try to intervene in one way or another.

My co-worker is from Moldova. Moldova might rejoin Russia without Russian influence. Since the USSR broke up the living standard reached rock bottom and the sentiment among Moldovans is that being brought back under Moscow will bring in much needed order and capital.

[Skybird]

Dude this is nothing but a Tempest in a Teapot from a politician known for making such stormy micro brews, but you go ahead and worry about it for the both of us.
I recall that back in those days either you or Subman said something similiar about Bush's repeated changes in his foul excuses by which he wanted to justify the Iraq war.

Or Georgia, where the US had made a wrong stand as much as "wrong" can go: one again we hear the call from Washington politicians to bring Georgia into NATO nevertheless - no matter what.

This kind resolutions form policies. And if the resolution bases on half-truths, even some lies, then the policy formed on grounds of it - bases not on realities but on half-truths and lies as well.

Led to disaster in case of Iraq. And on many other historical occasions as well. Realpolitik is something different.

[Oberon]

@Oberon

Well, this leaves no room for negotiation then, as Crimea is there to stay. Refer to the address Putin made last Thursday.

Yup, I think that the US/EU is probably a little concerned about falling into a Munich trap, that if they give away something that it'll mean that Russia will be tempted to demand more. To quote Dean Rusk in Thirteen Days "Appeasement only makes the aggressor more aggressive."
This is not necessarily accurate to the situation at hand, but you can see how the viewpoint might be reached in Washington, especially amongst those who never left the 1980s.


The reply (most likely) would be - the other guy (Ukrainian loyalists) didn't uphold it either. That and more complains about double standards.

Yup, both sides are going to blame each other, it's consistant with this type of war...heck, any type of war.

Sales of weapons are consistent with the expected summer offensive by Ukrainian loyalists, thus this is not surprising.

Yup, it was inevitable that it was going to happen. The only question really is the level of weaponry that will be supplied.

The issue is less with -proving- it, but with the fact that US broke the INF treaty long time ago... by deploying armed UAVs. You could see that in the deffenition of the "cruise missile" here:
2. The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. The term "ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)" means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.
As far as I remember - Reaper UAV has sufficient range to fall under the INF treaty limitations. Though I could be ofcourse wrong - and any correction by a more knowledgeable person would be welcome.

Huh...good point, I never considered the deployment of UAVs falling under cruise missile definitions, but that is true. Obviously though Russia can't object too loudly to such a point since they have UAV designs of their own, plus they don't like the treaty much anyway since it doesn't apply to China.
I think, really, at this stage the INF treaty is heading the same way as the ABM one.

This essentially calls for an establishment of a puppet regime.

It does seem rather...optimistic, doesn't it?

p.s. in my opinion the issue with this resolution is less to do with the fact that it states the known (and logical) policy points, but that it precludes a compromise with Russia and goes for a regime change/territorial dissolution type strategy.

It is a very hardline approach, but it's one to be expected really. It's not likely to result in a hot war, but it makes a cold war almost inevitable, as if we didn't know such a thing already. I think Putin overextended his hand a little bit with Crimea, and it's going to take a while before things normalise, a few decades at least. There was a brief period of unease with Russia after Georgia, but it balanced out fairly quickly because the war was over fairly quickly, however in Ukraine it's a lot more messy, there's been an overt change of territorial status, the ramifications are a lot deeper than the Georgian conflict, so the diplomatic fallout is going to last a lot longer. At least a decade or two, I'd wager, but things will start to settle into their new places before then. It's an economic staredown at the moment, and it's a question of who will blink first. :hmmm:

[ikalugin]

There is a difference between arriving towards a compromise of sorts and letting one of the parties have their way (appeasement). That said one needs to look into the objectives of sides in this conflict, to see if a compromise is possible in the first place.

Ie - why did Maidan radicalise? What was the point of said radicalisation (Yanukovich and his party were both political corpses by the time Maidan happened, and it happened not because he refused to join EU, but because he asked for more time, as the then available treaty was horrible for the Ukraine)?

Which objectives do Western Countries (US and EU) seek to achieve in Ukraine?

The Russian objectives are clear and obvious:
- neutral or friendly political status for the Ukraine.
- neutral or friendly economical status for the Ukraine.
- protection of the minorities rights (mainly of the Russian minority), as per the generally accepted Western standards.
- prohibition of radical Nationalist (and NAZI) parties and political movements (again, as per Western norm).

[Oberon]

I think really what the Western Countries seek is less neutral and more friendly Ukraine towards western interests and a move away from Russia.
Basically, they'd like another Poland or Baltic states, friendly, open for NATO bases and EU business.
Naturally Russia would like the same but in reverse (or, like you say, a neutral Ukraine which would probably be the best compromise in this situation, but how do you guarantee neutrality in a country which is split between pro-western ideology and pro-Russian ideology?)
There may come a compromise on this, down the road, if IS hadn't reared its ugly head I might have said that Russia leaving Assad out to dry might have been one possible compromise in order to let the US turn a blind eye to Crimea, but that card is off the table now really since Assad is no longer in the cross-hairs and is actually, through a roundabout way, helping the US deal with IS.
Right now though, there's blustering and maneuvering on both sides to draw the maximum amount of prestige out of this situation that they can.

[ikalugin]

So the objective of Western parties was to push Russia into the corner in the first place (by moving NATO front-line to the Ukraine and taking out a number of critical industries in the Ukraine and what not)?

Maybe Western parties then did (do) not seek a compromise in the first place, but try to force Russia into obedience (after the 080808 war and Assad)?

[Oberon]

So the objective of Western parties was to push Russia into the corner in the first place (by moving NATO front-line to the Ukraine and taking out a number of critical industries in the Ukraine and what not)?

Maybe Western parties then did (do) not seek a compromise in the first place, but try to force Russia into obedience (after the 080808 war and Assad)?

I don't think they want to force Russia into obedience, it's hard to make a nuclear power be obedient to be honest, however I think they seek to make their position as advantageous as possible, as indeed any major power would do.
This is just guess work on my behalf, by the way, based upon national interests and good old fashioned imperialism (which never really went away).
I take it you've heard of 'The Great Game'? Aside from in my signature, of course, but many people view the war in Afghanistan and events in Georgia and Ukraine as part of a new 'Great Game' and I must admit, their views hold some water in terms of the geopolitical strategy that is being played out between Russia and the west.
Also, perhaps 'The Grand Chessboard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard)', which I admit I haven't read, but the blurb on wikipedia makes logical sense for any American leadership:

"Regarding the landmass of Eurasia as the center of global power, Brzezinski sets out to formulate a Eurasian geostrategy for the United States. In particular, he writes, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger should emerge capable of dominating Eurasia and thus also of challenging America's global pre-eminence."
The author was Jimmy Carters NSA so he has an idea of what goes on behind the scenes.

[Skybird]

I don't think they want to force Russia into obedience, it's hard to make a nuclear power be obedient to be honest, however I think they seek to make their position as advantageous as possible, as indeed any major power would do.
I think you are wrong there, at least regarding the US. Some Eurpopeans may have had a more realistic view on Russia at times, but in Washington, encircling Russia, strangling it, pushing it further and further into the corner and finally making it disappear by regime change, is an obsession, and has never been given up since the wall fell - never. Americans have pushing Russia it in their genes, so to speak, like mocking French "cowardice", and an obsessive attitude regarding private firearms.

And from a historians' perspective, it also is not surprising. America has a selfunderstanding of being a global hegemon, the standard and exmaple to whichh all other countries in the world have to follow - so they think. This attitude it shares with almost any empire there ever has been. Its part of the imperial culture. This also means to crack down on every possible, potential challenger whenever it can - this also has been something that every empire ever has done against others.

And if there will rise another empire after America declined, I tell you that that empire will act exactly the same way, and merciless crack down on everybody, by all means promising success, who could put a risk to the new empire's claim for the global pole-position.

Even empires that once have been but are no more, find it difficult to let go that habitus. Britain struggled for long time that it had lost its global empirial status. France dreams of shadows of past glory until today. Russia wants to boast as if it still were the Soviet Union's military block.

Empires are the born egoists. Not even babies are that bad in that regard. :D

[Oberon]

I think you are wrong there, at least regarding the US. Some Eurpopeans may have had a more realistic view on Russia at times, but in Washington, encircling Russia, strangling it, pushing it further and further into the corner and finally making it disappear by regime change, is an obsession, and has never been given up since the wall fell - never. Americans have pushing Russia it in their genes, so to speak, like mocking French "cowardice", and an obsessive attitude regarding private firearms.

I dunno, I think deep in the core of the American political heart, the civil servant territory there exists a more rational hivemind. America wouldn't have gotten to where it is today through pure luck and bravado after all.
It's a bit like Little Kim and his Dad, knowing exactly how far to push the opponent and get what you can out of the deal. Of course, the Kim dynasty has a lot less resources to work with in that regard, but all diplomacy is the same at the end of the day.

And from a historians' perspective, it also is not surprising. America has a selfunderstanding of being a global hegemon, the standard and exmaple to whichh all other countries in the world have to follow - so they think. This attitude it shares with almost any empire there ever has been. Its part of the imperial culture. This also means to crack down on every possible, potential challenger whenever it can - this also has been something that every empire ever has done against others.

I think that bubble is bursting, slowly, but bursting nonetheless...whether it's just because there's a Democrat President, but the old 'Go get 'em cowboy' attitude of the early 2000s has definitely disappeared. I think also getting stuck in the 'Graveyard of Empires' probably did a lot to bruise the self-image of the US.
I just hope that if this is the decline of America as the de jure superpower that it takes place relatively peacefully, but unfortunately it's rare that this happens. The UK lost ours after two world wars, France after the Napoleonic wars, the Spanish after Napoleon thrashed them, and so on.
Fortunately for us, these wars (except the last) were absent of nuclear weapons...a war between major powers now would not be a desirable outcome, so I hope that any decline can be done peacefully, or if not peacefully then with as few casualties as possible.

And if there will rise another empire after America declined, I tell you that that empire will act exactly the same way, and merciless crack down on everybody, by all means promising success, who could put a risk to the new empire's claim for the global pole-position.


Reminds me of that song by Tears for Fears 'Everybody wants to rule the world', but yes, every empire or major power will want to maximise its success by controlling or undercutting its rivals. It's almost Darwinian in its simplicity.

Even empires that once have been but are no more, find it difficult to let go that habitus. Britain struggled for long time that it had lost its global empirial status. France dreams of shadows of past glory until today. Russia wants to boast as if it still were the Soviet Union's military block.

Oh, we still struggle, believe me. If we didn't have a strong nostalgia for times past then people like Nigel Farage would not be able to exploit it along with a good dose of scaremongering in order to gain votes...which reminds me, him and Russell Brand are on Question Time on the BBC tonight...should be good for a chuckle.

Empires are the born egoists. Not even babies are that bad in that regard. :D

Mankind is a very egotistical creation, you only have to look at some of the beautiful monuments to our own vanity we have created in history, and an empire is perhaps a concentrated dosage of mankinds ego, fear, pride and anger all wrapped up with a thin red line. :03:

[August]

either you or Subman

I am not Subman and therefore have no responsibility for anything he might have said.

You know as well as I do that Ron Paul is bat crap crazy but you happily use him as a reference in yet another thread dedicated to bad mouthing my country. How long will you wait before lambasting someone for quoting him in some other discussion?

[Wolferz]

Our government is always declaring war on something or somebody. Usually not at our behest.:hmmm: Just more smoke screen to make it look like the jokers actually do something worthwhile when they're in session and to cover up yet more pork barrel spending.

[Oberon]

Our government is always declaring war on something or somebody. Usually not at our behest.:hmmm: Just more smoke screen to make it look like the jokers actually do something worthwhile when they're in session and to cover up yet more pork barrel spending.

At least this time it's a country rather than an idealogy or situation.

Although one could argue the concept of countries is in fact a construct...but that's going off the rails into a long discussion so I'll just acknowledge its existence and skip over it.

[Skybird]

Oh dear, August...

Whenever I get such an unsorted reply from somebody I hope that somebody takes the poster's car keys and does not let him drive anymore this evening.

[August]

Oh dear, August...

Whenever I get such an unsorted reply from somebody I hope that somebody takes the poster's car keys and does not let him drive anymore this evening.


Funny I was just thinking that about you. :hmmm:

[Jeff-Groves]

I'm just gonna get out the pop corn and watch another thread go down the drain.
:haha:
Not to mention the thread name itself could be considered 'Inducing Panic'.

[Wolferz]

I'm not one to take offense. I am brain damaged and my thoughts are unsorted at times. I have interacted with many German folks over the years and can sum them up thusly...

You can tell a German but you can't tell him much.:03::O:

Not much different with anyone else either.:arrgh!:

Let's put this locomotive back on the tracks and continue bashing our arrogant government types.:up:

[August]

Well I am still of the opinion that this is not the big deal that Skybirds trying to make it.

[nikimcbee]

Well, it's about time we declared war on them. I am tired of WW2 computer games, and ready for a new war to base games on.
Cold War games are bor-inng!

Time to update Red Storm Rising.

Paging Microprose....

harumph.

[Tchocky]

Well I am still of the opinion that this is not the big deal that Skybirds trying to make it.

It's a non-binding symbolic vote.

The sky is not falling.

[ikalugin]

Well, it's about time we declared war on them. I am tired of WW2 computer games, and ready for a new war to base games on.
Cold War games are bor-inng!

Time to update Red Storm Rising.

Paging Microprose....

harumph.
Red Army was a better book about Col War went Hot.

[Tchocky]

Red Army was a cracking book.

Sadly I saw Ralph Peters on the news once or twice as a commentator and he's absolutely insane. Ah well.

[Betonov]

C'mon, they're in cahoots, the congress and the duma.
Yelling ''the russians are coming'' and ''NATO is coming'' to shift the focus from internal problems to an outside ''enemy''.
A smoke screen to hide their own incompetence and corruption.
DC, Moscow, Ljubljana... same ol' magicians. A sleight of hand and the masses start foaming at the mouth.



Time to update Red Storm Rising.

Red Army was a better book about Col War went Hot.

noted

[ikalugin]

C'mon, they're in cahoots, the congress and the duma.
Yelling ''the russians are coming'' and ''NATO is coming'' to shift the focus from internal problems to an outside ''enemy''.
A smoke screen to hide their own incompetence and corruption.
DC, Moscow, Ljubljana... same ol' magicians. A sleight of hand and the masses start foaming at the mouth.

We have historic reasons to be very paranoid. And US/EU not allowing a compromise in the Ukrainian situation does not help.

In Red Army what I really like is that:
- Soviet commanders are not stupid and act closely to their concept of making war.
- There are no magic "luck" elements present, which deal a major blow to one of the sides.

There is a bit of rape though :( but I guess such events are inevitable.

[Wolferz]

The US Senate just passed a 577 billion dollar defense budget. I'd say that they're prepping to fight yet another war with somebody. Probably not with Russia though.

[Tchocky]

The US Senate just passed a 577 billion dollar defense budget. I'd say that they're prepping to fight yet another war with somebody.

Well for FY2011 the defense budget was $680billion. So, maybe not.

[ikalugin]

Red Army was a cracking book.

Sadly I saw Ralph Peters on the news once or twice as a commentator and he's absolutely insane. Ah well.
Yes, I think he did not get over the end of the Cold War.

[Betonov]

- There are no magic "luck" elements present, which deal a major blow to one of the sides.

General Winter can be a magical luck element, despite being natural and predictable :hmmm:

[ikalugin]

General Winter can be a magical luck element, despite being natural and predictable :hmmm:
It affects both sides, plus if we take the original General Winter (1812 Napoleon campaign) the majority of losses were suffered in the warm months. Thus I wont count it as a "magic luck" element. And example of the later would be capturing specnas commander just in time for the offensives with all the plans or using magic stealth planes to gain complete air superiority in the initial period of war, and such and so on.

[Jeff-Groves]

The US Senate just passed a 577 billion dollar defense budget. I'd say that they're prepping to fight yet another war with somebody. Probably not with Russia though.
They're useing it to invade me!
I proclaim the Country of Momma's Land and War on the U.S.A.
I expect to be over run quickly and use the money to rebuild my country.
:smug: