Author Topic: Russia is our No. 1 Geopolitical Foe  (Read 1733 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Russia is our No. 1 Geopolitical Foe
« on: March 03, 2014, 05:41:42 PM »
Remember when Romney said this during the 2012 campaign?  Remember the response by liberals, literally calling him stupid?



I wonder what they think now, after Snowden, Syria, and now the Ukraine? 

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Russia is our No. 1 Geopolitical Foe
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2014, 09:16:59 PM »
Seriously, what is the EU going to do... threaten sanctions?  Refuse to buy Russian oil & gas??! ROTFLMAO!!!
w

RRKore

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 2628
Re: Russia is our No. 1 Geopolitical Foe
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2014, 10:37:13 PM »
Another post on facebook from my old Army buddy who's a professor of slavic languages at some university in the midwest:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/03/obama-ukraine-russia-critics-credibility?CMP=twt_gu

Don't listen to Obama's Ukraine critics: he's not 'losing' – and it's not his fight
The ‘do something’ pundits rear their heads. Just like they did on Iraq, Afghanistan and every other crisis of US ‘credibility’

    Michael Cohen   
    theguardian.com, Monday 3 March 2014 12.19 EST   

In the days since Vladimir Putin sent Russian troops into the Crimea, it has been amateur hour back in Washington.

I don’t mean Barack Obama. He’s doing pretty much everything he can, with what are a very limited set of policy options at his disposal. No, I’m talking about the people who won’t stop weighing in on Obama’s lack of “action” in the Ukraine. Indeed, the sea of foreign policy punditry – already shark-infested – has reached new lows in fear-mongering, exaggerated doom-saying and a stunning inability to place global events in any rational historical context.

This would be a useful moment for Americans to have informed reporters, scholars and leaders explaining a crisis rapidly unfolding half a world away. Instead, we’ve already got all the usual suspect arguments:

Personality-driven Analysis
Let’s start here with Julia Ioffe of the New Republic, a popular former reporter in Moscow who now tells us that Putin has sent troops into Crimea “because he can. That’s it, that’s all you need to know”. It’s as if things like regional interests, spheres of influence, geopolitics, coercive diplomacy and the potential loss of a key ally in Kiev (as well as miscalculation) are alien concepts for Russian leaders.

Overstated Rhetoric Shorn of Political Context
David Kramer, president of Freedom House, hit the ball out of the park on this front when he hyperbolically declared that Obama’s response to Putin’s actions “will define his two terms in office” and “the future of U.S. standing in the world”.

Honorable mention goes to Ian Bremmer of Eurasia Group for calling this crisis “the most seismic geopolitical events since 9/11”. Putting aside the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Arab Spring, Syria’s civil war and tensions in the South China Sea, Bremmer might have a point.

Unhelpful Policy Recommendations
Admiral James Stavridis, former Supreme Commander of Nato, deserves a shout-out for calling on Nato to send maritime forces into the Black Sea, among other inflammatory steps. No danger of miscalculation or unnecessary provocation there. No, none at all.

Inappropriate Historical Analogies
So many to choose from here, but when you compare seizing Crimea to the Nazi annexation of Austria in 1938, as Leonid Bershidsky did at Bloomberg View, you pretty much blow away the competition.

Making It All About Us
As in practically every international crisis, the pundit class seems able to view events solely through the prism of US actions, which best explains Edward Luce in the Financial Times writing that Obama needs to convince Putin “he will not be outfoxed”, or Scott Wilson at the Washington Post intimating that this is all a result of America pulling back from military adventurism. Shocking as it may seem, sometimes countries take actions based on how they view their interests, irrespective of who the US did or did not bomb.

Missing from this “analysis” about how Obama should respond is why Obama should respond. After all, the US has few strategic interests in the former Soviet Union and little ability to affect Russian decision-making.

Our interests lie in a stable Europe, and that’s why the US and its European allies created a containment structure that will ensure Russia’s territorial ambitions will remain quite limited. (It’s called Nato.) Even if the Russian military wasn’t a hollow shell of the once formidable Red Army, it’s not about to mess with a Nato country.

The US concerns vis-à-vis Russia are the concerns that affect actual US interests. Concerns like nuclear non-proliferation, or containing the Syrian civil war, or stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Those are all areas where Moscow has played an occasionally useful role.

So while Obama may utilize political capital to ratify the Start treaty with Russia, he’s not going to extend it so save the Crimea. The territorial integrity of Ukraine is not nothing, but it’s hardly in the top tier of US policy concerns.

What is America’s problem is ensuring that Russia pays a price for violating international law and the global norm against inter-state war. The formal suspension of a G8 summit in Sochi is a good first step. If Putin’s recalcitrance grows – and if he further escalates the crisis – then that pressure can be ratcheted up.

But this crisis is Putin’s Waterloo, not ours.

Which brings us to perhaps the most bizarre element of watching the Crimean situation unfold through a US-centric lens: the iron-clad certainty of the pundit class that Putin is winning and Obama is losing. The exact opposite is true.

Putin has initiated a conflict that will, quite obviously, result in greater diplomatic and political isolation as well as the potential for economic sanction. He’s compounded his loss of a key ally in Kiev by further enflaming Ukrainian nationalism, and his provocations could have a cascading effect in Europe by pushing countries that rely on Russia’s natural gas exports to look elsewhere for their energy needs. Putin is the leader of a country with a weak military, an under-performing economy and a host of social, environmental and health-related challenges. Seizing the Crimea will only make the problems facing Russia that much greater.

For Obama and the US, sure, there might be less Russian help on Syria going forward – not that there was much to begin with – and it could perhaps affect negotiations on Iran. But those issues are manageable. Meanwhile, Twitter and the opinion pages and the Sunday shows and too many blog posts that could be informative have been filled with an over-the-top notion: that failure to respond to Russia’s action will weaken America’s credibility with its key allies. To which I would ask: where are they gonna go? If anything, America’s key European allies are likely to fold the quickest, because, you know, gas. And why would any US ally in the Far East want Obama wasting his time on the Crimea anyway?

You don’t have to listen to the “do something” crowd. These are the same people who brought you the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other greatest hits. These are armchair “experts” convinced that every international problem is a vital interest of the US; that the maintenance of “credibility” and “strength” is essential, and that any demonstration of “weakness” is a slippery slope to global anarchy and American obsolescence; and that being wrong and/or needlessly alarmist never loses one a seat at the table.

The funny thing is, these are often the same people who bemoan the lack of public support for a more muscular American foreign policy. Gee, I wonder why.




Roger Bacon

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20957
  • Roger Bacon tries to be witty and fails
Re: Russia is our No. 1 Geopolitical Foe
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2014, 10:39:00 PM »
Obama obviously shouldn't do anything, except maybe rein in the CIA.

The best thing he could do is quit coming off as a weakling pussy.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Russia is our No. 1 Geopolitical Foe
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2014, 10:48:58 PM »
maybe romney shouldn't have instigated such a menacing threat with his thoughtless & dangerous words.

I'd say maybe he started the Cold War all over right there.

I can bet if OBAMA had said this recently, then they got all froggy and aggressive, everyone would be saying his thoughtless words got the wheels turning.  18 months later, we're now seeing what happens when you poke the bear with a stick.

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24455
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Russia is our No. 1 Geopolitical Foe
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2014, 12:46:21 AM »
What all these pundits, talking heads, presstitutes, and Monday morning quarterbacks fail to mention is that the President of the Ukraine called Putin, and begged him to send in the troops. An invitation is hardly an invasion.
w

dario73

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6467
  • Getbig!
Re: Russia is our No. 1 Geopolitical Foe
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2014, 05:29:17 AM »
maybe romney shouldn't have instigated such a menacing threat with his thoughtless & dangerous words.


Are you trolling?

Words don't mean anything if not backed by action.

That is all your boy has. Words. Empty WORDS. Like HOPE AND CHANGE. HEHEHEHEEH!!

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: Russia is our No. 1 Geopolitical Foe
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2014, 09:12:00 AM »
lol


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Russia is our No. 1 Geopolitical Foe
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2014, 11:21:56 AM »
Liberal mag admits: Romney was right about Russia
5:52 PM 03/03/2014

The liberal magazine The New Republic admitted that Mitt Romney was right about Russia after the Vladimir Putin-led nation invaded the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea late last week.

“Russia…is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe.  They fight every cause for the world’s worst actors…But when these—these terrible actors pursue their course in the world and we go to the United Nations looking for ways to stop them, when—when Assad, for instance, is murdering his own people, we go—we go to the United Nations, and who is it that always stands up for the world’s worst actors? It is always Russia, typically with China alongside,” Romney said in a 2012 interview during his presidential campaign.

Since the interview, Syria’s Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his own people and China has come out “in agreement” with Russia’s invasion of Crimea.

“This all seems…exactly right,” Isaac Chotiner admitted Monday for The New Republic..

Romney’s comments on Russia were roundly mocked in 2012 by a press that did not seem to like Romney very much compared to his Democratic opponent Barack Obama, who told Romney in a debate that “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years.”

“Governor Romney offered his judgment today that Russia is our nation’s number one geopolitical foe. This conclusion, as outdated as his ideas on the economy, energy needs, and social issues, is left over from the last century. Does Governor Romney believe that a Cold War foreign policy is the right course in the twenty-first century?,” said former Secretary of the Navy Richard Danzig in a statement distributed by the Democratic National Committee and featured on the blog of liberal anchor Rachel Maddow.

“I don’t know what decade this guy is living. It sounds like ’72, ’52 even. It’s not Stalin over there. It’s not Khrushchev. It’s not Brezhnev. It’s [Dmitry] Medvedev,” said red-faced MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews.

“If Mitt Romney has his way, the military-industrial complex will get its beloved Cold War back,” cried The Nation magazine.

. . .

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/03/liberal-mag-admits-romney-was-right-about-russia/#ixzz2v1W65yNj

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63770
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Russia is our No. 1 Geopolitical Foe
« Reply #9 on: September 30, 2015, 10:06:59 AM »
Kerry rebuffs Russian demand, says US airstrikes in Syria ‘will continue’
Published September 30, 2015
FoxNews.com

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday rebuffed Russia's demand that U.S. warplanes leave Syrian airspace to make way for their own airstrikes, saying coalition forces are not going anywhere.

"These strikes will continue," Kerry said.

Kerry spoke at a United Nations Security Council meeting chaired by his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, with whom he reportedly spoke before the meeting. The meeting followed a dramatic escalation in the Syrian conflict, as Russia began bombarding opposition targets inside the country.

Speaking in New York, Kerry said he was prepared to welcome Russia's actions if they are directed only at the Islamic State and Al Qaeda.

"We would have grave concerns should Russia strike areas where ISIL and Al Qaeda-affiliated targets ... are not operating," Kerry said, adding that nations must not confuse fighting ISIS for supporting Bashar Assad.

Russia says it is striking ISIS positions, but U.S. officials and others cast doubt on that claim. A U.S. defense official noted Russian warplanes have struck targets in Homs and Hama, where there is no ISIS presence.   

Kerry called Wednesday for holding "de-confliction talks" with Russia as early as possible. But he made clear that amid the discussions over Russia's role, U.S. and coalition action would continue.

According to sources, as Russia launched its airstrikes, Moscow requested the U.S. stay out of Syrian airspace during the missions. But Kerry noted during the U.N. meeting that the coalition conducted strikes within the last 24 hours, including one an hour before his remarks.

"The United States and the coalition will continue our ongoing air operations as we have from the very beginning," he said.

Meanwhile, Russia's aerial bombardment against Syrian opposition targets raised bipartisan alarm on Capitol Hill Wednesday -- with some echoing concerns that Russia's airstrikes will not distinguish between Islamic State targets and moderate opposition forces.

"These airstrikes are indiscriminate in nature," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said. 

McCain delivered a blistering floor speech on the developments in Syria, blasting what he called the Obama administration's "leading from behind" approach.

He said the war has "now created a platform for a Russian autocrat to join with an Iranian theocrat to prop up a Syrian dictator."

The airstrikes follow a weeks-long military build-up by Russia inside Syria, which led to a flurry of phone calls and meetings between U.S. and Russian officials. That culminated on Monday with a meeting on the sidelines of the United Nations Security Council between President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin.   

But according to one senior U.S. official, Russia has now "bypassed" a process that Obama and Putin agreed on to "deconflict" military operations.

"That's not how responsible nations do business," the official said.

A senior U.S. defense official said a Russian official in Baghdad informed U.S. Embassy personnel Wednesday morning that their military aircraft would fly "anti-ISIL missions" over Syria.

"He further requested that U.S. aircraft avoid Syrian airspace during these missions," the official said -- a request that apparently was rejected.

"While we would welcome a constructive role by Russia in this effort, today's demarche hardly seems indicative of that sort or role and will in no way alter our operations," the U.S. defense official said.

McCain said U.S. policies have led to this point.

"It did not have to be this way," he said. "This is the inevitable consequence of hollow words, red lines crossed ... and a total lack of American leadership. ... This is a very, very, very sad day for American and the world."

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, also raised concerns about Russia's military action.

"The use of Russian military force in Syria adds a troubling new development to a war effort already plagued with problems," he said in a statement. "... The Russian air campaign may be even more destructive if it targets moderate rebel forces fighting the Assad regime. Already, the growing Russian presence has thrown a life line to embattled dictator Bashar al-Assad, at a time when pressure on the regime and its supporters may have finally led to a negotiated end to the conflict."

He said "the increased longevity of the regime - made possible by this Russian intervention - will only prolong the civil war."

Fox News' Jennifer Griffin and Lucas Tomlinson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/30/kerry-rebuffs-russian-demand-says-us-airstrikes-in-syria-will-continue/?intcmp=hpbt1