Post by epaul on Aug 28, 2008 11:16:58 GMT -5
Some things to consider while the pundits are talking Russia.
#1 When the USSR fractured, a whole bunch of little nations were newly created all around Russia. What was the first thing the Bush crew started doing? They started trying to get all these new little countries to sign up with NATO (an alliance of countries signed up to fight against Russia).
I wondered WTF was up with that at the time. Apparently, so did Russia. The Bush crew was trying to get everyone in the region, everyone except Russia that is, locked into a defense treaty. What is a good Russian to think about that? What would you think? What sort of resentments, fears, and plans would such a move foster? WTF was the Bush crew thinking?
A more sensible move would have been creating a whole new regional deal, one that included Russia. What is the point of excluding Russia from her very neighborhood? What was the point of using NATO, a post-WWII defense pact which was created to fight Russia, as the organizational tool for this newly created region?
Are we seeing some fruit borne from this idiocy?
#2 Bush is putting up a missile system in Poland, one of the new NATO members that borders Russia. What is Russia supposed to think about that? Bush says, “Oh, we won’t be pointing the missiles at you, you have nothing to worry about. Our only interest in putting missiles smack dab on your border is to defend the United States from Iran, who can’t come within eight thousand miles of the United States with anything they own or can build in the next thirty or fifty years.”
Honestly, what is Russia supposed to think about those missiles? What would we think? We know what we thought. Cuba anyone? What would we do now if Russia were to put up an anti-missile system in Mexico or Venezuela and try justify it by saying they were only interested in protecting Mother Russia from Brazil?
Will we be seeing fruit from this move?
Russia could have been a huge ally. Instead, once again, they are looking like an adversary. If we go ahead and put missiles in Poland, I would not blame Russia one bit for taking them out. Then what do we do?
( I know what some of Bush’s favorite advisors would recommend. There were Neo-Con basement warriors recommending in the National Review that we bomb several roads, tunnels, and bridges between Russia and Georgia in order to slow up the Russians by a few weeks. Then what? Neo-Answer in next month’s issue?)
Of course Russia was going to re-emerge. But what favors have we done ourselves and the world with our part in the shaping of that reemergence?
It is a tricky world without clear or easy answers to anything. But the Bush-Crew’s strategic policy of throwing dirt on Russia’s grave while taking victory laps in the Balkans has been asinine. Across the globe, the Bush crew has acted with arrogance, ignorance, and an assumption of far more power and influence than they actually had. I just hope we can get them out and get someone in who has some idea how to mitigate their legacy.
And, no, I don't know what to do about Russia. Or why we should do anything about Russia. But I would not run around the region signing up brand new little countries, brand new, weak little countries, into a defense pact that was founded solely to fight and contain Russia. And if were going to meddle in the damn area, I would include Russia, easily the most powerful and dominant country in the region, in whatever regional deal I was trying to cook up. And it would be a new deal, not a war relic from an unfriendly past.
Nor would I put up a bunch of missiles on a country's border without the approval and cooperation of that country, especially if that country was a large, powerful country that was suspicious about my motives because I had been signing up all its neighbors in a defense pact against it.
Honestly, it is like the Bush Crew concocted the most offensive and stupid, arrogant and ignorant, and downright stupid and dangerous Russia policy they could imagine.
What a bunch of dumbass dipwads.
Paul
#1 When the USSR fractured, a whole bunch of little nations were newly created all around Russia. What was the first thing the Bush crew started doing? They started trying to get all these new little countries to sign up with NATO (an alliance of countries signed up to fight against Russia).
I wondered WTF was up with that at the time. Apparently, so did Russia. The Bush crew was trying to get everyone in the region, everyone except Russia that is, locked into a defense treaty. What is a good Russian to think about that? What would you think? What sort of resentments, fears, and plans would such a move foster? WTF was the Bush crew thinking?
A more sensible move would have been creating a whole new regional deal, one that included Russia. What is the point of excluding Russia from her very neighborhood? What was the point of using NATO, a post-WWII defense pact which was created to fight Russia, as the organizational tool for this newly created region?
Are we seeing some fruit borne from this idiocy?
#2 Bush is putting up a missile system in Poland, one of the new NATO members that borders Russia. What is Russia supposed to think about that? Bush says, “Oh, we won’t be pointing the missiles at you, you have nothing to worry about. Our only interest in putting missiles smack dab on your border is to defend the United States from Iran, who can’t come within eight thousand miles of the United States with anything they own or can build in the next thirty or fifty years.”
Honestly, what is Russia supposed to think about those missiles? What would we think? We know what we thought. Cuba anyone? What would we do now if Russia were to put up an anti-missile system in Mexico or Venezuela and try justify it by saying they were only interested in protecting Mother Russia from Brazil?
Will we be seeing fruit from this move?
Russia could have been a huge ally. Instead, once again, they are looking like an adversary. If we go ahead and put missiles in Poland, I would not blame Russia one bit for taking them out. Then what do we do?
( I know what some of Bush’s favorite advisors would recommend. There were Neo-Con basement warriors recommending in the National Review that we bomb several roads, tunnels, and bridges between Russia and Georgia in order to slow up the Russians by a few weeks. Then what? Neo-Answer in next month’s issue?)
Of course Russia was going to re-emerge. But what favors have we done ourselves and the world with our part in the shaping of that reemergence?
It is a tricky world without clear or easy answers to anything. But the Bush-Crew’s strategic policy of throwing dirt on Russia’s grave while taking victory laps in the Balkans has been asinine. Across the globe, the Bush crew has acted with arrogance, ignorance, and an assumption of far more power and influence than they actually had. I just hope we can get them out and get someone in who has some idea how to mitigate their legacy.
And, no, I don't know what to do about Russia. Or why we should do anything about Russia. But I would not run around the region signing up brand new little countries, brand new, weak little countries, into a defense pact that was founded solely to fight and contain Russia. And if were going to meddle in the damn area, I would include Russia, easily the most powerful and dominant country in the region, in whatever regional deal I was trying to cook up. And it would be a new deal, not a war relic from an unfriendly past.
Nor would I put up a bunch of missiles on a country's border without the approval and cooperation of that country, especially if that country was a large, powerful country that was suspicious about my motives because I had been signing up all its neighbors in a defense pact against it.
Honestly, it is like the Bush Crew concocted the most offensive and stupid, arrogant and ignorant, and downright stupid and dangerous Russia policy they could imagine.
What a bunch of dumbass dipwads.
Paul