Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 43

Thread: Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says

  1. #21
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Putin is an idiot if he thinks he's going to light off a nuke, and live.
    That's not what he's thinking. He believes that Obama won't play the game of 'chicken' very well and will back down from a threat first. The problem with that is once they start militarily daring each other, they've put themselves in situations where it's very difficult to back down.



    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Almost certainly, Putin was repeating existing nuclear weapons doctrine but in a simplified fashion concerning his audience. He also wanted to remind his audience that Russia is secure from such attack, because its nuclear arsenal is a deterrent. If Russia were invaded and were facing a real prospect of defeat, it would use all weapons in its arsenal to try to stave off that outcome. There is virtually no prospect that a war limited to Ukraine would lead to a nuclear exchange. In short, I don't believe his remarks represent any meaningful changes in Russia's existing foreign policy and security posture or new threats toward NATO.
    But Putin is also saying don't tank my economy with threats of trade wars and sanctions. That's why he threatening to cut off gas to Europe this winter, even though it would severely hurt the Russian economy. Those sanctions Russian Ruble Sinks to Record Low are almost as much a threat to his power as all out war. The Russian Oligarchs will most likely remove their support of him, allowing for a massive downturn in popular opinion and civilian revolt.

    He's boxed himself in with his Ukraine aggression, and if NATO and the US sincerely believe he'll get the Ukraine and move to other former blocks, they'll keep up the pressure.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  2. #22
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    But Putin is also saying don't tank my economy with threats of trade wars and sanctions. That's why he threatening to cut off gas to Europe this winter, even though it would severely hurt the Russian economy. Those sanctions Russian Ruble Sinks to Record Low are almost as much a threat to his power as all out war. The Russian Oligarchs will most likely remove their support of him, allowing for a massive downturn in popular opinion and civilian revolt.

    He's boxed himself in with his Ukraine aggression, and if NATO and the US sincerely believe he'll get the Ukraine and move to other former blocks, they'll keep up the pressure.
    There's little doubt that Putin will retaliate on a tit-for-tat basis economically. If Russia is hit by sector-wide sanctions, I have little doubt that Russia would cut off natural gas deliveries to Europe. He views economics as part of a larger national interest where the national interest takes precedence. The Western thesis is that economics trumps all other factors and the calculation was that sanctions would curb Russian aggression. That hasn't happened, because Putin sees things differently. Moreover, Russia still is not a fully democratic state where the population can bring about a change in government. Putin has tools that more resemble authoritarian governments that he can and would likely deploy should such a situation arise.

    IMO, the U.S. and NATO need to maintain pressure so long as Russia acts in a counterproductive fashion. If or when Russia takes a more constructive course, then opportunities for easing should be available. Right now, there's no real indication that Russia will take a more constructive approach in the near-term.

  3. #23
    Sage
    EnigmaO01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,027

    Re: Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    Right. We've already seen that Obama's threats (toward foreign countries) don't add up to a hill of beans.
    You mean like Libya? And don't forget this president actually whacked Bin Laden unlike the last one that said he didn't care.

  4. #24
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    There's little doubt that Putin will retaliate on a tit-for-tat basis economically. If Russia is hit by sector-wide sanctions, I have little doubt that Russia would cut off natural gas deliveries to Europe. He views economics as part of a larger national interest where the national interest takes precedence. The Western thesis is that economics trumps all other factors and the calculation was that sanctions would curb Russian aggression. That hasn't happened, because Putin sees things differently. Moreover, Russia still is not a fully democratic state where the population can bring about a change in government. Putin has tools that more resemble authoritarian governments that he can and would likely deploy should such a situation arise.

    IMO, the U.S. and NATO need to maintain pressure so long as Russia acts in a counterproductive fashion. If or when Russia takes a more constructive course, then opportunities for easing should be available. Right now, there's no real indication that Russia will take a more constructive approach in the near-term.
    Well, it's counter productive for Europe and the US. Especially when he raised the gas prices and cut off the Ukraine a few winters ago. Putin likes the monopoly of natural gas for winter heating that Russia currently enjoys, and is why he supported Assad for blocking the southern and western NLG pipelines to Europe.

    Yes, we have too much faith in that the Russians will back down because of financial realities, but they have historically been able to weather economical hardships. I agree that the US and NATO will keep up the sanctions and countering military aggression, where and when possible without escalating into something more direct.

    We've actually been playing these geopolitical strategies with Russia since shortly after WWII. But something feels very different with the new world order. Kissinger recently wrote an op-ed piece describing the focus and priorities, as a much different diplomatic situation than in previous decades due to changing attitudes, technologies and global trading.
    Last edited by grip; 08-30-14 at 05:13 PM.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says

    Quote Originally Posted by Carleen View Post
    So please share your solution to dealing with the maniac Putin.
    For a start we can elect a strong Conservative POTUS. The world does not respect liberal democrats.

  6. #26
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Between Athens and Jerusalem
    Last Seen
    05-18-16 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    33,522

    Re: Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    It is just comical that they actually believe this.
    Look around, everyone is just cracking up, aren't they. Very funny times we live in.

  7. #27
    Guru
    Carleen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    3,622

    Re: Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says

    Quote Originally Posted by US Conservative View Post
    For a start we can elect a strong Conservative POTUS. The world does not respect liberal democrats.
    A strong conservative? And who would that be? Putin is the one who does not respect the US.
    "Being President doesn't change who you are, it reveals who you are"

  8. #28
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:56 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,029

    Re: Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says

    Putin shows his new dominance over everything in the world, he is now giving even Gordon Ramsay and Jamie Oliver a run for their money

    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

  9. #29
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says

    Quote Originally Posted by grip View Post
    Well, it's counter productive for Europe and the US. Especially when he raised the gas prices and cut off the Ukraine a few winters ago. Putin likes the monopoly of natural gas for winter heating that Russia currently enjoys, and is why he supported Assad for blocking the southern and western NLG pipelines to Europe.
    I don't doubt that there would be pain if Russia deprives Europe of natural gas. Nevertheless, the U.S. and Europe need to put the long-term ahead of the short-term. Shorter-term inconvenience is a very attractive price if it means a long-term threat is alleviated. Brutal sanctions can raise the costs of Russian intervention in the total sense of the term and decrease the likelihood of future aggression and the staggering costs of war, particularly as it relates to Europe's NATO members. That's where the U.S.-European focus should be.

    Yes, we have too much faith in that the Russians will back down because of financial realities, but they have historically been able to weather economical hardships. I agree that the US and NATO will keep up the sanctions and countering military aggression, where and when possible without escalating into something more direct.
    The U.S. has drifted into a sort of post-Cold War high in which it was tempted by notions of a unipolar power structure in which no other great nation truly mattered and afterward by equally flawed notions that abstract appeals to international law and economic interconnectedness trumped the balance of power, spheres of influence, Realpolitik, etc. Kissinger, Scowcroft, among others have been sober voices pushing back.

    We've actually been playing these geopolitical strategies with Russia since shortly after WWII. But something feels very different with the new world order. Kissinger recently wrote an op-ed piece describing the focus and priorities, as a much different diplomatic situation than in previous decades due to changing attitudes, technologies and global trading.
    I agree with a lot of that op-ed. It is essentially a piece that complements Kissinger's forthcoming book, which will be released in September.

    Back on August 31, 2008, then Russian President Medvedev unveiled Russia's foreign policy doctrine (almost certainly shaped by then Prime Minister Putin). Medvedev's formulation asserted:

    • Russia recognizes the value international law can play in establishing agreed principles of conduct.

    • Russia sees a multi-polar world. As a consequence, the balance of power remains highly relevant in its conception of 21st century foreign policy doctrine.

    • Russia remains open to cooperation and partnership with the West. The extent of partnership and cooperation will be constrained by the national interests of the parties.

    • Russia, like the rest of the world’s major powers, has interests that extend beyond its borders. Its critical overseas interests will need to be taken into consideration by the rest of the world. Russia is prepared to defend those critical interests.

    In that doctrine, Russia reaffirmed the kind of world that is familiar to the pragmatic Realist approach to foreign policy. In that world, the balance of power is seen as a necessary foundation for reducing the risk of major international conflict. Moral principles are helpful, but not a substitute for the balance of power. Collective security, by itself, is a flawed instrument for promoting international peace and stability, as nations’ interests are not universal and the world’s nations’ desire to run risks is not equal. Effective foreign policy is anchored in national interests. Such policy recognizes the differences in national interests that exist among nations and seeks a balancing of such interests so as to accommodate the needs (though not maximum demands) of the world’s nations. Such a policy recognizes that spheres of influence still matter and must be considered, as no single nation can outlaw that reality by itself.

    Today, Putin is using military force to preserve part of what he views as Russia's sphere of influence. The U.S. was taken aback, rightly by Russia's aggression, but also from being blindsided that Russia's actions amounted to a "19th century" response in a "21st century world." Worse, the U.S. still does not seem to have a coherent foreign policy doctrine. That lack of doctrine has been the case for at least two Administrations, now. In addition, very little if any political and military contingency planning is taking place. As a result, the U.S. foreign policy has been almost entirely reactive in recent years and the U.S. has been forced to try to catch up after falling behind military and political events ranging from insurgency in Afghanistan to the rise of the Islamic State terrorist organization in Syria and Iraq (and possibly a toehold in Lebanon).

    Kissinger's following questions offer a good starting point. He wrote:

    To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?

  10. #30
    Light△Bender

    grip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ☚ ☛
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 02:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,224
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    I don't doubt that there would be pain if Russia deprives Europe of natural gas. Nevertheless, the U.S. and Europe need to put the long-term ahead of the short-term. Shorter-term inconvenience is a very attractive price if it means a long-term threat is alleviated. Brutal sanctions can raise the costs of Russian intervention in the total sense of the term and decrease the likelihood of future aggression and the staggering costs of war, particularly as it relates to Europe's NATO members. That's where the U.S.-European focus should be.



    The U.S. has drifted into a sort of post-Cold War high in which it was tempted by notions of a unipolar power structure in which no other great nation truly mattered and afterward by equally flawed notions that abstract appeals to international law and economic interconnectedness trumped the balance of power, spheres of influence, Realpolitik, etc. Kissinger, Scowcroft, among others have been sober voices pushing back.



    I agree with a lot of that op-ed. It is essentially a piece that complements Kissinger's forthcoming book, which will be released in September.

    Back on August 31, 2008, then Russian President Medvedev unveiled Russia's foreign policy doctrine (almost certainly shaped by then Prime Minister Putin). Medvedev's formulation asserted:

    • Russia recognizes the value international law can play in establishing agreed principles of conduct.

    • Russia sees a multi-polar world. As a consequence, the balance of power remains highly relevant in its conception of 21st century foreign policy doctrine.

    • Russia remains open to cooperation and partnership with the West. The extent of partnership and cooperation will be constrained by the national interests of the parties.

    • Russia, like the rest of the world’s major powers, has interests that extend beyond its borders. Its critical overseas interests will need to be taken into consideration by the rest of the world. Russia is prepared to defend those critical interests.

    In that doctrine, Russia reaffirmed the kind of world that is familiar to the pragmatic Realist approach to foreign policy. In that world, the balance of power is seen as a necessary foundation for reducing the risk of major international conflict. Moral principles are helpful, but not a substitute for the balance of power. Collective security, by itself, is a flawed instrument for promoting international peace and stability, as nations’ interests are not universal and the world’s nations’ desire to run risks is not equal. Effective foreign policy is anchored in national interests. Such policy recognizes the differences in national interests that exist among nations and seeks a balancing of such interests so as to accommodate the needs (though not maximum demands) of the world’s nations. Such a policy recognizes that spheres of influence still matter and must be considered, as no single nation can outlaw that reality by itself.

    Today, Putin is using military force to preserve part of what he views as Russia's sphere of influence. The U.S. was taken aback, rightly by Russia's aggression, but also from being blindsided that Russia's actions amounted to a "19th century" response in a "21st century world." Worse, the U.S. still does not seem to have a coherent foreign policy doctrine. That lack of doctrine has been the case for at least two Administrations, now. In addition, very little if any political and military contingency planning is taking place. As a result, the U.S. foreign policy has been almost entirely reactive in recent years and the U.S. has been forced to try to catch up after falling behind military and political events ranging from insurgency in Afghanistan to the rise of the Islamic State terrorist organization in Syria and Iraq (and possibly a toehold in Lebanon).

    Kissinger's following questions offer a good starting point. He wrote:

    To play a responsible role in the evolution of a 21st-century world order, the U.S. must be prepared to answer a number of questions for itself: What do we seek to prevent, no matter how it happens, and if necessary alone? What do we seek to achieve, even if not supported by any multilateral effort? What do we seek to achieve, or prevent, only if supported by an alliance? What should we not engage in, even if urged on by a multilateral group or an alliance? What is the nature of the values that we seek to advance? And how much does the application of these values depend on circumstance?

    Very astute analysis. The US had become so successful on the world stage that we really had no direction, other than securing resources for energy needs, maintaining economic partners and securing the homeland and assets abroad against radical extremism.

    I'm shocked that someone today actually picked up on this statement below.

    Russia remains open to cooperation and partnership with the West. The extent of partnership and cooperation will be constrained by the national interests of the parties.
    Putin is literally playing games and has no desire for any real confrontation, or even continued sanctions. He's got to be allowed to find an 'out' to maintain his authority, dignity and status in his country. He over-played his hand, but will still get something out of this. He couldn't let those western and southern pipelines come thru Syria, or for the Ukraine to break away without taking a financial beating. It's almost scripted, it's so well orchestrated.

    You're absolutely correct in agreeing with Kissinger and Scowcroft, in that those are flawed notions that intl law, global trading and economic interconnectedness have trumped the balance of power.

    Also, I agree where we've entered an era where the US cannot fix all of the world's problems. And our lack of direction and achievable goals for the long term are from a lack of political cohesiveness and economically driven policies. Corporate hegemony has been allowed too large an influence in our matters of governance. We need to organize our needs and priorities, before we keep running off half cocked, over reacting, to every News cycle, or we're going to face many great social upheavals.
    Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •