Russia to Open Airspace to U.S. for Afghan War

[rathi]

The Russian government has agreed to let American troops and weapons bound for Afghanistan fly over Russian territory, officials on both sides said Friday. The arrangement will provide an important new corridor for the United States military as it escalates efforts to win the eight-year war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/04/world/europe/04russia.html

It looks like Obama has made some headway on the world scene with his foreign policy approach. We aren't going to start skipping through the fields with the Russian's, but at least we can cooperate when it suits us both. Hopefully further progress can be made to avoid restarting the cold war. Obama made big promises on changing our Russian relationship, but it appears that there is at least one tangible result for his efforts.

 

[Councilman]

On the surface this looks like a hell of a break through, but I believe it to be important that we view it with cautious optimism, keeping in mind that Putin is one of the last people on earth worthy of anyone's trust.

 

[Scorpion89]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/04/world/europe/04russia.html

It looks like Obama has made some headway on the world scene with his foreign policy approach. We aren't going to start skipping through the fields with the Russian's, but at least we can cooperate when it suits us both. Hopefully further progress can be made to avoid restarting the cold war. Obama made big promises on changing our Russian relationship, but it appears that there is at least one tangible result for his efforts.

Not really it's in Russia best interested that The Afgan War goes good, don't forget it was Russia(USSR) who brought on the Taliban and Muslim Terrorist Groups wit their invasion of The Afgan.

As for letting us fly thru there Airspace hey let you in on well know secrete this has been going on since 2004

As for Russia stopping the move of the S-3000 to Iran it's a smart move by Russia they don't want to be looked like idiots enlight of the elections.

As for reduction in Nuke Warheads I doult anything will happen not as longs as Russia insist that they can keep troops in Georgia.

 

[Harshaw]

What did he give them to GET that? It doesn't say.

 

[Metternich]

I like how the NYT is spinning this but if you take a step back - it's clearly a cope out by Obama. Proclaiming some huge diplomacy 'break through' when its nothing more then a flippant promise that could be revoked next week.

The US has been aiming since, I believe, as early as 2002 to establish airbases somewhere within Central Asia to relive the logistical strain of using airports in Afghanistan and instead of supporting us Russia has been right there condemning the establishments, asking for their withdrawal and what have you. The only reason they haven't put more pressure on Kazakhstan (where the big one's are located), by which I mean invade, is because the country is the new regional powerhouse to the Central Asia scene. Russia does not want to alienate her, especially with a creeping NATO yet Russia happily goes through the SCO to rant, rave, et against the US/ISAF presence within the country constantly.

Recently they have been more entertained with invading George, occupying the breakaway regions and getting the UN Peacekeepers out for the eventual annexation of Georgia itself. Though the animosity remains.

For Russia to give us the ability to go through their 'airspace' (no airports, notice that!) is like giving a saltine cracker in return for kicking someone in the nads. Sure, flying over Russia is great (not that it would change much strategically) but I think we should consider that we need airbases to land airplanes on; yeah, that whole strategery [sic] rearing its ugly head again.

I think a real feat would be a promise of Russia to stop their policy of pressuring Central Asian countries like Uzebekistan to give up their American bases - better yet, use Russia for airbases! Now that would be a true breakthrough, not this - this is just a bunch of hot hair over-hyped by a devoted media outlet who doesn't matter that they have framing issues.

Not to mention missile defense, Georgia, SCO concerns, trade wars, civil rights, Iran, North Korea, Moldova (especially its break away region) and what have you. Those are still around... But thank goodness we can go over airspace we don't need! Load off my back, that's for sure.

 

[F107HyperSabr]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/04/world/europe/04russia.html

It looks like Obama has made some headway on the world scene with his foreign policy approach. We aren't going to start skipping through the fields with the Russian's, but at least we can cooperate when it suits us both. Hopefully further progress can be made to avoid restarting the cold war. Obama made big promises on changing our Russian relationship, but it appears that there is at least one tangible result for his efforts.

I really fear that Obama may have promised away too much to the Evil Empire of Russia in order to get these concessions. Did he "trade" away the right of the former imate countries of the Evil Empire such as Ukraine, Georgia, Armenia, the Baltics to defend themselves from Russian invasion and empire rebuilding? We just like Russia's neighbors cannot and should never trust those filthy savages. Remember that it was the Russians who killed more people using genocide and political based murder than Hitler and the Nazi's even dreamed of killing.

Obama better remember that when you are dealing with Russians you are not dealing with human beings you are dealing with filthy barbaric savages.

 

[Midwest Lib]

I like how the NYT is spinning this but if you take a step back - it's clearly a cope out by Obama. Proclaiming some huge diplomacy 'break through' when its nothing more then a flippant promise that could be revoked next week.

The US has been aiming since, I believe, as early as 2002 to establish airbases somewhere within Central Asia to relive the logistical strain of using airports in Afghanistan and instead of supporting us Russia has been right there condemning the establishments, asking for their withdrawal and what have you. The only reason they haven't put more pressure on Kazakhstan (where the big one's are located), by which I mean invade, is because the country is the new regional powerhouse to the Central Asia scene. Russia does not want to alienate her, especially with a creeping NATO yet Russia happily goes through the SCO to rant, rave, et against the US/ISAF presence within the country constantly.

Recently they have been more entertained with invading George, occupying the breakaway regions and getting the UN Peacekeepers out for the eventual annexation of Georgia itself. Though the animosity remains.

For Russia to give us the ability to go through their 'airspace' (no airports, notice that!) is like giving a saltine cracker in return for kicking someone in the nads. Sure, flying over Russia is great (not that it would change much strategically) but I think we should consider that we need airbases to land airplanes on; yeah, that whole strategery [sic] rearing its ugly head again.

I think a real feat would be a promise of Russia to stop their policy of pressuring Central Asian countries like Uzebekistan to give up their American bases - better yet, use Russia for airbases! Now that would be a true breakthrough, not this - this is just a bunch of hot hair over-hyped by a devoted media outlet who doesn't matter that they have framing issues.

Not to mention missile defense, Georgia, SCO concerns, trade wars, civil rights, Iran, North Korea, Moldova (especially its break away region) and what have you. Those are still around... But thank goodness we can go over airspace we don't need! Load off my back, that's for sure.

Gotta crawl before you can walk...I am not going to pretend that this is the perfect situation, especially not knowing our concessions, but until I hear more information I can at least say that it does seem to be a step in the right direction. Whether this ends up being a building block in US-Russian diplomacy is of course not able to be determined, but until I see evidence showing otherwise, I view this as a good thing.

To the post above, yes a lot of things in our relations are messed up, but progress has to begin somewhere...

 

[Metternich]

Oh don't get me wrong I want Russia on our side again (like, you know, during the first four or five years of Bush) but the NYT s making this seem like a 'building block' about one second from becoming meeting at Torgau.

Meeting of Russian-US troops at Torgau - WWII

 

[akyron]

Cooperative relationships I do not mind. What was in this horsetrade I have to ask?

Payback or something more?

 

[Kandahar]

I find it funny that people are appalled at the prospect that Obama might have given the Russians something THEY want in exchange for something WE want. Let me ask you guys something: Is there anything that Russia actually wants (that the United States doesn't) that you would be willing to trade them for this, or for anything else? I didn't think so.

No, Russia should just capitulate to all American desires, while getting nothing in return. Russian interests are, by definition, illegitimate and non-negotiable. And you guys wonder why the world often hates American foreign policy. :roll:

 

[akyron]

I find it funny that people are appalled at the prospect that Obama might have given the Russians something THEY want in exchange for something WE want. Let me ask you guys something: Is there anything that Russia actually wants (that the United States doesn't) that you would be willing to trade them for this, or for anything else? I didn't think so.

No, Russia should just capitulate to all American desires, while getting nothing in return. Russian interests are, by definition, illegitimate and non-negotiable. And you guys wonder why the world often hates American foreign policy. :roll:

I think you are overreacting. I may not care what was given at all. I just want to KNOW what our leaders are giving/trading away on our behalf. Is that really over the top to ask? It appears to be a quite reasonable question to me since we already at least partially know the other side of the equation.

 

[Scorpion89]

I find it funny that people are appalled at the prospect that Obama might have given the Russians something THEY want in exchange for something WE want. Let me ask you guys something: Is there anything that Russia actually wants (that the United States doesn't) that you would be willing to trade them for this, or for anything else? I didn't think so.

No, Russia should just capitulate to all American desires, while getting nothing in return. Russian interests are, by definition, illegitimate and non-negotiable. And you guys wonder why the world often hates American foreign policy. :roll:

I can think of allot of items that Russia would like us to give them,

Money for starters so they can keep paying their Nuke Army Teams
Better Trade Agreements
Look the other way when it comes to Georgia
Slow NATO down

Shall I go on or do you get the bigger picture.

 

[Oftencold]

If true, and without undue strings, it could be a major positive development, and a credit to the current Administration.

 

[Smoke[MaxX]]

Eh, this is stupid. We got something we wanted due to actually cooperating with other nations. This makes attacks via the Afghan War easier, but surprisingly they didn't give us this access when Bush was President. Hmm...

Oh and also to those who are complaining that Russia can take this offer away at any time, think about what you're saying.

"This definitely isn't good because of what MIGHT happen even though we already got access from Russia."

 

[The Mark]

The thing is, there is no information that I am aware of out there telling us what was given (if anything) to Russia in exchange for allowing us to fly through their airspace.

This is information that I want, so that I can determine for myself if I consider it a worthwhile trade.

Now, on to your statements.

Eh, this is stupid. We got something we wanted due to actually cooperating with other nations. This makes attacks via the Afghan War easier, but surprisingly they didn't give us this access when Bush was President. Hmm...

It is possible that Pres Bush didn't want to concede something that Russia wanted in exchange for that privilege. Or any number of other reasons.

Who knows.

Oh and also to those who are complaining that Russia can take this offer away at any time, think about what you're saying.

"This definitely isn't good because of what MIGHT happen even though we already got access from Russia."

Regarding the possibility that Russia might stop allowing us to fly through their airspace, it seems that all they would need to do is say "stop", and then intercept our aircraft if we tried to fly through anyway.

And what could we then do to recoup whatever we gave them, if anything?

 

[Scorpion89]

If true, and without undue strings, it could be a major positive development, and a credit to the current Administration.

I guess some of you missed my first post we HAVE BEEN FLYING THRU RUSSIAN AIRSPACE INTO THE AFGAN SINCE @))$ nothing new here to see folks move along.

 

[The Mark]

I guess some of you missed my first post we HAVE BEEN FLYING THRU RUSSIAN AIRSPACE INTO THE AFGAN SINCE @))$ nothing new here to see folks move along.

If this is correct, then perhaps we traded nothing for the privilege of being allowed to do so?

And this news story is about nothing whatsoever?

Hmm...

Simply a statement of "well, we are allowed to do something that we have been allowed to do for years"?

Or are their specifics that you are not stating, such as:

What we have been allowed to transport by air through Russian airspace, and:
What we are now allowed to transport through Russian airspace.

If there is a difference, then it is a new item.

If there is no difference, then it is not.

And, on a personal note directed at you, Scorpion89: Are you really a navy test pilot instructor? One would think that such a person would know the proper use of punctuation and/or a spell check (which would correct punctuation errors). I ask this because I truly want to know, not to attack you in any way.

 

[Red_Dave]

I can think of allot of items that Russia would like us to give them,

Money for starters so they can keep paying their Nuke Army Teams
Better Trade Agreements
Look the other way when it comes to Georgia
Slow NATO down

Shall I go on or do you get the bigger picture.

Well they looked the other way when it came to Kosovo. Quid Pro Quo

 

[F107HyperSabr]

Oh don't get me wrong I want Russia on our side again (like, you know, during the first four or five years of Bush) but the NYT s making this seem like a 'building block' about one second from becoming meeting at Torgau.

Meeting of Russian-US troops at Torgau - WWII

I had relatives who serevd in the Soviet Red Army and an uncle at the battle of Berlin so I resent the categorization of US meeting 'Russian' troops. The Soviet Union was only 50 % Russian therefore Ukrainians, Belorus's, Armenians, Georgian, Balts, etc fought and many died taking down Germany on the Eastern front. To call the Red Army Russian may be a common mistake but it is a great insult to the good people of what was the Soviet Union to refer to them as 'Russian'.

 

[F107HyperSabr]

Cooperative relationships I do not mind. What was in this horsetrade I have to ask?

Payback or something more?

That is what I am worried about what did 'we' trade away. I know that it is abvious taht I have no regard for Russians but that is not due to racism or ethnic hatred it is based upon the behavior of those savages. The Russians do not have a history of honest dealings so beware , beware, and if taht fails beware some more.

 

[Scorpion89]

I had relatives who serevd in the Soviet Red Army and an uncle at the battle of Berlin so I resent the categorization of US meeting 'Russian' troops. The Soviet Union was only 50 % Russian therefore Ukrainians, Belorus's, Armenians, Georgian, Balts, etc fought and many died taking down Germany on the Eastern front. To call the Red Army Russian may be a common mistake but it is a great insult to the good people of what was the Soviet Union to refer to them as 'Russian'.

Off topic F107 and if you like we can go to another forum say Military or History and discuss that actual break down of the Red Army during WWII, but I will throw this one out to you I know a llot of Belrussian who will say that they are the real Russians.

 

[F107HyperSabr]

Not really it's in Russia best interested that The Afgan War goes good, don't forget it was Russia(USSR) who brought on the Taliban and Muslim Terrorist Groups wit their invasion of The Afgan.

As for letting us fly thru there Airspace hey let you in on well know secrete this has been going on since 2004

As for Russia stopping the move of the S-3000 to Iran it's a smart move by Russia they don't want to be looked like idiots enlight of the elections.

As for reduction in Nuke Warheads I doult anything will happen not as longs as Russia insist that they can keep troops in Georgia.

My understanding was that any flights through Russian airspace was incidental to our getting to bases we paid for in the Stans. I also understand that there wee some very severe restrictions as to what we were "allowed" to fly over Russians airspace. I also understand that we tried very much to route our traffic through countries other than Russia whenever possible.

I just don't have a rosy picture of Russian cooperation. They even did vrything that they could to get the Stans to reneg on bases.

 

[F107HyperSabr]

Off topic F107 and if you like we can go to another forum say Military or History and discuss that actual break down of the Red Army during WWII, but I will throw this one out to you I know a llot of Belrussian who will say that they are the real Russians.

The details of the etnic breadown of the Red Army is not what I was responding to. I have always been ready, willing, and able to point out that the Soviet Union may have been controlled by the Russians as an empire but to call is Russia is wrong and a lazy approach albeit popular.

We can discuss the falacious use of the root identity of Rus for Russia but not here. Rus was the ancient name for Ukraine and was taken over by Russia. The real name for Russian is Rossia ( Rocia) and yes that part would belong in another forum.

 

[The Mark]

The details of the etnic breadown of the Red Army is not what I was responding to. I have always been ready, willing, and able to point out that the Soviet Union may have been controlled by the Russians as an empire but to call is Russia is wrong and a lazy approach albeit popular.

We can discuss the falacious use of the root identity of Rus for Russia but not here. Rus was the ancient name for Ukraine and was taken over by Russia. The real name for Russian is Rossia ( Rocia) and yes that part would belong in another forum.

I didn't read the OP article.

Is it Russia, or a collection of former USSR members who are allowing us flyover rights?

 

[F107HyperSabr]

I didn't read the OP article.

Is it Russia, or a collection of former USSR members who are allowing us flyover rights?

Both !! The former republics had already allowed it and some of the Stans allowed US bases. The Russia flyover talk is supposedly new.