US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting

Sherman123 · Mar 20, 2014

MildSteel said:
US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting - The Washington Post

Thus ends the "new thinking" of Gorbachev. In his speech to a joint session of parliament, Putin said that Ukraine was the line that the US should not have crossed.

If these people are not careful, this may go down in history as the beginning of WWIII

No it will not. Christ. We are nowhere close to a military confrontation with Russia. Even if we put troops on the Dnieper at the invitation of the Ukrainian government (as we should) we wouldn't be on the verge of World War III.

MildSteel · Mar 20, 2014

apdst said:
Obama's backing down every chance he gets.

I think that it was being overly aggressive with our recent moves in Ukraine that got us to this point. So I don't agree with you.

MildSteel · Mar 20, 2014

ocean515 said:
I would think very true.

It's remarkable to view how many see Russia as a power player on the World Stage. Outside of energy, Russia is an also ran. As a country, they amount to very little. This is all bluster by Putin, with nothing of substance to back up his play, other than some belief Russia today should be viewed in the same light as the USSR of yesterday.

It's certainly true that Russia is not as powerful as the USSR. However, it is incorrect to say that they are not a power player on the world stage. It's a big mistake to underestimate them in that way.

MildSteel · Mar 20, 2014

Sherman123 said:
No it will not. Christ. We are nowhere close to a military confrontation with Russia. Even if we put troops on the Dnieper at the invitation of the Ukrainian government (as we should) we wouldn't be on the verge of World War III.

While I agree that we are nowhere close to a military confrontation with Russia, I do think that if tensions are not allowed to ease, both sides could start to implement foreign policy in a way that deteriorates trust and increases paranoia, thus creating the environment in which a war could be started. Therefore both sides should proceed with caution. The displays at that meeting were not a good sign at all.

apdst · Mar 20, 2014

Unitedwestand13 said:
I don't discount the threats of any country with nukes.

Putin isn't going to pop a nuke.

apdst · Mar 20, 2014

MildSteel said:
I think that it was being overly aggressive with our recent moves in Ukraine that got us to this point. So I don't agree with you.

Overly aggressive? :lamo

Sherman123 · Mar 20, 2014

MildSteel said:
While I agree that we are nowhere close to a military confrontation with Russia, I do think that if tensions are not allowed to ease, both sides could start to implement foreign policy in a way that deteriorates trust and increases paranoia, thus creating the environment in which a war could be started. Therefore both sides should proceed with caution. The displays at that meeting were not a good sign at all.

Only one side is proceeding with caution, the other has been fomenting violence in a neighboring state and has launched a full scale invasion of its territory and proceeded to annex it within the space of a week. The other side has completely abandoned the field. Deterrence is inherently risky but you undertake it in the hope of heading off worse outcomes. If you aren't willing to play that necessary game then you've already lost.

We have an determined autocracy which seeks to buttress its influence, regain territory, and increase its relative strength when arrayed against the West. Firm steps have to be taken to reinforce faith in the US security guarantee, to create a limit to the maximum Russian advance, and coordinate resistance. Otherwise we'll continue to see Russia carve out influence in driblets until one day soon you'll have a re-established pro-Moscow regime in Kiev, Transnistria re-absorbed into Russia, and Russian bases on the frontier of Central Europe in western Ukraine.

Ukraine needs to be a line in the sand and we've utterly failed to step up to the task.

Erod · Mar 20, 2014

What is wrong with got people? Don't you know a plane is missing?

It's on CNN right now 24/7, and their ratings are skyrocketing. You're missing the real story.

Now stop wasting bandwidth with this trivial nonsense.

MMC · Mar 20, 2014

Erod said:
What is wrong with got people? Don't you know a plane is missing?

It's on CNN right now 24/7, and their ratings are skyrocketing. You're missing the real story.

Now stop wasting bandwidth with this trivial nonsense.

"WHAT"......

ocean515 · Mar 20, 2014

MildSteel said:
It's certainly true that Russia is not as powerful as the USSR. However, it is incorrect to say that they are not a power player on the world stage. It's a big mistake to underestimate them in that way.

Well, in my opinion, it's a bigger mistake to estimate them in the way you suggest.

They are not an industrial power by any stretch. They are nowhere near the military power the USSR was, and after the inevitable fall of the USSR, it turns out they weren't even the military power their propaganda suggested they were at the time.

Short of the nuke arsenal, they don't have much, other than a leader it appears many are afraid of.

Unitedwestand13 · Mar 20, 2014

ocean515 said:
Well, in my opinion, it's a bigger mistake to estimate them in the way you suggest.

They are not an industrial power by any stretch. They are nowhere near the military power the USSR was, and after the inevitable fall of the USSR, it turns out they weren't even the military power their propaganda suggested they were at the time.

Short of the nuke arsenal, they don't have much, other than a leader it appears many are afraid of.

There is the natural gas supply Russia has, and that is the thing being used like a knife at Europes throat

MildSteel · Mar 20, 2014

apdst said:
Overly aggressive? :lamo

While one must admire they way in which Victoria Nuland engineered the fall of Yanukovych and installation of Yatsenyuk, it was rather aggressive and a very big strategic mistake.

apdst · Mar 20, 2014

MildSteel said:
While one must admire they way in which Victoria Nuland engineered the fall of Yanukovych and installation of Yatsenyuk, it was rather aggressive and a very big strategic mistake.

How was it aggressive?

apdst · Mar 20, 2014

Unitedwestand13 said:
There is the natural gas supply Russia has, and that is the thing being used like a knife at Europes throat

That's why it's so important for us to prevent the crazies from ruling the ME.

MildSteel · Mar 20, 2014

Sherman123 said:
Only one side is proceeding with caution, the other has been fomenting violence in a neighboring state and has launched a full scale invasion of its territory and proceeded to annex it within the space of a week. The other side has completely abandoned the field. Deterrence is inherently risky but you undertake it in the hope of heading off worse outcomes. If you aren't willing to play that necessary game then you've already lost.

We have an determined autocracy which seeks to buttress its influence, regain territory, and increase its relative strength when arrayed against the West. Firm steps have to be taken to reinforce faith in the US security guarantee, to create a limit to the maximum Russian advance, and coordinate resistance. Otherwise we'll continue to see Russia carve out influence in driblets until one day soon you'll have a re-established pro-Moscow regime in Kiev, Transnistria re-absorbed into Russia, and Russian bases on the frontier of Central Europe in western Ukraine.

Ukraine needs to be a line in the sand and we've utterly failed to step up to the task.

Your characterization here completely ignores that although Victoria Nuland displayed tactical brilliance in engineering the fall of Yanukovych, it was a reckless move that was strategic foolishness. Not only that but it completely ignores the fact that placing NATO right on a vulnerable Russian border, and indeed right alongside it's Black Sea fleet would have the effect of substantially limiting Russia's power. No power, that could help it, would allow an military alliance that was specifically designed to contain it to put it into such a vulnerable position. That's why it is of no surprise that Putin responded in the way that he did, rather it was to be expected.

Furthermore, while you are correct that Russia is trying to buttress its influence and increase it's relative strength against the West, you have completely ignored the fact that the West is trying to do the same against Russia. Again, how else do you expect them to respond? And as far as regaining territory with regards to Crimea, I doubt we would be discussing this if Nuland had not dismantled the government of Yanukovych.

That said, you are correct when you say we have to make it absolutely clear that we will stand up to any further Russian advances. But the truth is that the preponderance of the blame for this incident lies with the US. It was a big mistake.

MildSteel · Mar 20, 2014

apdst said:
How was it aggressive?

Engineering the fall of a government in response to it's accepting a counter offer from Russia, right on a vulnerable Russia border, was over aggressive behavior on the part of the Assistant Secretary of State of the United States, Victoria Nuland.

Sherman123 · Mar 20, 2014

MildSteel said:
Your characterization here completely ignores that although Victoria Nuland displayed tactical brilliance in engineering the fall of Yanukovych, it was a reckless move that was strategic foolishness. Not only that but it completely ignores the fact that placing NATO right on a vulnerable Russian border, and indeed right alongside it's Black Sea fleet would have the effect of substantially limiting Russia's power. No power, that could help it, would allow an military alliance that was specifically designed to contain it to put it into such a vulnerable position. That's why it is of no surprise that Putin responded in the way that he did, rather it was to be expected.

Furthermore, while you are correct that Russia is trying to buttress its influence and increase it's relative strength against the West, you have completely ignored the fact that the West is trying to do the same against Russia. Again, how else do you expect them to respond? And as far as regaining territory with regards to Crimea, I doubt we would be discussing this if Nuland had not dismantled the government of Yanukovych.

That said, you are correct when you say we have to make it absolutely clear that we will stand up to any further Russian advances. But the truth is that the preponderance of the blame for this incident lies with the US. It was a big mistake.

We hardly 'engineered' the fall of Yanukovych. People are willing to go down extraordinarily deep rabbit holes on the basis of a single leaked phone call. We did however seek to exploit a developing situation as best we could and put ourselves on the best possible footing. But we did not 'dismantle' the Yanukovych government--his opposition did that for him. His own actions and palpable weakness in the face of the street movement caused the desertion of political alliances which were only ever tenuous and self-interested.

Secondly of course it would do that, it is the ideal. Our goal is to limit Russian power and box in a dangerous autocracy. Why do you think we extended NATO protections to the Baltics and engaged in MAP talks with Georgia? This isn't about equity, it's about winning which is something that Moscow unfortunately understands.

MildSteel · Mar 20, 2014

ocean515 said:
Well, in my opinion, it's a bigger mistake to estimate them in the way you suggest.

They are not an industrial power by any stretch. They are nowhere near the military power the USSR was, and after the inevitable fall of the USSR, it turns out they weren't even the military power their propaganda suggested they were at the time.

Short of the nuke arsenal, they don't have much, other than a leader it appears many are afraid of.

Russia achievements in the area of advanced military technology are only matched by the United States. Their military hardware is in high demand the world over. They have conquered design problems that have baffled even the Chinese and that is one reason that the Chinese purchase Russian jet engines for their advanced fighter jets. Not only that but the Chinese also purchase Russian fighters. That's one reason they are a world class power.

Another reason they are a world class power is because they have enormous oil and gas reserves. Germany, the current engine of the EU economy, is dependent on Russia for 36 percent of it's natural gas. That's another reason they are a world class power.

And finally, as you have indicated, they a nuclear arsenal that is only matched by that of the US, and is in truth, capable of destroying the US, at least as we know it.

That's why it's a big mistake to underestimate them.

MildSteel · Mar 20, 2014

Sherman123 said:
We hardly 'engineered' the fall of Yanukovych. People are willing to go down extraordinarily deep rabbit holes on the basis of a single leaked phone call. We did however seek to exploit a developing situation as best we could and put ourselves on the best possible footing. But we did not 'dismantle' the Yanukovych government--his opposition did that for him. His own actions and palpable weakness in the face of the street movement caused the desertion of political alliances which were only ever tenuous and self-interested.

No we did engineer his fall. Here's a link to a report that describes how we caused it.

LINK TO ARTICLE

It's in Russian, but a rough synopsis of it appeared on Euromaidan's Facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/emaidanua/posts/558345107588502

USA demands from Akhmetov and Kliuyev to rise a party revolt against Yanukovych. Sanctions otherwise

I's become known of the details of the meeting between the Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Rinat Akhmetov.
Nuland reported that in case of a dispersal of the Euromaidan the US and EU leaders got agreement on a single reaction. That is immediate sanctions against primer politicians and oligarchs in the surroundings of Yanukovych. Moreover, the list will be continued by the names both of those, who are responsible for the the forced dispersal, and of those, who didn’t stand for the peaceful scenario. This remark won’t let anyone of the leaders of the Regions Party to avoid responsibility. What is even more important, Nuland provided the list of politicians, who will be sanctioned in the first place. Those are Rinat Akhmetov, Vadim Novinsky, Andrey and Sergey Kliuevs.

The USA anticipates that the Regions Party fraction will support all of four demands in order to begin peaceful negotiations:
1. To announce pre-term election of the President.
2. To announce pre-term elections of the Parliament.
3. To release Tymoshenko from jail and to recover her civic rights in full.
4. To open criminal cases on all the executives of the Ministry of Interior Affairs and the Berkut, who participated in dispersals of peaceful demonstrations.

Nuland was very precise that unfulfillment of these conditions will question any operational activities of the Metinvest and System Capital Management companies in foreign countries. The crucial moment is that the meeting was held with just Akhmetov. It means that the US does not consider Yanukovych as a reliable partner. Since the last means to communicate with Yanukovych were exhausted, the USA and EU decided to make final efforts before sanctioning Ukrainian oligarchs. They urged leaders of the Regions Party to go against Yanukovich’s will and in fact to rise a party revolt.

Sherman123 said:
Secondly of course it would do that, it is the ideal. Our goal is to limit Russian power and box in a dangerous autocracy. Why do you think we extended NATO protections to the Baltics and engaged in MAP talks with Georgia? This isn't about equity, it's about winning which is something that Moscow unfortunately understands.

Now you are cooking with gas. Our goal is to limit Russian power and box Russia in. However, those attempts went too far because there is a limit to how far you can push a nation with the power that Russia has. The foreign policy establishment should be well aware of such limits. Moreover, it is a big fault of the President of the United States that he allowed this to happen. Like I said, it is dangerous to underestimate Russia. The move that the US made in Ukraine was a big strategic mistake.

ocean515 · Mar 20, 2014

Unitedwestand13 said:
There is the natural gas supply Russia has, and that is the thing being used like a knife at Europes throat

Understood. That is about the only thing they have to threaten with. At the same time, Europe is entering into it's warmest period.

The threat is less, but is real. It can be addressed, as opposed to allowing Putin to correct what he has called "the greatest tragedy of the 20th century".

ocean515 · Mar 20, 2014

MildSteel said:
Russia achievements in the area of advanced military technology are only matched by the United States. Their military hardware is in high demand the world over. They have conquered design problems that have baffled even the Chinese and that is one reason that the Chinese purchase Russian jet engines for their advanced fighter jets. Not only that but the Chinese also purchase Russian fighters. That's one reason they are a world class power.

Another reason they are a world class power is because they have enormous oil and gas reserves. Germany, the current engine of the EU economy, is dependent on Russia for 36 percent of it's natural gas. That's another reason they are a world class power.

And finally, as you have indicated, they a nuclear arsenal that is only matched by that of the US, and is in truth, capable of destroying the US, at least as we know it.

That's why it's a big mistake to underestimate them.

MAD still applies, so a state sponsored threat of that nature is not worth the effort to entertain.

As to military might, Russia is not in the same league as the U.S.. The only reason others purchase their equipment is because second best is better than nothing.

Their oil and gas reserves are the only stick they have in the bag. That stick could be blunted with sufficient will to do so. Turn off their markets, and Russia withers.

They are in essence a one trick pony

MildSteel · Mar 20, 2014

ocean515 said:
MAD still applies, so a state sponsored threat of that nature is not worth the effort to entertain.

As to military might, Russia is not in the same league as the U.S.. The only reason others purchase their equipment is because second best is better than nothing.

Their oil and gas reserves are the only stick they have in the bag. That stick could be blunted with sufficient will to do so. Turn off their markets, and Russia withers.

They are in essence a one trick pony

Although MAD is there, anyone who understands human behavior knows that if pushed far enough into a corner that people respond with whatever is at their disposal. Encroachment far enough into and very near Russian territory is therefore a dangerous game of Russian roulette, pun intended.

Of course the US military reigns supreme in the world. Of this there is no doubt. But we should keep in mind that one reason why it was developed was to counter the strong Soviet threat. That Soviet know how is still present in Russia today, and quite frankly the only reason that the US is in the top position is because the Federal Reserve has the power to print vast quantities of money as needed to support US military hegemony. Again, what is there in Russia in terms of military technology is known to be highly effective, and they have the means to give the US quite a bit of trouble, even without their nuclear capabilities.

jonny5 · Mar 20, 2014

MildSteel said:
US, Russia exchange threats at tense UN meeting - The Washington Post

Thus ends the "new thinking" of Gorbachev. In his speech to a joint session of parliament, Putin said that Ukraine was the line that the US should not have crossed.

If these people are not careful, this may go down in history as the beginning of WWIII

Leaving nukes out of it, that would be a short war. The US alone would destroy Russias conventional military. Although Russia could form an axis with Islamic countries and China. Without China, World vs Russian Axis would be one sided. Hopefully we would not actually try to invade russia, just pummel them into retreat.

Helix · Mar 20, 2014

our Bonobo cousins are laughing at us and having sex while we meet and discuss new ways to **** up the world over bull****.

MildSteel · Mar 20, 2014

jonny5 said:
Leaving nukes out of it, that would be a short war. The US alone would destroy Russias conventional military. Although Russia could form an axis with Islamic countries and China. Without China, World vs Russian Axis would be one sided. Hopefully we would not actually try to invade russia, just pummel them into retreat.

The US has a technical edge over Russia. However I doubt seriously this short war rhetoric. The US has been fighting these short wars against adversaries in which it has overwhelming air superiority. Although the US likely has the edge over Russia in that regard, the situation isn't so lopsided. Also recall that Russia is said to have the best air defense systems in the world. And it's a fact that the US worries about them because they have put up a big fuss about Russia selling them to Iran and Syria.