. August 22, 2008 SouthAmerica: And Condi Rice is supposed to be an expert about Russia and the Soviet Union â can you imagine if she were not an expert in that subjet area? Condi Rice and the Bush administration have been using a very special style of diplomacy on a regular basis - it is called ârub salt into the wound.â They already had a diplomatic problem and a major political crisis going on regarding Russia and Georgia and what was the solution that the Bush administration came up with? The United States rushed and despite fierce opposition from Moscow, the United States and Poland signed a long-stalled agreement on Wednesday to place an American missile defense base on Polish territory. That really helped resolve the current political crisis with the Russians. Could anyone around the world blame the Russians from getting pissed with the United States and start giving the United States all kinds of problems in the future? Today the United States style of diplomacy can be summarized in a nutshell: ârub salt into the wound.â ***** U.S. Sees Much to Fear in a Hostile Russia By PETER BAKER Published: August 22, 2008, on page A1 of the New York edition. The New York Times The president of Syria spent two days this week in Russia with a shopping list of sophisticated weapons he wanted to buy. The visit may prove a worrisome preview of things to come. If Russiaâs invasion of Georgia ushers in a sustained period of renewed animosity with the West, Washington fears that a newly emboldened but estranged Moscow could use its influence, money, energy resources, United Nations Security Council veto and, yes, its arms industry to undermine American interests around the world. Although Russia has long supplied arms to Syria, it has held back until now on providing the next generation of surface-to-surface missiles. But the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, made clear that he was hoping to capitalize on rising tensions between Moscow and the West when he rushed to the resort city of Sochi to meet with his Russian counterpart, Dmitri A. Medvedev. The list of ways a more hostile Russia could cause problems for the United States extends far beyond Syria and the mountains of Georgia. In addition to escalated arms sales to other anti-American states like Iran and Venezuela, policy makers and specialists in Washington envision a freeze on counterterrorism and nuclear nonproliferation cooperation, manipulation of oil and natural gas supplies, pressure against United States military bases in Central Asia and the collapse of efforts to extend cold war-era arms control treaties. âItâs Iran, itâs the U.N., itâs all the counterterrorism and counternarcotics programs, Syria, Venezuela, Hamas â there are any number of issues over which they can be less cooperative than theyâve been,â said Angela E. Stent, who served as the top Russia officer at the United States governmentâs National Intelligence Council until 2006 and now directs Russian studies at Georgetown University. âAnd of course, energy.â Michael McFaul, a Stanford University professor and the chief Russia adviser for Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said Russia appeared intent on trying to âdisrupt the international orderâ and had the capacity to succeed. âThe potential is big because at the end of the day, they are the hegemon in that region and we are not and thatâs a fact,â Professor McFaul said. Russia may yet hold back from some of the more disruptive options depending on how both sides play these next few weeks and months. Many in Washington hope Russia will restrain itself out of its own self-interest; Moscow, for instance, does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, nor does it want the Taliban to regain power in Afghanistan. Dmitri Rogozin, a hard-liner who serves as Russiaâs ambassador to NATO, told the newspaper Izvestia this week that Moscow still wanted to support the alliance in Afghanistan. âNATOâs defeat in Afghanistan would not be good for us,â he said. Moscow may also be checked by the desire of its economic elite to remain on the path to integration with the rest of the world. The main Russian stock index fell sharply in recent days, costing investors $10 billion â many with close ties to the circle of Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin. Still, although the confrontation over Georgia had been building for years, the outbreak of violence demonstrated just how abruptly the international scene can change. Now Russia is the top focus in Washington and some veteran diplomats fret about the situation spiraling out of control. âOutrage is not a policy,â said Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President Clinton and is now the president of the Brookings Institution. âWorry is not a policy. Indignation is not a policy. Even though outrage, worry and indignation are all appropriate in this situation, they shouldnât be mistaken for policy and they shouldnât be mistaken for strategy.â For Washington, there are limited options for applying pressure. Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, wants to throw Russia out of the Group of 8 major powers. Such a move would effectively admit the failure of 17 years of bipartisan policy aimed at incorporating Russia into the international order. Yet Washingtonâs menu of options pales by comparison to Moscowâs. Masha Lipman, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center, said âthereâs a lot moreâ that the United States needed from Russia than the other way around, citing efforts to secure old Soviet nuclear arms, support the war effort in Afghanistan and force Iran and North Korea to give up nuclear programs. âHence Russia has all the leverage,â she said. In forecasting Russiaâs potential for causing headaches, most specialists look first to Ukraine, which wants to join NATO. The nightmare scenario circulating in recent days is an attempt by Moscow to claim the strategic Crimean peninsula to secure access to the Black Sea. Ukrainian lawmakers are investigating reports that Russia has been granting passports en masse to ethnic Russians living in Crimea, a tactic Moscow used in the Georgian breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to justify intervention to protect its citizens. Arms sales, as Mr. Assadâs visit underscored, represent another way Russia could create problems. Israeli and Western governments have already been alarmed about reports that the first elements of the Russian-built S-300 antiaircraft missile system are now being delivered to Iran, which could use them to shoot down any American or Israeli planes that seek to bomb nuclear facilities should that ever be attempted. While Mr. Rogozin expressed support for assisting NATO in the war in Afghanistan, other officials have warned darkly about cutting off ties with NATO. The two sides have already effectively suspended any military cooperation programs. But Russia could also revoke its decision in April to allow NATO to send nonlethal supplies overland through its territory en route to Afghanistan. Russia could also turn up pressure on Kyrgyzstan to evict American forces that support operations in Afghanistan and could block any large-scale return to Uzbekistan, which expelled the Americans in 2005. âThe argument would be, âWhy help NATO?â â said Celeste A. Wallander, a Russia scholar at Georgetownâs School of Foreign Service. Even beyond the dispute over Iran, Russia could obstruct the United States at the United Nations Security Council on a variety of other issues. Just last month, Russia vetoed sanctions against Zimbabweâs government, a move seen as a slap at Washington. âIf Russiaâs feeling churlish, they can pretty much bring to a grinding halt any kind of coercive actions, like economic sanctions or anything else,â said Peter D. Feaver, a former strategic adviser at the National Security Council. Russia could also accelerate its withdrawal from arms control structures. It already has suspended the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty to protest American missile defense plans and threatened to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty. Renewed tension could fray a recently signed civilian nuclear cooperation agreement and doom negotiations to extend soon-to-expire strategic arms control verification programs. âIronically, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, thereâs always been the concern about Russia becoming a spoiler,â said Ms. Stent, of Georgetown, âand now we could see the realization of that.â Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/world/europe/22policy.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin .
just a note. China is holding trillions in toxic debt because they got it by interfering with our currency. Had they not pegged to ours, their currency would have risen vis a vis the dollar and their products would not have been so cheap. They would have had more competition from Brazil and they would have had less money to buy our toxic waste. But, they had so much money they had to find a place for it. The place they found they could store that money without disturbing commerce was toxic debt. Surprise... hardly... that is what market efficiency is all about. There is no free lunch. (the first thing I learned the first day of my first econ class in college.)
And Condi Rice is supposed to be an expert about Russia and the Soviet Union â can you imagine if she were not an expert in that subjet area? What to be expert about? You just need to know you can't trust a single word from Russian shit. And don't give in a single inch to them. Simply treat them like Reagan did. Exactly like that. Americans have nothing to be afraid of from Russian side despite what SA says. SA's hatred of America causes he can't see straight.
Of course you can't trust a single word from Russian - they are the ones who invented Deception, Denial, Disinformation paradigm long before the think tanks here started talking about it. Everything that Madison Street knows as far as the art of spin is concerned, they learned it from Bolsheviks. Since we are on a subject of trust - try finding one, at least one international treaty that US signed and later did not break it unilaterally. As far as treating them as Reagan did - that might prove to be difficult. As long as oil price is high they're going to keep making money and rebuilding their economy and military. Reagan had streets smart, he knew if oil prices are low Soviets are going go bankrupt as they did. He also had good advisors. Bush and whoever comes next are Ivy League golden boys who are too eager to please their former fraternity brothers by making sure oil prices stay high. And of course Americans have nothing to be afraid of from Russian side. The only thing Russians are concerned about is to keep themselves from falling apart into more independent states, they don't give a shit about anything else.
China has gone to war or had military action against Japan, the U.N. (the U.S., South Korea), the Soviet Union, India, and, Vietnam all within the last century. China sure looks like a great and peaceful neighbor. By the way when China was at its most vulnerable with European powers and Japan circling it like vultures to chop it into pieces, what country stepped in to dissuade its break up? The U.S. When Japan was invading China what world power took China's side? The U.S. You do know the underlying cause of the attack on Pearl Harbor don't you? Perhaps a case example on the effects of their influence is in order. US influence: South Korea. Chinese influence: North Korea. The Soviet Union is much more responsible for Afghanistan's history in the 20th century than the U.S. Russians aren't trusted. There is reason for it. Ask the Polish. Ask the Lithuanians, Latvians, and Estonians. Ask the Czechs. Ask most Russian neighbors and satellite states. On the other hand, ask most of the U.S.'s neighbors or even major "enemies" of the past: Britain, Japan, Germany, etc. When Germany was defeated and Germans were fleeing the oncoming Allied troops, who did they want to surrender to? The Americans or Russians? When the sh*t hits the fan everyone knows who is more trustworthy. It shouldn't take a millisecond to figure out. Know your history.
I do business in many countries. The most trustworthy people are the Canadians ( not the new immigrant riff-raff). A close second are the Sandanivians. Americans? depends on where they are from. I try not to deal with southerners any more. Between the Chinese and the Russians? Neither. The Chinese will smi-rr-le and then stab you in the back. The Russians, they'll just stab you.
Ariel: My overall favorite people are the Israelis... you know where you stand with them... I've never dealt with the Russians, but I have sampled their women this Summer and they are very fine... I will return to Russia next year for more!!
. August 25, 2008 SouthAmerica: The Financial Times (UK) had an interesting article last Friday about how the rest of the world was keeping the ranking of the medals by country based on the number of gold medals that each country won in the 2008 Olympics. But the United States was showing the rankings based on the number of total medals that each country won in the 2008 Olympics. Today I was watching the final closing ceremonies of the 2008 Olympics and one of the last things that Bob Costas mentioned on the US television broadcasting was that the United States had won 110 medals in the 2008 Olympics the highest number of medals by any country. He did not mention that China was the country that won the largest number of gold medals in the 2008 Olympics. Anyway, I thought it would be interesting to put the spotlight on the final medal count of the 2008 Olympics under another perspective as follows: Total Medals 2008 Olympics European Union = 280 Soviet Union (USSR) = 171 United States = 110 China = 100 Note: I compiled this information just in case if Americans want to see how they measure up on the 2008 Olympics against the old Soviet Union (USSR). ******* Total Medals 2008 Olympic SOVIET UNION (USSR) Russia = 72 Belarus = 19 Ukraine = 27 Moldova = 1 Georgia = 6 Armenia = 6 Azerbaijan = 7 Kazakhstan = 13 Uzbekistan = 6 Turkmenistan = 0 Kyrgyzstan = 2 Tajikistan = 2 Estonia = 2 Lithuania = 5 Latvia = 3 Total Soviet Union (USSR) = 171 ***** EUROPEAN UNION Austria = 3 Belgium = 2 Bulgaria = 5 Cyprus = 0 Czech Republic = 6 Denmark = 7 Estonia = 2 Finland = 4 France = 40 Germany = 41 Greece = 4 Hungary = 10 Ireland = 3 Italy = 28 Latvia = 3 Lithuania = 5 Luxembourg = 0 Malta = 0 Netherlands = 16 Poland = 10 Portugal = 2 Romania = 8 Slovakia = 6 Slovenia = 5 Spain = 18 Sweden = 5 United Kingdom = 47 Total European Union = 280 .
Good advice! Let me guess - they ran to Americans! First Jews, then war criminals. Hint from the history: USA # killed and missing in WW2: 318,274. USSR # killed and missing: 8,668,400 (other est. 27 mil+). Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Casualties_by_alliance Russian civilian losses during nazi siege of Leningrad (St.Petersburg) alone: 1,200,000 starved. Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Blockade One could wonder why Russians did not slaughter them all: Germans were elated to go nazi. Read on: "Nazi propaganda also expressed themes more common among the warring countries: the imminent defeat of their enemies, the need for security, etc. Doctored newsreel footage was also used to garner support for the Nazi cause." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_propaganda Wow!.. Is it about days long gone or our fair-and-balanced free press, CNN, NYT? One might say history suggests that US has no concept of what suffering of the people means in the times of war. Especially now, when US picks the adversaries that cannot possibly respond. US engineered low rates (kudos to Greenspan) and prints shrinking greenbacks nonstop (thanks to treasury) to make the war in Iraq easy on electorate. Iraq was demolished on fabricated pretenses: war-related & criminal violence deaths (body count, Iraqi civilians) 69,045-75,495. Afghanistan: Times Online http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article4601497.ece about US air strike on Friday 8/22/2008 "The US military said that 25 militants and five civilians, including two children, were killed in the ground attack and air strike on Friday, and added that it was investigating reports of further noncombatant casualties. An Afghan minister who visited the area put the civilian death toll at 90, a human rights group at the scene estimated it at 78 and the Interior Ministry reported 76 noncombatants dead, including 50 children. ...The attacks sparked angry protests on Saturday from locals, who set fire to a police vehicle and waved banners reading âDeath to Americaâ. Local officials said many of the dead had gathered to mark the 40th day since the killing of a militia commander." USAF is also successful in hitting on wedding parties in Afghanistan. CNN immediately reported on huge success in war of terror, which is followed by comments that the 'collateral' damage vastly exceeded the 'principal', if there were one. Anyways, who knows what those civilians have in mind: gather at your own peril. "Almost 700 civilians were killed in the first six months of this year..." McCain (who is Georgian, he says, and claims he knows how to win wars) encouraged those attack dogs to stick it to Russia. Georgian thugs slaughtered scores of civilians in their sleep with carpet shelling (http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Georgia/idUSLO45165720080824?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0). When pushed back, next US decider screamed for military intervention by the west to secure our pipeline. Shall we view this as a preparation for global iraqization of commodities providers? One notices, though, that US does not have balls to touch even underdogs when not sure if they really have a bomb - e.g. poor north koreans did not see an attempt to show them the way with laser-guided devices, yet. Iran is not a sure kill: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_military_action_against_Iran, but what do they care? 'Kinetic' interceptors put under Patriot shield in Poland to protect West from Iranian missiles - another sham. Why not in Iceland then? Now, explain to me about trustworthiness. Please tell me also if there is a way out of faith-based bubble economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_economy) , so that we can see some +ve returns on investments, and live without a wait for Russian interceptors of missiles from rogue states being placed in Cuba? Cheers-