User Comments

1. 

   9/15/09

   clioandme

   No. Think about the types of weapons involved. Think about the politics behind them. And the nature and tone of our relationship with Russia.

   [reply]
2. 

   9/15/09

   Agit8r

   I had always compare "The Long War" ("War on Terror," "Overseas Contengencies" what have you) was a second cold war, at least in its intent of subsidizing the defence industry.

   [reply]
   1. 

      9/15/09

      clioandme

      We didn't really need a "war on terror" for that. The defense industry has already protected itself by spreading itself all around key jurisdictions, thereby making Congress vulnerable to pressure from constituents.
3. 

   9/15/09

   NT77

   The Cold War was involved quite a bit with conflicting ideologies, and I don't think we're heading in that direction at all anymore. And it is true that relations between Russia and America are better than during most of the Cold War.
   
   Still it seems like both countries are asserting authority in areas that each considered their own spheres of influence. Russia has not reacted happily to NATO's expansion into former states of the USSR, to America's proposed anti-missile system in the old Warsaw Pact countries, nor to America's support for Georgia in its attack last year on the breakaway republic of South Ossetia.
   
   Russia has responded by promising to deploy missiles to Kalingrad, by conducting joint navy exercises with Venezuela near US territorial waters, and now by extending Venezuela a $2.2 billion line of credit to buy battle tanks and a long-range Russian anti-aircraft missile system.
   
   While tensions are extremely low as compared to the Cold War days, such military alliances could draw the USA into another unwanted conflict. There are accusations that Venezuela wants Russian weapons to arm the FARC guerillas in Colombia, where America has a military presence; and America would be called on for aid should Georgia decide to retake its breakaway territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. NATO support for any American conflict with Russia could be limited since Russia provides 25% of Western Europe's natural gas.
   
   But Russia isn't the only player this time in America's sphere of influence. China is now South America's second largest trading partner. China is spreading its influence into Africa as well, buying nearly 15% of its oil from Angola.

   [reply]
   1. 

      9/15/09

      clioandme

      Georgia is one country that I do not want to see in NATO. It's president is too much of a loose canon. Instead of the Cold War, however, I have something like 1914 in mind, when some European countries were not careful enough about the type of allies they supported.
      
      The natural gas thing with Russia is a problem, though I don't see it getting out of hand. Russia has too much to lose, at least in Western and Central Europe. On the other hand, I understand why countries further east are less sanguine about Russia.
   2. 

      9/15/09

      NT77

      Yeah, you're right about the comparison with the Cold War. I just used that term as it seemed like another building of alliances between America and Russia.
      
      I also agree that Saakashvili of Georgia is too unpredictable and his country's entry into NATO would not be a good idea. The video of him eating his tie did little to bolster his image. I thought the Russians were going to advance to Tbilisi last year and oust him, which may have been a good thing. I belive that South Ossetia and Abkhazia could still be trouble spots. I've read allegations about Saakashvili's violation of human rights, so I'm not clear on why America supports him. I don't know if his country's strategic position concerning gas and oil pipelines, or what.
      
      I agree that Russia has a interest in maintaining its gas sales to Western Europe, but the Russian government doesn't always act rationally. Russia has interrupted its gas and oil flows to the EU in the past over arguments with Ukraine and Belarus
      
      Chavez is another one that makes me nervous. I don't know if his Russian alliance and weapons would encourage him to attack Columbia. If so, I doubt that America could stand idly by.
   3. 

      9/15/09

      clioandme

      Chavez might just be using a tactic that worked well for Fidel Castro: talk the anti-imperialist talk. It sells. Take enough actions to make people believe you're serious. But I'm thinking there are important lines he won't cross. But I could be very wrong.
4. 

   9/15/09

   NT77

   You're probably right. America buys quite a bit of oil from Venezuela, so it wouldn't be in Chavez's best interests to push the US too far. I think Chavez may have more domestic opposition than Castro did. I know he's suppressing the press, but I think such suppressions were easier for Castro. I think Castro was able to unite his people better through the fear of an American attack.
   
   But Chavez could still avoid an actual conflict with America while drawing the US into a support position, with Venezuela supporting the FARC guerillas and the US supporting the Columbian government.

   [reply]
5. 

   9/17/09

   clioandme

   If I heard the short radio report right, it sounds like Obama has reconsidered the anti-ballistic missiles in the new NATO countries.
   
   BBC confirms it: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8262050.stm.
   
   While I understand the Bush administration's desire to have such a missile shield, I believe the technology was never all that certain. And security is about more than technology, but also politics. I wonder what Russia is giving in return, albeit not necessarily at the same time or directly linked.
   
   I also wonder how much money this might save the Pentagon.

   [reply]