Mark

I agree with your analysis to a point. It is high time we stop the kid glove treatment we have given Russia. Russia is currently using its vast energy supplies as a weapon. Cheney was spot on to point this out. How they tried to treat Ukraine was absolutely reprehensible and decent people should condemn this. Ukraine and Western Europe are allies, at least I think they are are. So it makes sense to stand up to the Russians when they try to bully Ukraine. I'm not sure we need to worry to much about what they do within their borders unless it directly affects our interests. Russia is the chief sponsor of Iran, Syria, and the Palestinian Authority. Russia was the chief benefactor of the former Iraqi regime. In other words, Russia is the enemy behind our most dangerous enemies. If the United States is to win the war on terror, Russia and China will need to be confronted, at some point. Without the steadfast support of Russia and China our terrorist enemies would likely only have a fraction of the strength they currently have.

Respectfully, where I think you go wrong is you state that Russia is not a major power. This is incorrect. Russia has a highly advanced nuclear arsenal that they have recently upgraded. Russia has more nuclear weapons than any other country in the world, including the United States. Some reports indicate Russia has a highly advanced submarine fleet. Russia has vast energy supplies and is in league with our most dangerous enemies. Russia is a great power on par with the United States and is capable of defeating the United States. Russia needs to be treated as such.

US nominal GDP: 12.4 trillion vs. Russia nominal GDP .766 trillion

Enough said. Russia needs to calm the **** down or else we'll be the ones to start a cold war - and we all know what happened last time.

Mark, I think that the sad truth is that putin is just a commie. Where is Gorbachov when you need him. With the right leader, russia could be such a source of good. Working together in a positive way with the USA, so much good could be accomplished. It is sad to see the waste and the missed opportunties caused by the poor leadership of putin.

Wow, quite a statement. Let's see: Russia has the worlds largest supply of natual gas. Russia has huge deposits of oil. Let me think, Russia stopped natural gas to the Ukraine AND Europe on Jan.1. That sent a warning shot across the bow of the world. They are to be recond with. If Russia endorses Iran's coming oil bourse, it is likely to bring many other nations into trading oil with the euro. That spells disaster for our dollar. Russia has sought diplomatic efforts in resolution of the crisis by working with Iran by enriching the uranium allowed by Iran's participation in the Nuclear arm treaty. A treaty to this day they say they support. So El Presidente and his minion go loud mouthing the Russians now, why not just pour gas on the fire. This is diplomacy? Get a grip.

Oh yeah,your statement: "as if Russia can stand independent in a world with a weakened United States." So America is dealing from a "weakened state? Has the great Deceider got us to this sorry state? Has the republican majority allowed this to happen? I think so. Again, spit the Kool-Aid out, stop living in denial. Get a grip.

Since around 1987, I have been wondering when our old nemesis, The Soviet Union, would rear its ugly head to confront this nation once again.

It was quite clear to me even back then that, just because the military and political confrontation between our countries had collapsed in the wake of glasnost, it did not mean the end of the struggle between two competing and mutually exclusive political and economic systems. I wondered how long it would be before this nation came to the realization that the Russians, just because their country changed names, are not our friends.

And now the realization has been stated publically. For that, I thank Vice President Cheney and President Bush. For a while there, I was beginning to think that the biggest snookering in history had occurred. Russia made it absolutely clear last winter when they used the oil and gas pipelines as economic extortion against parts of Europe what their aims and strategies were all about. They still aim to "sell the capitalists the rope with which to hang themselves" by incrementally pretending to buy into the capitalistic system. But in doing so, they are cleverly and cynically advancing their own hegemonistic ventures. By flexing the "petro pipe" power last winter, they overtly sent a message to Eastern, Central and Western Europe that those countries should fall into line with Russian interests if they expected any fuel to heat their homes and industries. Otherwise, they could freeze to death. Apparently, Stalinist tactics and habits die hard.

Add to the mix their careful and delicate balancing of the Iran nuclear technology issue. On the one hand, they enter into economic deals with Iran to build, maintain, or provide logistical support to Iran for their nuclear ambitions. On the other, they provide lip service to the world community, now nervously looking with growing apprehension at an apocalyptic nuclear showdown. China is essentially playing the same game, except that they are locking up fuel contracts as fast as they can with nations who are the main players in the petroleum cartel - even as our dependence upon these same countries continues to grow.

Russia spent the last twenty years or so paying lip service to democratic change within their country. In doing so, they've lulled the democracies in the West into a sense of complacency, given their "apparent" openness and willingness to go down the road of democracy. In the meantime, just like Hitler built up his army and war-oriented infrastructure before he was ready to strike, so has Russia developed a far more potent infrastructure - the oil and gas industry. Now that they are among the top players in the world oil and gas market, they have dropped the mask to reveal their vicious fangs of deceit. They are clamping down on democratic tendencies within their country in an unapologetic manner. They know that they are in a good position to start calling some shots in a manner that only a few years ago, would have been met with snickers and disbelief. But now, they know they have their fingers around the vulnerable necks of the Western nations generally, and the United States specifically.

What was it that Krushev said as he pounded his shoe on the podium at the U.N. in the late 1950s and early 1960s? "We will bury you!"

Their aim has not changed, just the methods through which they are attempting to achieve their ends. I'm glad that the President has finally gone public with a specific citation that we understand the thinly-veiled threats before us. My biggest concern is that because of quislings within our ranks, we might not be able to rise to the challenges presented to us by Russia (and China) in time to maintain control of our own national destiny.

The ACLU (a legal trojan horse) was planted in our midst in the early 1900s. Since then, they have continued to nibble away at our social order by advancing every effort to weaken our laws and traditions. The rise of drugs and dissent in the 1960s has grown into a virtual subculture that identifies itself with our enemies (whoever they may be at any given moment) at every turn. The flood of illegal trespassers, aided and abetted by the ACLU and socialist front organizations such as ANSWER is diverting our resources and dividing our population as the effects of the onslaught become clearer and clearer to citizens of every walk of life. Central and South America seem poised to install socialist governments that are hostile to our system and way of life.

Our political parties, fat and lazy from years of uncontested oligarchic rule, have become rotten, unwilling or unable to react to the monumental challenges that this country is facing. They seem intent on fiddling while Rome burns, oblivious to the cries for action by the population they claim to serve.

Russia and China once had a clearly established alliance whose aim was the eventual overthrow of the system of capitalism here. Just because Alexander Putin isn't thumping his shoe on the podium of the U.N. doesn't mean that Russia has turned over a new leaf. Just because the current Chinese government isn't overtly engaging in anti-American rhetoric about how the People's Republic will triumph over the running dog imperialist pig, doesn't mean that their objectives have radically changed.

So where do we turn? What shall we do? Our only hope is that the few seeds of democracy that have begun to sprout in Eastern and Central Europe will help us to tip the balance of power in our favor. Poland, The Czech and Slovak Republics, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, and Romania and other fledgling European democracies may hold our best hopes for a positive outcome for our country's future. I'm not a betting man. And I won't bet on this concept. It's an outside chance, but, given the attitude of the defeatist French, the arrogant Germans, and the standoff Spanish, I don't see that there are many other options, except perhaps in Iraq, where a long shot might come into play if things turn out the way that most of us hope...

I personally think that Russia is gaining power again under the leadership of Putin,so we should not scoff at their right now not-so-vital position in the world!

dbogdan,

The other day I saw a news report about how the changing of the guard in Moscow is done with uniforms from the period of Nicholas II...so, lets not leave out the pull of Great Russian nationalism.

Whatever the underlying motivations, Putin is a fool - and a fool who is endagering the whole world just because he want to cut a large figure on the world stage.

Raker,

You should read what I write, then comment.

Please try again.

Rizzle

The size of a country's GNP means nothing when nuclear weapons are involved. Any war with Russia would likely involve nuclear weapons.

Raker

I don't think Russia is interested in a diplocatic solution. If so, they wouldn't be assisting the world's most prolific terrorist supporting state.

dbogdan

You have had exactly the same thoughts as I have. Many thanks for expressing my sentiments far more eloquently than I have.

Mark

I do not think Putin is a fool, however, he along with the rest of Russia's leadership seem to be extremely arrogant. Perhaps there may be some way to use their arrogance against them.

dbogdan

You seem to indicate that you think Bush and Cheney are finally beginning to grasp the threat posed by Russia. I hope and pray you are right. As I see it right now, their eyes may be partially opened to this threat but Bush administration officials including Cheney have repeatedly stated they do not see Russia as an enemy. I would feel more comfortable, if they would come out and publically admit that Russia is an enemy of the United States. Oh well for diplomatic purposes maybe they feel they can't do that.

Again, spit the Kool-Aid out, stop living in denial. Get a grip.

Raker, why don't you get a dictionary or a thesaurus? And while you're at it, why do you pay attention to your English teacher, when he/she is teaching your sorry ass how to write coherently. Your writing is horrible--so horrible, I may start calling you Baloney2, if you choose to remain here...

True, many of Cheney's criticisms are valid, but the timing is curious. Currently the US and Europe are courting Russia over imposing sanctions on Iran. Since Russia is a key barrier to imposing sanctions, the VP's speech is likely to damage relations at a time when the US needs Russia most.

Further, Mr. Cheney's remarks look a bit hypocritical given the likely silence about similar issues at his next stop in the illiberal autocracy of Kazakhstan. Of course the major priority of the visit will be to negotiate an important pipeline deal...odd how geopolitics quiets criticism.

The USA should not be under any delusions; Russia is not an ally. But Putin can be a strategic partner in policy areas which match the interests of both Russia and the West. Unfortunately, Cheney's comments are likely to both prevent cooperation at the upcoming G8 summit and undermine any consensus building on Iran.

The USA is pursuing two conflicting policies: pragmatic realism and democracy promotion. In the pursuit of pragmatic realism, the USA has been horribly inconsistent in democracy promotion. In its mission to spread democracy, America's bluntness has damaged the possibility of significant policy cooperation. If the US's foreign policy is to be effective, then it must find a way to reconcile these contradictions.

Cheney's trip was about oil. The countries that Cheney visited have lots of oil, especially Lithuania where shotgun Dick gave his speech. Russia needed to be reminded that interrupting energy supplies to Europe will come with a price. But, if you read all of Cheney's speech you can plainly see how duplicitous he and bush are. Neither could give that exact same speech in the USA withouit lots of political backlash. Peace

and I'm glad President Bush is sticking by Vice President Cheney, showing that Cheney's remarks about Russia reflect official policy

That is an interesting statement. Whatever happened to:
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy….I
was able to get a sense of his soul." —George W. Bush, after meeting Russian
President Vladimir Putin, June 16, 2001

"I'm glad President Bush is sticking by Vice President Cheney, showing that Cheney's remarks about Russia reflect official policy"

Interesting statement. Whatever happened to these remarks:

"You saw the president yesterday. I thought he was very forward-leaning, as they say in diplomatic nuanced circles." —George W. Bush, referring to his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, July 23, 2001

Is it possible that Putin was emboldened by these inane comments of our own President?

Steve

Cheney could not give the same speech in the USA becuase the media is to much in love with the Russian government. When Russian general Leonid Ivashov publically claimed that 911 was a US government job the media was silent. I think this is no accident. Besides we need oil. It is prudent that the Government would try to ensure we have access to it. It should would help if we could get the enviro nazis out of the way so we could build more refineries here and drill for more oil here. This likely would not solve the problems entirely but it would give us some leverage that we currently do not have when negotiating with these people.

Jonathan

Excellent points. I had much the same thoughts. You may be right but I just don't think Russia is ever going to help us on Iran no matter what we do. You're right focuses on pragmatic realism and democracy can be conflicting. I would suggest focusing on pragmatic realism and not on democracy. Realistically I don't think Russia is ever going to help us. On balance, I think it would be better if the American people understand the threat posed by Russia. Unfortunately the main stream news media will probably cover for Russia.

Mike

I remember the words you were referring to that Bush spoke. I thought it was an enormously stupid thing for him to say. I didn't realize that this occurred before 911. Hopefully he learned his lesson. Those words may have very well emboldened the Russian leadership.

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy….I was able to get a sense of his soul."

So Bush approved of Putin before he disapproved of him? Very Kerry-esque.

BTW I love the symmetry of it all, the bookends of bufoonery. Regan helped bring end the cold war and
Bush is initiating another one. LOL

Ash

I thought Bush made an error when he made the statement he made. If he has learned from his mistake, this would be a good sign. I've always thought one of the weaknesses of this administration gas been the inability to admit mistakes. With all due respect I don't think Bush has started this war. It has been going on for quite some time. Russia has been repeatedly provoking us and all we have been getting from this administration is things like "Russia is our friend." "We do not see Russia as an enemy" and things of that nature. In other words, we have given Russia "kid glove" treatment and it has gotten us nowhere except they become more and more beligerent. Russia actively supports all of our most dangerous enemies. I don't think the cold war ever ended. For more check out some of the files at www.jrnyquist.com. I think it may have been a strategic deception on the part of the Russians. All Bush has done here is simply send the message "we will not capitulate to your bullying." We need to defend ourselves but we need to be smart about it. Russian general Leonid Ivashov accused the United States government and capitalist interests of being behind 911. This is a more serious provacation than anything Cheney said and yet our main stream media and the US government says nothing. It will take a very strong, very smart, and very courageous effort to deal with this enemy. I hope and pray the Bush administration and the American government are up to it.

Ash

To elaborate on what I wrote previously, it seems to me that Russia is the chief supporter of all of the USA's most dangerous enemies. If we are to win the war for our survival, the Russians must be confronted at some point. I'm not sure that this was the best time or place for Cheney to have made these statements. From the best I can tell, Russia is one of the most powerful natinns on Earth, at least as powerul as the USA possibly more powerful. They are also seem to be among the most nationalistic and the most paranoid nations on Earth. These statements will be played far and wide and will be used by the Russian leadership to rally their people, as the leadership fights their war of agression against America and the West. It really is a pity that the statements made by the Russian general I refer to in my previous post or the statements by Russian officials referring to President Bush as a "drunken cowboy" do not receive as wide play as those made by Cheney do. If they did, this would supply some useful context to evaluate the statements made by Cheney. Perhaps a private letter to the Russian leadership would have been more appropiate. All of this said, we simply cannot allow the Russians or anyone else to bully us or our allies. Pray our leaders are up to the challenge. We probably face the greatest challenge we have ever faced in the history of this nation.

B. Poster:
"...Perhaps a private letter to the Russian leadership would have been more appropiate."

I strongly suspect that such a missive was indeed delivered long before the Cheney speech was made public. It is notable that his speech was widely disseminated throughout the drive-by media, yet the Russian assertion that 9/11 was an American-fabricated event was hardly mentioned. In fact, this is the first I'm hearing about it! Go figure! With all the Michael Moore tripe being widely publicized, I'd have thought that the Russians coming onboard would have been widely heralded by the drive-by media. I wonder why they chose not to go down this path... Is there some element at play that the media knows about that gives them cause to remain silent, or am I reading too much into their complicit silence?

dbogdan

You are probably right. That letter probably was sent to the Russian leadership. Cheney and the people who invited him to give the speech may have felt they had no choice but to go public at this time. Russia and China are slowly but surely backing the USA against a wall. When someone is cornered they can do some violent things. Cornering a nuclear armed nuclear power, such as the United States, is a very dangerous game. As America's survival becomes more precarious, the leadership may lash out in unpredictable ways. Assuming we still have leadership that cares about defending the country. If we don't have leadership that cares abut defending the country, they may cut a deal where America can continue as a servant to the interests of Russia and their Islamic Extremist allies. Putin is either a mad man, a genius, or some combination of the above. He is already one of the most powerful people on this planet, possibly the most powerful man on Earth. Apparently he is willing to risk nuclear war just so he can be all alone at the top the world stage.

The statements made by Russian General Leonid Ivashov can be found here. www.volitarenet.org/article133909.html. More analysis can be found at, www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2006/0310.html. This contains a link to the first article I listed. Also I remeber reading that Vladimir Putin, in a speech some time ago, referred to George W. Bush as a "drunken cowboy" and at another time he blamed the US for the massacre at Beslan. I don't remember where I read it though.

Why was this not reported by the main stream media? There are two possibilites I think. 1.) This is the non conspiratorial possibilty. The media is simply lazy. Speeches by the Russians and other enemies of America are generally given outside of the US and the American news media does not follow them around to report on what they say. It would require some effort on their part to get this information where as obtaining the text of a speech by the VP is quite easy. 2.) Now for the conspiracy possibiltiy. The media seems to ignore or try to gloss over the actions of America's enemies. A case in point was when a very insignificant religous leader stated some time ago that Hugo Chavez needed to be assainated. I don't think the suggestion this man made was the correct approach, however, he was correct to identify Chavez as a very dangerous enemy of the US. I think it could be argued very convincingly that Hugo Chavez was and is a far greater threat to the USA than Saddam ever was or ever could be. The media rushed to condemn the man who would try to warn Americans of the threat they face from Chavez. Perhaps it was my imagination but it seemed the media was defending Chavez. The media seems to have been a constant apologist for the Soviet Unon during the Cold War and the media worked tirelessly to ensure that we withdrew from Vietnam. Some in the media may want us to lose. As such, they will ignore or gloss over statements made by America's enemies. If this is correct, I suspect most of the people who serve as propaganda props for Marxists are not aware they are being used. I hope possiblity one is the correct answer to why statements by the Russian leadership do not receive much wide play.

Btw, in the speech Cheney made it clear that he does not see Russia as an enemy. This part of the speech did not receive as wide play as the rougher parts. From the rougher parts of the speech, it seems that maybe just maybe the administration is beginning to wake up to threat posed by Russia. At least I hope and pray so. From the part where he says the US does not see Russia as an enemy, he seems to be making it clear that the US seeks a diplomatic solution. The response of the Russian media was not a request for more dialogue to resolve our differences but to delcare a new cold war!! There are some who think that Russia and China see war with the US and the West as inevitable. I hope and pray they are wrong. I think a diplomatic solution with Russia and their terrorist allies will only be possible when they realize their goals of world domination cannot be realized. I hope and pray our leaders are up to the challenge posed by Russia.

BPoster:

I will check out www.jrnyquist.com as soon as I have time. I hate to keep going back to this, but I think we could relieve ourselves of enormous pressure if we would make independence from oil our top priority.

When you say, If he has learned from his mistake, this would be a good sign. I've always thought one of the weaknesses of this administration gas been the inability to admit mistakes you have hit the nail on the head as to why this administration has spawned not only disagreement but downright hatred. If he was willing to admit mistakes,those of us in the majority would not feel so powerless. But as his track record shows, he ignores his critics, and in essence blows off our ideas. We have had enough of that.

I agree independence from foreign oil should be a top priority. We should drill for oil off the coasts of CA and FL and we should drill in ANWR. We should build more refineries. Some in Congress have attempted to do this but they have been shot down. Btw, the global warming thing is likely a myth. This is where "talking points" that I discuss in another post come in. Some NASA officials believe global warming is a solar system wide thing. It is occurring on Mars and Jupiter. It is because the Sun itself is changing. In otherwords, fossil fuels are not the cause and there is nothing we can do to change it. In time maybe we can get off of oil entirely, however, until then lets develop our own oil and natural gas resources. I would appreciate it if some in Congress would stop shooting down these initiaves. Even if we could completely eliminate foreign oil imports, it is unlikely this would be sufficient to defeat this enemy but it sure would help.

Bush's most vocal critics have been comparing him to "Hitler" and accussing him of "lying." The frustrating thing is the main stream press and the opposition party will not make more of an effort to distance themselves from this. Basic pyschology suggests that if someone is vicously attacked human nature will be to dig in and resist behavior changes. Constructive critcism is far more helpful. You say he blows his critics off. His most vocal critics are viciously attacking him and the best idea they seem able to come up with is "withdraw from Iraq." As stated in a previous post, the front in Iraq has been fought to a stalemate. Decisive action by one side or the other will need to be taken to break the stalemate. If we withdraw now, this would hand a huge victory to the terrorists. Terrorists recruits would likely swell, the enemy would be emboldened and we would be fighting them here. Instead of shooting down helicopters on patrol in Iraq they could take shots at commerical airliners and instead of outdoor food markets and hotels in the middle east they could do their dastardly deeds in hotels and shopping malls in America. An Ameican military official who Geraldo Rivera claimed to have spoken with put it best when he said, "these puppies will follow us home." Unfortunately the main strem media has the ear of some of these folks and the American people are not getting the full story. To get the full story requires we go beyond the main stream media. Fortunately it is easier now than it was. For example, what someone said or did in the past can be eaisly located via the internet. Its easier to hold people accountable. Bush did not help himself from the beginning. Immediately after the 911 attacks he told Americans to "go shopping" or something to this effect. This was one of the silliest comments he has ever made. He should have immediately explained the threat these people pose and called for a substantial increase in the size and strength of the military. I have studied this threat for some time and I cringed when I heard this. I think I understand why he said it but it was sitll the wrong thing to say. If the most vocal opposition wants a constructive dialog with the president, I would suggest the following: 1.) Admit that Bush is not like Hitler and he did not lie us into war. Admit that his agenda is the defense of America and an apolgy to him for the attacks would be most helpful. Perhaps they feel they need to save face so a quite change of behavior would be a good starting point. Perhaps Bush is going about the defense of America the wrong way. From here, we can work together to come up with constructive ways to move forward. If a diplomatic opportunity should present itself, we need a unified front. 2.) Admit that the Clinton administration was right when they concluded the former Iraqi government was a major terrorist supporter and they were correct along with the Bush administration in concluding that Saddam likely had WMD. Senator Clinton said it best when she said the intellegence presented by the Bush White House was materially similiar to what the Clintons had when they were in the White House. These are good places to start. Even if you belive the "Bush lied" things, a powerful way to get people to change their behavior is to give them an opportunity to save face. This concept is expounded upon in the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People." I never ceases to amaze me how kind and gracious administration officials are to members of the press who slander them at every opportunity.

As I've already stated I think we can do better thna GW as president. I'm going to offer a few things I think we can do better: 1.) Develop our own naturaul resources. 2.) Upgrade our ICBM missle system. This wouold lessen the need to have troops in as many places. I hope and pray I'm wrong but I think war with the Russia and/or china who are the enemies behind our Islamic Extremist enemy is inevitable. If it does occurr, we need to enchance our chances to win. 3.) Do some serious work on a missle defense system. 4.)Do more to secure the borders. 5.) Make some type of civil defense mandatory. All Americans should receive some typoe of military training.

Btw, if we withraw prematurely from Iraq and have to meet the terrorists here, there is a silver lining. Our military now has real world experience in an urban combat setting. Assuming we can keep the Russians and the Chinese out of it and we can keep other Central and South American countries from joining in, we may just be able to fight them off. I'm pretty sure the UN general assembly would side with our enemies. I hope and pray we can avoid this type of scenario. It is my considered opinion that a premature withdrawl from Iraq would make this scenario or a similar one all but inevitable. This is not to say that the invasion of Iraq was necessarily a good strategic decision. Perhaps the threat could have been handled another way.

What happened here? Didn't Reagan win the cold war? Isn't Russia now a natural ally since it is democracy? Or is all that irrelevant?
Are Russia and China looking to there own economic sheres of influence where the US is simply to weak to matter?
Addicted to Chinese credit and Mid-east oil, and caught up in a wave of republican deficits that comes from financing both sides of the war on terror (Sean Hannity agrees with that one, and it has become a statemant used with increasing frequency on FOX news as the crisis over gas prices continues.), what are we going to do as has been knocked about here?
Go to war with both Russia and Iran? Where's the economic clout to bring them to heel.
By the way using GDP as a measure of economic strength in this confrontation means nothing. The question is what percentage of that GDP can be brought to bear in this crisis. If the part of our GDP that a unilateral embargo of Iranian oil influences cannot be influenced negatively, then none of the GDP necessary for Iranian oil embargo can be sacrifced to that effort.
In fact our GDP, because of it great size, makes the US situation vis a vis China, Russia, and the mideast analogous to that of a great Sauropd facing off against a bunch of velociraptors. We stumble around, unable to fight off the repeated small attacks by more nimble opponents organized against us, who manage to wear us down economicly, until its our GDP that is in danger, not our opponents.
And the competition here is economic, not military. There will be no great wars, and if we start one it because we are dealing from a position of economic weakness. A last desperate measure to try to preserve what economic strength we have left, and the elite that benefits from it.
We may have the largest GDP on the planet, but the manufacturing base supporting that GDP is very small. We are, like the Sauropods of their time, the greatest consumers in the world. I hope we can hold off the packs of velociraptors.