Stratfor's Friedman: Germany is the key

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Musburger1, Mar 23, 2015.

  1. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    12 minute video well worth watching. View it and maybe we can start a discussion.
    Link.

    Several interesting points. Here are a few.
    1. America's power is reliant on military dominance of the air and sea.
    2. Militant Islam must be dealt with but is not an existential threat.
    3. The US is an empire, and operates as an empire, though this has never been acknowledged.
    4. The game plan is control from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
    5. Germany is the key. Will they side with the US or drift toward Russia.
     
  2. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Looks like I struck out as far as generating interest, so I'll try again.

    Here's the entire clip (1 hour 12 minutes). Link. The 12 minute clip beginning the thread was the edited version which basically included the points specific to the US. The entire presentation was based more on the disintegration of the EU and Friedman's forecast for Europe over the next few years.

    What I find stunning is the degree to which US foreign policy is carried out without public debate; either via the media or the Congress. To some degree this is nothing new. The US foreign policy with respect to South and Central America has carried out coups and influenced policy for decades without any significant participation from Congress or the public. But, I think the difference we are seeing now is that the US is now engaged in a very aggressive, confrontational battle with nuclear powers. Friction is on the rise with China, but has reached the acute stage with Russia. The US is sending armament to the Baltic countries, conducting exercises next to the Russian border and pressuring both allies and neutral countries to sanction Russia. Whether Americans would agree or not with what we are doing is irrelevant because there is no debate, no dissent, and no discussion. Its going to be done apparently and most citizens aren't even cognizant of the reality.

    Friedman broadly laid out the scenario this way. The EU is unsustainable and will break apart. The various countries will eventually follow their own interests. Different language, customs, and history will cause schisms to develop. There are separatist movements in Spain (Catalona) and Italy (North/South fault lines). Eastern Europe is up for grabs. Russia needs Ukraine to at least be neutral. The US wants control of the corridor from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Friedman believes the US will try to accomplish this goal by implementing a combination of soft power (NGOs, CIA) to overthrow unwanted regimes and hard power by supplying weapons to friendly regimes to serve as a proxy for American military (we are heading this way in Ukraine even now as the US supplies more and more weapons and the Ukrainian people provide the manpower/fodder).

    The questions I would like to see publicly discussed both in the political arena and the media would include:

    1. Is the US foreign policy, specifically toward Europe and Russia based on security as originally under NATO, or has it morphed into empire building. If the latter, would the US collapse without maintaining/expanding empire and financial control over this region?

    2. Even if control of the Eurasian land mass is necessary to sustain the current economic system in the US, is it worth the risk of nuclear war to achieve that?
     
  3. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Following up my reply to myself (that sounds weird doesn't it?) is a column by Stephen Cohen, a professor that studies Russian history. Link.

    The key points of Cohen's extraordinary speech:

    • The possibility of premeditated war with Russia is real; this was never a possibility during Soviet times.
    • This problem did not begin in November 2013 or in 2008, this problem began in 1990's when the Clinton administration adopted a "winner-takes-all" policy towards post-Soviet Russia.
    • Next to NATO expansion, the US adopted a form of a negotiation policy called "selective cooperation" - Russia gives, the US takes.
    • There is not a single example of any major concession or reciprocal agreement that the US offered Russia in return for what it has received since the 90s.
    • This policy has been pursued by every president and every US Congress, from President Clinton to President Obama.
    • The US is entitled to a global sphere of influence, but Russia is not entitled to any sphere of influence at all, not even in Georgia or Ukraine.
    • For 20 years Russia was excluded from the European security system. NATO expansion was a pivot of this security system and it was directed against Russia.
    • Putin started as a pro-Western leader, he wanted partnership with the US, provided helping hand after 9/11 and saved many American lives in Afghanistan.
    • In return he got more NATO expansion and unilateral abolition of the existing missile treaty on which all Russian security was based.
    • Putin is not an autocrat, he's maybe very authoritarian as an ultimate decider, but he is answerable to other power groups.
    • Putin is not anti-Western, or as Khodorkovsky said, he is more European than 99 percent of Russians. He has become less pro-Western and particularly less pro-American.
    • Since November 2013, Putin has became not aggressive but reactive. For this he has been criticized in circles in Moscow as an appeaser (that is, soft, not tough enough).
    • We (opposing academics) don't have effective political support in the administration, the Congress, political parties, think tanks or on university campuses. This is unprecedented situation in American politics. There's no discourse, no debate and this is failure of American democracy.
    • There is ongoing extraordinary irrational and nonfactual demonisation of Putin. No Soviet leader was so personally vilified as Putin is now.
    • The solution is federation to unite Ukraine without Crimea, which is not coming back, free trade with both the West and Russia and no NATO membership for Ukraine.
    • This guarantees must be in writing, not oral premises like they gave to Gorbachev, and must be ratified by the UN.
    • The Kiev regime is not a democratic one, but an ultra-nationalistic one. Poroshenko is a diminishing president.
    • Unless the Kiev regime changes its approach to Russia or unless the West stops supporting Kiev unconditionally, we are drifting towards war with Russia.
    Whether Cohen has the right take or not, the fact is there is not even any debate or even discussion. Most Americans are ignorant as to what's going on in terms of foreign policy and both the media and our government wish it to remain that way. Russia has nukes and they have threatened to use them if the US continues to encroach on what they believe is their sphere of influence.
     
  4. Larry T Spider

    Larry T Spider 100+ Posts

    I want to discuss this but it will probably be the weekend before I can respond. I need to educate myself on the subject a little more first. Thanks for posting it.
     
  5. BevoBeef

    BevoBeef 250+ Posts

    I am like LTSpider in that I have to review the facts before quoting them. Friedman/Stratfor is someone I like to read. You have asked quite a mouthful for a topic of discussion. The German culture is one of the most interesting that I find outside of the US since I have studied their language and have had the opportunity to work with them as a customer in the Telecom arena. In regards to public debate, it is the president that sparks the debate. Foreign policy is treated like an albatross by Obama and he has really given almost zero leadership in that area since his prize ambition is mostly domestic in nature. Besides, you cannot really trust what BO says --- you have to watch how he acts. There is little debate about US foreign policy because BO ducks that topic. The discussion topic is led more by his campaign atmosphere during the last six years.

    I have had only time to listen to the excerpt of the speech that you first pointed towards. I think Friedman is referring more to the EU when he says Germany does not know what they want to do. They generally know what they want. Right now, in regards to the EU, their problem is more how to keep the EU together in order to keep their biggest export market. They are heavily dependent upon exports in their growth and economic success. If Greece soon jumps ship from the EU, their decisions will be more straightforward. Their growth is a shining example in contrast to the rest of that continent. In military power they are currently ranked #7th-8th in the world, depending upon how important that you think nuclear armament is regarded. Since 1870 their military has crossed the French border three different times. Each time they have been beaten back and then come back to do it again. They are on another timetable this time because of the Germany split/recombination and some treaty obligations since World War II. If their export market focus has to change (with the EU collapse), their Navy and Air Force equivalent will have to grow in order to protect their expanding geographic market. They will find a way to legally do this, even if their military armed force is limited by treaty. I will come back to this later.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2015
  6. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    In regards to public debate, it is the president that sparks the debate. Foreign policy is treated like an albatross by Obama and he has really given almost zero leadership in that area since his prize ambition is mostly domestic in nature. Besides, you cannot really trust what BO says --- you have to watch how he acts. There is little debate about US foreign policy because BO ducks that topic. The discussion topic is led more by his campaign atmosphere during the last six years.

    You made some good comments in regard to Germany, but I want to amplify on the above observation.

    On the surface it appears that Obama has his differences with the establishment as evidenced by his poor relationship with Netanyahu, accelerated pullout of Iraq, the purging of generals, etc. But there is also the reality that he really hasn't changed very much. I don't know that the reason for that is so much that he is apathetic, but rather the power of the Presidency to shape policy could be significantly weaker than we are led to believe. As a result, the major moves - particularly personnel changes - are done for political purposes moreso than to shift direction. I would argue that the Bush foreign policy was lead by neocons and that the Obama foreign policy is more of the same.

    I'm now more of the opinion that political hacks like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry possess titles that are meaningless. Their function is to take credit for successes, put a positive spin on setbacks, and serve as propaganda pieces for the administration. The people, such as those outlined below (for better or worse) are what drives foreign policy.

    It's very murky how decisions are made with respect to who is responsible for formulating and implementing policy. Take the State Department. Obama names the Secretary. The face of the State Department has been Hillary Clinton, and now John Kerry under the Obama Presidency. They don't actually lead. They are merely politicians ("I voted for it before I voted against it.") I believe they are little more than figureheads that masquerade as policy makers.

    Let's start with some key people working behind the scenes the past few years. You'll notice these people are veterans that have worked under multiple administrations and have a strong neocon ideological bend.

    First we have Christopher Stephens:

    According to Wikipedia, Christopher Stephens, the ambassador killed in Libya, began service in 1991. His resume includes that he was as a Pearson Fellow with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Senator Richard Lugar. Their were photographs taken of him with John McCain in Libya prior to the civil war that took place. Apparently he was not a career Democrat, yet he certainly must have played a key role during the Libya campaign. In all probability he got over his head dealing with shady characters while in Benghazi and, when combined with administrative ineptitude somewhere down the chain, it cost him his life.​

    Next we have Geoffrey Pyatt.

    Geoffrey Pyatt is the US Ambassador to Ukraine (known for the infamous telephone conversation with Victoria Nuland). Like Stephens, Pyatt started his career under George H.W. Bush in 1990 as a diplomat stationed in Honduras. Check out this non-flattering video detailing his career.​



    Victoria Nuland is a Neocon who served in high positions under Bill Clinton as well as George Bush.

    During the Bill Clinton administration, Nuland was chief of staff to Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott before moving on to serve as deputy director for former Soviet Union affairs.

    She served as the principal deputy foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and then as U.S. ambassador to NATO.
    Victoria Nuland was very instrumental in the Kiev revolution. Nuland is married to Robert Kagan.

    A co-founder of the Project for the New American Century,[1][2][3] Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.[4] Kagan has been a foreign policy advisor to several U.S. Republican presidential candidates as well as to Hillary Clinton, when Clinton was Secretary of State under President Obama.​




     
  7. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Should US Foreign policy change between administrations?
     
  8. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    The problem I have is that the US citizens and the Congress we elect to represent us are no longer part of the process. In other words, the United States is in reality no longer a representative Rupublic. Our citizens are uninformed, the media is worthless, and the decision makers are unaccountable.

    In answer to your question, its very difficult for Foreign policy to change between administrations because from all appearances, Foreign policy is determined and controlled by forces outside the sphere of the administration, elected officials, and certainly beyond the citizenry; at least to a great degree.
     
  9. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Mus,

    You didn't get a lot of initial discussion on this, because the video is pretty lengthy, and most people just aren't going to take the time to watch it. That's a shame, because I think Mr. Friedman's comments are fascinating. I first watched the 12 minute clip (which doesn't do him justice) and then watched the whole thing.

    First, I think it's worth nothing that Friedman perceives the dissolution (either de facto or de jure) of the EU as normal and to be expected. The idea of several nations that have little in common forming a union was and is an absurd idea, and nobody is going to fight to hold it together, though the Germans (at least big German business interests that make a ton of money off of exports) will try to hold it together. As he mentioned the old hatreds are coming back, and nationalist parties are gaining ground very fast.

    Second, I think you make an excellent point. There is very little to no debate in the United States on the issue of foreign policy. Why not? I think part of the reason is that our people aren't smart enough to intelligently discuss it. Foreign policy is complicated and difficult to dumb down. Politicians can't explicitly say they don't care about foreign policy, because even though the average American voter is too dumb to discuss it, he does have a general sense that it's important. (Could he explain why? Probably not.) Accordingly, you'll hear some very superficial commentary on it from political leaders, but that's as far as it goes. I also don't think this is new. We've had debate over what wars we're going to have, but the big questions about whose side we're going to be on and what interests we're going to pursue hasn't really been up for debate. Democrats and Republicans largely think the same things.

    To go to your questions, our policy toward Europe and Russia has elements of security (through NATO) and empire building. We want our influence to extend well into Eastern Europe to give us economic and military opportunities (empire building). On the flip side, I think we also want to keep an expansionist Russia at bay. (Yes, I know you disagree that Russia is expansionist.) Would the US collapse without expanding its sphere of influence? Certainly not. Unless of course, you're wrong about Russia.

    Is the risk of nuclear war worthwhile to maintain our influence in Eastern Europe? Maybe. It depends on what Russia really wants.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. BevoBeef

    BevoBeef 250+ Posts

    You use the term "no longer part of the process" as if this has happened some time in the past where this has occurred. The Congress has had some long term power that is slow acting with the "power of the purse" to fund, eventually ratify agreed upon treaties, or the "power to declare war", which has proven not very effective in controlling presidents' actions. However, other than to negate active military action and reduce the loss of life, when has debate by US citizens and the Congress had an impact on US foreign policy? It is through presidential action (or inaction) that our foreign policy changes. You can argue that the president is elected and the people control it that way, but that is a false assumption in itself. Although, people vote upon overall generalities, it is not really transparent to the voter how the president will act in the future in an unknown set of circumstances. I do not even want an uninformed electorate to decide what foreign policy this country should follow.

    Foreign policy is many times forced upon the president and many times there are decisions made that cannot solve the problem, but foreign policy does change dramatically from one administration to another. Unfortunately I have to say that I have lived through nine administrations while I have been of voting age; and there have been substantial changes instituted by successive presidents. From Kennedy to Johnson to Nixon, our foreign policy with regard to southeast Asia and China swerved dramatically. From Carter to Reagan, the impact their policies had on Russia were significantly different. The Middle East policies followed some abrupt zig-zag paths from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Obama. You can easily argue that they could not control foreign policies the way they really wanted, but the foreign policy of this country did change substantially ---- albeit not over night. Yes, debate did change the situation but it was only to stop our military from shipping dead bodies to this country back from foreign soils.

    I did not mean to imply that BO is apathetic nor that he is really in control of current events. Neither do I disagree with your discussions about the neocons in the past recent administrations. However, BO is very active in his non-decision making. He is the one who is active in not crossing his red lines, leading from behind, and negotiating until there is no end in sight. It is not the neocons who he has not decided to replace that are controlling the US foreign policy in the last 6 years.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2015
  11. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Thanks for the commentary Deez. I want to expand some on the paragraphs highlighted below.

    Your explanation that a detailed analysis of foreign policy would be over the heads of most Americans is unfortunately true, and that from a politician's perspective, there is nothing to be gained by going there. Ron Paul is really the only politician I can think of that addressed the subject in an analytic way, and even he used a simplified and dumbed-downed approach in order to hold the attention of a small niche of the public. Paul was easily destroyed politically in crunch time with simple sound bytes (appeaser, isolationist, etc.).

    While complexity provides a rationale for politicians to stay away from serious debate, it really doesn't excuse the press.

    TV shows do want to maximize dollars, and I suppose less people would tune in to listen to Friedman talk for 30 minutes when its easier to just bring in a paid talking head with a title.


    During Vietnam, probably because the public was very much involved in the war, there were lively debates on campuses and on television. Independent journalists covered what happened by risking their lives in war zones. Now, news basically consists of quoting the press secretary without checking facts.

    I think Russia has become expansionist under Putin, but not in the conventional way we think of expansionism. Typically when we hear that word we associate it with geographical gains. We think of Rome expanding its control of territory, or the USSR marching into Eastern Europe and erecting an iron curtain. Britain conquered India and set up viceroys to keep law and order. With Putin's Russia, I think we are looking at something totally different.

    If you look at what Putin has accomplished - even in just the past two years - its quite breathtaking. Russia, along with China, is establishing trade agreements with each other, and independently with other countries, bypassing the US dollar in the process. Basically, they are threatening the United States economically rather than militarily. The US ability to maintain its status as the world's lone super power is contingent on the US dollar as reserve currency. Having this status has allowed the US to run enormous deficits without the rapid destruction of its currency. This is now being threatened and Putin (as well as China) is the driving force behind it. Putin is simply implementing policy that is in the best interest for Russia, but inevitably, it threatens the status quo for the power brokers in the United States. If successful, Russia's influence will expand and the US will weaken, hence Russia is following an expansionist policy; just not in a geographical sense that requires territory.

    But one of the ways the US has chosen to counter Russia is to beef up NATO and dissuade countries that might decide to join in trade agreements with Russia. Also, the Eurasian land mass, particularly some of the former Soviet states, have quite a bit of oil reserves that both Russia and the US would like to control. Naturally, Russia sees this as a threat and if pushed far enough, as with Ukraine, might very well expand the arena from an economic battle to a shooting one. If mistakes are made by either side, a nuclear confrontation could conceivably occur.

    These things are important enough that I believe they should take precedence - both politically and via the media - over winning elections or making more profits.
     
  12. BevoBeef

    BevoBeef 250+ Posts

    Mus1,

    I listened to all of both of the videos your referenced, and wanted to tie them to your comments and emphasize the importance of your title for this thread. My own perspectives & conclusions are the following:

    (1) Germany is not only the key to the aftermath of the disintegration of the EU economic "strengths" but also will be a growing US solution for what is happening as it relates to Cohen's description of the growing friction between Russia and the USA. It is not a matter of if but when will the economic ties of the EU splinter apart. What is happening in Greece now will be a determining domino of how soon that will come to pass. With the German backing, the euro will remain a strong fiat, but Germany will lose a large share of its exports into the EU (which amounts to about 25% of its GDP) as these debtor nations like Greece continue to threaten the equivalency of bankruptcy and adopt other fiat forms. It is not a coincidence that Merkel is playing a key role in the discussions of what is happening with the Greek debt as well as what is the future outcome of Ukraine.

    (2) Not really disputing Cohen's facts, I am not as concerned about a future possible hot/cold war between US and Russia. I believe that Cohen is overemphasizing the importance of the dispute between BO and Putin. Irregardless of what the sanctions did on Iran, they have had almost no affect upon Putin. The weakness of the Russian currency now is caused by the drop in oil prices, not by anything that BO decided to do. What is missing in Cohen's discussion is my belief that Germany will fill the vacuum caused by Obama's passivity in eastern Europe. You can tell by all the Russian soldiers and armor near the Ukrainian border how much "fear" Putin has about the discussion of putting US soldiers in eastern Europe. A US general pinning a medal on a Ukrainian soldier is a ridiculous symbol and indicative of what is going on. Real discussions are going on now about German soldiers being the ones to defend eastern European countries. It is their security that is at risk with Russia in Putin's border expansions into Georgia, Crimea, and Ukraine. If they have to, Germany will be the one to take the lead in the NATO defense of Europe. The major tension in eastern Europe will be between Germany and Russia, not with Russia and USA. What will happen eventually in Ukraine is mainly between Germany & Russia. Look at the leadership that Merkel is taking as opposed to Obama. Obama is purposefully taking a backseat to the interests of Europe.

    (3) I see your points with the expansionary nature of Putin's actions and do not necessarily disagree with your facts. However, my viewpoint is that Putin's actions are more defensive in nature and not offensive. I agree with Friedman's point of view that Russia is mainly trying to create a neutral buffer zone at the edge of the Russian border - particularly as it relates toward Europe. They have a severe problem in the devaluation of the Russian ruble right now. It is becoming more common to negotiate international oil prices outside of the the US dollar more recently. Because of the enormous US debt, countries are trying to protect themselves against possible future devaluation of the US dollar. The strength of the US dollar right now is not indicative of a strong US economy but the fact that many major countries are having problems with their economic growth.

    (4) There are at least three characteristics of the German people in which I tend to have a strong trust. (a) The first is their ingenuity, particularly in the development of technology. They have funded of the order of 25% of the development of the MEADS missile defense system along with the US's portion of slightly more than 50%. It will be the German TLVS weaponry that will defend eastern Europe against incoming Russian missiles. (b) The second is their industrial might. Half of their total GDP is exported. That is a phenomenal number. There are reasons why their unemployment rate is 5% while a number of other European countries have an unemployment rate greater than 20%. There are some who rank Germany as the second world power behind the US in its ability to affect global politics and regional security. (3) The German people are very nationalistic in their nature. You only have to remember what happened in the first half of the 20th century. They also inherently believe in the value of their national government to fund and influencie their major economic endeavors. They do not have the qualms that we do about the inefficiency of combining government policies and business growth.

    THEREFORE, in alignment with your thread title, Germany (without a doubt) is the key for determining not only what happens in a major portion of the European environment, but also who replaces the lack of current US leadership in that region.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2015
  13. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

     
  14. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Thanks for the well thought out reply. Your scenario could indeed prove to be right. I'll add my thoughts and why I see a different outcome.

    1. I think you are spot on here. The EU is going down, and a Greece exit of some sort is probably imminent or at least within several months of becoming reality. A monetary union without a common language, culture, and laws isn't going to work much longer. And when the various countries break up, Germany's export market to the rest of Europe is going to shrink.

    2. I'm not so sure about your take here. The current leadership in Germany (Merkel, etc.) is strongly allied to the US Government, and since the end of WWII, the US military has basically set up shop in Germany as protection from Russia. But Germany does quite a bit of business with Russia, and when they eventually lose some of their market share to the rest of Europe, Russia is positioned to pick up some of the slack in terms of imports of German goods. Likewise, Germany would stand to benefit from Russian resources. And although Merkel is tied to the hip of the US Government, there are large segments within Germany that would like to see Germany break away from the US and do not feel uncomfortable about Russia. On the contrary, the greater the military buildup in Germany expands, the more Russia is likely to counter what they perceive as a threat. That being the case, many Germans will push to make Russia an ally and certainly Putin will do everything in his power to make that happen.

    3. I agree Putin's responses to NATO expansion have been defensive (contrary to the propaganda which constantly casts Russia as an invading aggressor), but if the US continues to push for control of the bordering regions - especially from the Baltic to the Black Sea, Russia could very well take offensive measures. If and when that happens, the US will have to decide whether to escalate or back off. If escalation happens, that's when we see the possibility of tactical nukes and potentially worse. Meanwhile, as you pointed out, countries around the globe are hedging their bets on the US dollar remaining the world currency. The importance of the petrodollar is why the US is such a strong ally of the evil Saudi Arabian regime.

    4. Your characterization of Germany is correct, however I think that because of their unique status, if US global influence weakens, Germany may decide it is in their best interests to move Eastward and work jointly with Russia rather than stay with the United States and its policy of destroying Russia, which in turn hurts Germany.

    In conclusion, I see several different scenarios but each of them include a breakup of the EU. Probably before that happens, I see Ukraine splintering into multiple regions as its economy continues to implode. Look for this to happen before 2015 ends.

    Obama holds the White House for two more years, but even without a Republican Presidency, it appears to me the US will only increase pressure on Russia in hopes of splintering that country. Perhaps the goal is when when Europe breaks up, the various European countries won't fall into the sphere of Russia if Russia becomes a failed state. But following this policy is risky, as WWIII would be a possibility and a nuclear confrontation would have no winners. I believe Putin is the most competent world leader on the world stage, and if he is eliminated, Russia might become more unpredictable.

    The other possibility would be for the US to back off and mind its own business, but there is no political leadership anywhere to be found that advocates such a policy, sot that isn't realistic. The press demonizes Russia at every turn and Americans believe Russia is the most dangerous enemy except perhaps radical Islam.
     
  15. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    Ron Paul has problems beyond the stupidity of the public. He at least implies that there is US culpability for 9/11. He doesn't flagrantly say we got what we deserved, but he gets close enough to that position that many aren't going to listen to him no matter how much he dumbs things down.

    It doesn't excuse the press, but you have to keep in mind that the press largely consists of for-profit business enterprises that rely on advertising dollars. That system is not conducive to in-depth or even just slightly in-depth discussion of anything. People want to hear a quick blurb that reinforces the opinions they already have, and then they want to go back to watching the football game or listening to Taylor Swift. Consider the talking head with a title you linked to. Other than his comment about killing Russians, do you think people actually listened to much of what he said? They probably didn't.

    It was an extremely different situation. First, it was novel. It was the first war we could actually see on television, so I think that sparked a lot more interest. Second, there were far fewer options for media. There weren't thousands of channels you could turn to if you didn't want to hear about Vietnam, so it was tougher to get away from it. Third, we had true conscription. People are going to care about war a lot more if they or their relatives are one draft notice away from getting shot at. Fourth, the college deferment that got rich white kids out of the draft could be tied to the civil rights controversies that were already brewing. All four factors made Vietnam a perfect storm for intense controversy and debate. I really can't think of any issue in modern discourse that could quite generate that kind of interest.

    I don't disagree with this, but why assume that the economic expansion he seeks will not go beyond money and expand into territorial acquisition? It often does, and when we're talking about a country that has lost territory in pretty recent years, I think we'd be crazy not to be concerned.

    Also, I think it's important to keep in mind that though we've expanded NATO membership, NATO's actual military might is much smaller than it used to be. Most NATO nations have significantly reduced their military budgets. Furthermore, though the US hasn't reduced its budget since 9/11, it has dramatically reduced its presence in Europe. It's not meaningless by any means, but it's a fraction of what it was during the Cold War. Furthermore, it's a far more timid alliance than it used to be. If Putin invaded Latvia, do you really think Germany, France, or even the UK would go fight WWIII to protect it? I think that's highly questionable. The bottom line is that the NATO expansion, though significant, is overblown and less of a threat to Russia than people might assume. If we were opening massive military communities in Eastern Europe with thousands of troops in them like we did in Western Europe during the Cold War, then I'd be more inclined to view the NATO expansion as a big threat to Russia, but that's just not happening. On the contrary, though we've sent small numbers of troops to Eastern Europe mostly on a rotational basis, we've gotten rid of far more in Western Europe including two pretty big ones in Mannheim and Heidelberg just since I moved to Germany back in 2013.
     
  16. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    Friedman's assertion that the US is squandering miliary assets against enemies that pose little strategic significance is interesting. Is it in our best interest to spend billions eradicating ISIS, when maybe we could win more friends, save more lives and and make appreciable quality of life improvements with water projects in impoverised countries?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. BevoBeef

    BevoBeef 250+ Posts

    Crockett said:
    I think Friedman's comment about US's squandering of their assets and making strategic mistakes was in reference to our blunders in trying to build nations and democratic governments in the Middle East. In regards to your last question in general, it is very difficult for mankind to measure the outcome of the good that we do. Unfortunately for our reputation, most people in this country do not want to spend its resources and focus attention on events outside our country unless it has an apparent reason for our own good. The reasoning is more that our government does not have the resources to take care of everybody outside of our border.
     
  18. BevoBeef

    BevoBeef 250+ Posts

    Mus1, ..... I agree that I do not have a sensitivity of what good relations are developing between Russia and eastern/central Europe. The news is mainly about the bad things going on. However, our major difference of opinion is in regarding this quote.

    I do not understand where the threat by the US to Russia is existing. I tend to ignore the rhetoric coming from Obama and pay attention only to his actions. The Russian sanctions regarding their Ukrainian action is just hot air and amount to pin pricks. Where is this control that is trying to be asserted by this country to the Russian border areas? I have reread the Cohen summary above and do not understand where our aggressiveness to Russia is coming from ---> since the post Soviet era and particulary after 9/11 or 2001 time frame. Again, ignore the words --- where does US action threaten Russian security? The US focus of attention has been on the Middle East and the use of WMD by radical groups.

    It is not from NATO because my viewpoint agrees with Mr. D on this
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2015
  19. pasotex

    pasotex 2,500+ Posts

    Putin (and I think Mus) view the recent Maidan revolt as being orchestrated by the US.
     
  20. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez Beer Prophet

    We have a hard enough time maintaining our own infrastructure.
     
  21. Crockett

    Crockett 5,000+ Posts

    Probably the water projects, immunizations, etc. are better left to charitable organizations, which manage to actually build relationships with the people in the countries we help. When our government works with foreign governments, I'm pretty sure almost all of the money ends up in the pockets or regime leaders/supporters. It's just when I see the billions involved in military operations with negligible long term tangible benefit, it's hard not to think imagine how much good it could do if well-spent for humanitarian causes.
     
  22. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Pasotex, a riddle for you. Name the foreign states in question given the following (hint; it is not Ukraine/Russia):
    We have a country which is internally divided geographically, culturally and religiously. The President of that country was overthrown in a coup and had to flee abroad. This greatly worried some of the neighbors of this country which decided to keep recognizing the President that fled and organized a multi-state air-strikes campaign to punish the new regime. To justify their actions, these states accused another neighbor of supporting the revolutionary regime. There are now very strong and persistent rumors that the main country supporting the President in exile has massed over 100’000 troops at the border and is preparing for an invasion.
    This happened within the last few weeks. If you know the answer, then explain why this is considered different than what happened with Ukraine and the Madan coup.
     
  23. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Here's some responses to some of the things pointed out above.

    The Russian sanctions regarding their Ukrainian action is just hot air and amount to pin pricks.

    The sanctions are aimed at wealthy Russians and companies that are aligned with Putin. The ultimate goal of the US toward Russia is regime change with the intent of replacing Putin with someone similar to Yeltsin; to replace a government that acts independently with the interests of Russia with a government that will be subservient to US policy. In addition, threats have been made (but not implemented) to freeze Russia out of the SWIFT system. This is basically a threat of financial warfare. Putin has responded by accelerating the development of financial/economic relationships with China and other countries that wish to distance themselves from the US sphere of influence.

    Most NATO nations have significantly reduced their military budgets.

    Just because maybe France or Italy spend less than on their military budgets is not the point. Its the expansion of NATO member countries, the introduction of American backed technology, etc. that causes friction. The fact some of these nations are even in NATO is the problem as far as Russia is concerned. Russia will simply not except Ukraine or Georgia as part of NATO. Russia does not want ABM missiles on their border any more than the US wants Russian missiles in Canada or Mexico. Since 1999, the following countries, all in Eastern Europe, have joined NATO: Check Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Abbania, and Croatia.

    The bottom line is that the NATO expansion, though significant, is overblown and less of a threat to Russia than people might assume. If we were opening massive military communities in Eastern Europe with thousands of troops in them like we did in Western Europe during the Cold War, then I'd be more inclined to view the NATO expansion as a big threat to Russia, but that's just not happening. On the contrary, though we've sent small numbers of troops to Eastern Europe mostly on a rotational basis, we've gotten rid of far more in Western Europe.

    It's not western Europe that Russia is concerned about, but Eastern Europe. From the US viewpoint it doesn't matter that NATO troops in Albania could not defeat Russia. What the US would hope to do is to stir up trouble in countries such as this, and possibly entice Russia into wars and skirmishes to (a) weaken Russia, and (b) alienate Russia from as much as the global community as possible. NATO enlistments would basically become cannon fodder assuming the war was contained and continued in a low grade manner.

    Because the former Soviet States are very much non-homogeneous, like Ukraine, ethnic clashes could develop as they have inside Ukraine and South Ossetia, providing Russia with an incentive to intervene. Russia is happy with the status quo, but as the US presses for NATO expansion and regime changes hostile to Russia, the status quo shifts against Russia and they will feel compelled to react to that. Most of these areas are economic basket cases that Russia does not wish to inherit, Crimea being an exception as an area that has value.
     
  24. pasotex

    pasotex 2,500+ Posts

    I think you are talking about Yemen. I do not know enough about Yemen to have much of an opinion. I do believe it is a pawn in the Saudi vs. Iran wars. Ukraine is not a "pawn" in the US vs. Russia war. Russia lost already.

    I know what occurred in Ukraine was an internal popular uprising. I know actual protestors. The President was not "overthrown" but fled and was voted out of office by the legislature. I do not know why, but you seem to buy every lie from Russia and Putin hook, line, and sinker. It is bizarre to me because I am a moderate Democrat and see Russia and Putin for the scumbags that they are.

    I am still on the fence on military aid to Ukraine. I do think we (meaning US and EU) need to do a Marshall Plan for Ukraine's economy.

    Poland vs. Ukraine since 1991 is all you need to look at to see how worthless Russia is as an economic partner.
     
  25. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

     
  26. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    Yes, Yemen. No analogy is perfect, but this is pretty close.
    Like Ukraine, Yemen is sharply divided; in this case between one Shiite faction supported by Iran, and the ruling Sunni faction backed by Saudi Arabia (and the US). The coup in Yemen is considered to be illegitimate by the Saudis who are conducting bombing raids in hopes of restoring the old regime. The US is perfectly OK with this.

    But in the case of Ukraine, the coup is considered to be legitimate. (and yes it was a coup; it doesn't matter that it was a popular uprising, it was a violent coup and the President fled to save his life. Just because Victoria Nuland served cookies to some well-meaning protesters you know doesn't change that.) Had the Russians begun an aerial bombing of Kiev in order to reinstate the President, how would the US have reacted to this?

    Russia from 1991 until Putin became President is very different from Russia today. Ukraine is basically the same; one of the most corrupt governments in the world. The coup did not change that fact. In fact, the current regime is more corrupt than the one it replaced.

    You are correct to have second thoughts about providing military aid to Ukraine. Whatever isn't siphoned off by corrupt politicians will only lead to more deaths on both sides and further escalation.
     
  27. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Corruption is a way of life in the former Soviet bloc. I think it's culturally acceptable, unfortunately.

    Mus- I'm curious if you can point to an economic trading partner that has benefited from their Russia ties? I'm trying to rack my brain for one. No, China doesn't count as Russia benefits from THEM much more than they benefit from Russia. In fact, China will trade with anyone for energy.
     
  28. Musburger1

    Musburger1 2,500+ Posts

    It is a way of life and I think Putin is trying to clean it up, but it is an uphill battle.

    Keep in mind Russia's economy isn't that developed outside of energy and munitions. Putin wants to change that and the dip in energy prices will force Russia to develop its economy in other areas. Who benefits from trade with Russia? The number one example of course would be Ukraine. Their economy wasn't that great to begin with, but now now they have nowhere to export products and the country is near collapse propped up by unpayable IMF loans. The other obvious example is Western Europe, including Germany, which is very much reliant on Russian gas.

    There are several other countries that trade with Russia, most of which have been under sanctions imposed by the US. These would include Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, among others. When the US is against you, its a tough row to hoe.
     
  29. pasotex

    pasotex 2,500+ Posts

    Putin is trying to clean it up?

    :rolleyes1:
     
  30. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    This is the debate. Clean it up or consolidate? I believe the latter but Musburger sees a side of Putin I sure don't. I think Mus looks past Russia's extremely violent history against media unfavorable to Putin. It appears that violence is now carrying over to his political foes too.
     

Share This Page