tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post8204657658308916477..comments2023-10-30T06:31:05.501-07:00Comments on MilPub: President Putin's Letter to the American People Regarding the Syrian CrisisFDChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-68719725329786033382013-09-23T23:25:03.288-07:002013-09-23T23:25:03.288-07:00seydlitz, a very good capsule summary: "Wha...seydlitz, a very good capsule summary: <i><b> "What's mine is mine and what's yours is up to me".<br /><br />What Russia's saying is that the post-Cold War confusion that the US was able to exploit, but to no lasting positive effect, is over</b>.</i><br /><br />It has always interested me that Americans generally have no notion of sovereignty for other nations. At least that's what it seems to boil down to. <br /><br />In the run up to Desert Storm, I was surprised at the number of CENTCOM and 3rd Army field grades I worked with who could not come to grip with the fact that the primary UN objective was to restore Kuwait's sovereignty, not to topple Iraq or diddle in Iraqi internal affairs.<br /><br />In Bluman vs FEC, the court denied Bluman (a Canadian citizen living and working in the US) the right to contribute to political campaigns, stating, "<i>It is fundamental to the definition of our national political community that foreign citizens do not have a constitutional right to participate in, and thus may be excluded from, activities of democratic self-government</i>." Remember all the uproar and effort spent trying to prove that there was Chinese money going into the Clinton/Gore campaign war chest? Yet, we regularly and routinely diddle in other states' self government, be it a democratic form or not.<br /><br />And, is it not fair game for the Koch brothers and their ilk to dump big bucks into attack ads to back state and local candidates in jurisdictions where they have neither residence nor eligibility to vote?<br /><br />Basically, our view of muscle, be it financial or military, is that if you have it, you have the unfettered right to use it.<br /><br />Mr Putin seems to be questioning this.<br />Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-25752348478566469042013-09-23T13:58:54.384-07:002013-09-23T13:58:54.384-07:00Seydlitz -
I have read the letter and the articl...Seydlitz - <br /><br />I have read the letter and the article. It does not change my opinion. Perhaps it was used as a guide. But it must have been a 'loose' guide as the deal with Iran that came out of it left too many loopholes.<br /><br />I am no friend of Israel. I believe they hold too much influence in our Congress, in our media, and in our former administration (the Cheney/Bush one). But I do not believe your accusations that they are a puppetmaster behind Obama. <br /><br />I am not even convinced that the Israelis want regime change in Syria. I understand about their Hezbollah problem being re-armed via Syria from Iran. But why would they want to put Jihadis in power in Syria and replace Assad's government which has not made any aggressive moves towards them in 40 years, even though they have conducted some airstrikes in Syria. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know.<br /><br />The Israeli CofGS General Gantz even made the offer last year that Israel would take in Alawite refugees in case Assad's government cracked and pogroms started against Alawite communities.<br /><br />There are huge communities of people in Assad's Syria that have no direct beef with Israel, for example the Christians, the Druze, and the Kurds. Why would Israel throw them under the bus in order to champion a Muslim Brotherhood run Damascus?mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-72194489674149413542013-09-23T05:38:06.976-07:002013-09-23T05:38:06.976-07:00mike-
Also the link you post regarding Brazil/Ira...mike-<br /><br />Also the link you post regarding Brazil/Iran is not about Brazil "backing out of a pro-offer in 2011" since the deal was already dead. It concerned rather the new Brazilian president's desire to cool relations between Brazil and Iran which had no direct connection with the earlier deal which was no longer an issue . . .<br /><br />Contrary to your view, the Brazilians were miffed in 2010 by BHO's rejection of their plan since they felt they had been following his guidelines (as provided in one of those letters of his . . .): <br /><br />-- But, rejecting US criticism, both Brazilian and Turkish officials said they took Obama’s letter as a guide during the negotiations with Iran. Speaking to the New York Times, a senior Brazilian official said there was “some puzzlement” among Brazilian officials over why the US would reject the deal now because “the letter came from the highest authority and was very clear.”<br /><br />Brazilian officials also provided a full copy of the letter, sent by Obama to Lula on April 20, to the daily, arguing that it laid the groundwork for the agreement they reached in Tehran. --<br /><br />http://www.todayszaman.com/news-211443-brazil-reveals-obama-letter-in-spat-over-iran-nuclear-deal.html<br /><br />Imo, as in Syria, the US has no coherent US policy regarding Iran, rather we simply support Israel/Saudi Arabia . . . act as their "tool" . . . <br /><br />When it comes to concrete action, BHO's letters seemingly don't count for much . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-45547469317383137972013-09-23T04:44:42.385-07:002013-09-23T04:44:42.385-07:00mike-
The Iranian economy is in bad shape due to ...mike-<br /><br />The Iranian economy is in bad shape due to economic sanctions pushed by the US. If there is a sudden change in US/Iranian relations - which I doubt will happen for the reasons I've mentioned - Russia would benefit. An improved Iranian economy would promote more trade and the ability to pay more readily for imports. Russia has extensive commercial relations with Iran which are not going to disappear should US/Iranian relations improve. As President Rouhani wrote in his WashPost article, "international politics is no longer a zero-sum game".<br /><br />Also you commented, "But the R2P folks are a different breed than NeoCons. They would like to see both Israel and the House of Saud brought up before the world court for Human Rights violations."<br /><br />I'm unaware of any of main R2P players calling for that. I see this as simply another characteristic of our political dysfunction. R2P is a speculative doctrine looking for a home . . . which allows it to be rolled out from time to time to morally brace arguments for military intervention which are actually due to other interests/considerations . . . yet another element of domestic IO.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-5363163462308312192013-09-23T04:27:56.293-07:002013-09-23T04:27:56.293-07:00Andy-
As to "sphere of influences", I a...Andy-<br /><br />As to "sphere of influences", I agree, but there's more to it than that. It goes along with your third point about "American exceptionalism" in that no country is allowed a sphere of influence without our say so. "What's mine is mine and what's yours is up to me".<br /><br />What Russia's saying is that the post-Cold War confusion that the US was able to exploit, but to no lasting positive effect, is over. It is best that the US work together as a great power with other great powers (defined as those able to project power abroad) for a more stable international system. That, and it's high time the US decided what exactly its interests in the Middle East are, instead of being led by the Saudis/Israelis . . .<br /><br />I think that is Putin's message. Of course as Al points out, international and domestic politics are always connected, but I would see this as more of a healthy tension (since how else would national/state interests come to be defined?). What has happened in the US is that domestic political interests are essentially those of the political investors who control the system and profit from US government spending. It is our own oligarchs who are the real threat to us, not those in Russia. seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-14078165898119583812013-09-22T13:17:19.196-07:002013-09-22T13:17:19.196-07:00Seydlitz -
I am not following your line of rea...Seydlitz - <br /><br />I am not following your line of reasoning on why you think Putin would hope for US/Iran rapprochement. Putin and Russia may perhaps assert the claim that they deserve the credit. But Iran knows better. And so does the rest of the world ever since Obama’s letter to Rouhani and his previous letters to Ali Khamenei have been made public.<br /><br />Russia has a major interest in limiting the political influence of the US in that part of Asia. Two Russian oil giants, both Gazprom and LUKoil, are becoming more deeply engaged in oil and gas drilling in Iran. Gazprom (of which 50.01 percent is owned by the Russian government) is used by Putin as a political tool. Putin is also prominent in the wheeling and dealing of LUKoil, which does not have government ownership but was formed by a former Soviet deputy oil minister, Vagit Alekperov, who regularly consults with Putin.<br /><br />Russia also has huge contracts with Iran in agriculture and telecom. The Russians would like to keep this as their own little fiefdom and keep out the Americans.<br /><br />Yes, I recall the 2010 Brazil/Turkey proffer on Iran you mention. The one that was full of loopholes, and it was not the same as the one previously offered by Obama and the UN regardless of claims. Furthermore Brazil backed out of that proffer in 2011:<br /><br />http://blogs.aljazeera.com/blog/americas/brazils-slow-break-iran<br /><br />Regarding your assumption that <i>’ . . . the US has no real US policy regarding Iran, simply follows Saudi/Israel, essentially acting as their "tool" . . . ‘</i>: I believe that was true during the Cheney/Bush administration, but not now. I cannot think of any NeoCons in a position of power in the Obama administration. Yes, there are some right-to-protect folks like Samantha Powers as his UN Ambassador and Susan Rice as his National Security Adviser. But the R2P folks are a different breed than NeoCons. They would like to see both Israel and the House of Saud brought up before the world court for Human Rights violations. And you were calling for R2P action in Libya. Does that make you an AIPAC loving neocon? I don’t think so.<br />mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-61976446485587624812013-09-22T07:27:16.017-07:002013-09-22T07:27:16.017-07:00mike-
Putin has every reason to hope that the US ...mike-<br /><br />Putin has every reason to hope that the US would let up on Iran, since of course Russia would get much of the credit for the turn around. <br /><br />Also the Iranians have been down this road with BHO before . . .<br /><br />Recall the Brazil/Turkey deal of 2010 . . .<br /><br />http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/05/17/the_turkey_brazil_iran_deal_can_washington_take_yes_for_an_answer<br /><br />My assumption here is that the US has no real US policy regarding Iran, simply follows Saudi/Israel, essentially acting as their "tool" . . . or perhaps sees the Middle East as our (and Israel's) own playground following Pfaff . . . seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-13370672180680349292013-09-20T19:35:48.789-07:002013-09-20T19:35:48.789-07:00Seydlitz -
Don't forget Putin. Any kind of ...Seydlitz - <br /><br />Don't forget Putin. Any kind of ice-melt between Iran and the US is against Russia's interest also. He will be working his wannabee great-power status to wreck any deals.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-64741127834568889442013-09-20T13:50:45.401-07:002013-09-20T13:50:45.401-07:00mike-
The dialogue you mention is "indirect&...mike-<br /><br />The dialogue you mention is "indirect" and could go nowhere. In the interview where this came up, BHO was quick to add:<br /><br />“I think what the Iranians understand is that the nuclear issue is a far larger issue for us than the chemical weapons issue, that the threat . . . against Israel that a nuclear Iran poses is much closer to our core interests,” Obama said. “My suspicion is that the Iranians recognize they shouldn’t draw a lesson that we haven’t struck [Syria] to think we won’t strike Iran.”<br /><br />Sorry mike, but I don't see any daylight between the US and Israel on this . . . <br /><br />Also Kerry was quick to fly to Israel to see Bennie and the Jets and assure them that there was no linkage between Syria and Iran . . . as if just a phone call wouldn't do . . .<br /><br />http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-09-15/world/42088960_1_chemical-weapons-chemical-arms-syrian-regimeseydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-76318601857267147552013-09-20T08:42:28.200-07:002013-09-20T08:42:28.200-07:00Seydlitz -
Obama's dialogue with Rouhani star...Seydlitz -<br /><br />Obama's dialogue with Rouhani started in June long before the Syrian CW event and long before Putin's piece. And prior to June he was corresponding with Khamanei. That does make him sound like a tool of either Israel or Russia.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-60543064184100654882013-09-20T03:54:10.155-07:002013-09-20T03:54:10.155-07:00Andy-
Thanks for your comments as always.
As y...Andy-<br /><br />Thanks for your comments as always. <br /><br />As you probably know I post different types of writing. Analysis is what I've attempted here rather than say a polemic which I have produced at times in the past. If I come across as too pro-Putin it's to present another view from what is the normal anti-Putin. In this way we have a wide range of views "bracketed" between the two, whereas if I had attacked Putin . . . Lots of concepts in strategic theory are handled in this way: limited war/war to overthrow the opponent, tendencies to extremes/limiting (social) factors, objective politics/subjective policy, etc . . . I also interpreted Putin's article strictly in terms of strategic thought regarding how great powers operate, not for instance in terms of Russian domestic politics, which could have been an alternative . . . <br /><br />So, what I'm saying is that the purpose of the post has been to encourage dialogue and get readers to think about this article and the larger international political context which spawned it in a different way. <br /><br />My "headless chicken" view of US strategic incompetence/political dysfunction is an ideal type which consists of a whole series of these extreme characteristics, but then is meant to act as a "yardstick" to measure one's own observations. Where are we more or less on the spectrum of strategy with "USA in 1945" on one end and the current "headless chicken" on the other?<br /><br />Let me think more about the points you've raised . . . <br /><br />First day of class today at work . . . seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-3690134446373756312013-09-20T03:30:49.466-07:002013-09-20T03:30:49.466-07:00mike-
Iran is part of the larger Russian strategy...mike-<br /><br />Iran is part of the larger Russian strategy, as Pfaff points out. If BHO takes advantage of the opportunities presented by Russia, all the better. <br /><br />I like Pfaff, have been following him for over 20 years. Have read most of his books and articles. He's got an Iowa connection and is Prussian on his mother's side, just like me. Korean war vet and former MI . . . He's an old school conservative, a Catholic, thinks in Weberian terms . . . compared to what he used to say about little Bush, Obama comes out not so abused . . . Pfaff was dropped from the IHT because his attacks on the neo-con insanity about ten years ago were considered too harsh . . . <br /><br />Btw, this post made 2nd place on zenpundit's recommended readings for this weekend . . . looks like I'm back blogging . . .<br /><br />http://zenpundit.com/?p=27641seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-3404363980299921452013-09-19T21:10:22.912-07:002013-09-19T21:10:22.912-07:00Seydlitz,
Good essay, I agree with most of it
So...Seydlitz,<br /><br />Good essay, I agree with most of it<br /><br />Some comments:<br /><br />I do think you're too deferential to Putin's views in some areas. For example, Putin says Russia is "not protecting the Syrian government, but international law." I don't think that can be taken at face value. In this case “international law” neatly aligns with Russian interests. Putin is protecting those interests - can't blame him at all for that - but the idea he or Russian is primarily concerned about international law is, at best, questionable. Additionally, Putin's essay, particularly his defense of the UN and international law, can also be seen as an effort to deflect criticism of Russia for protecting Assad and Syria’s own violations of international law. <br /><br />Getting to your analysis about great powers, the subtext of the whole "great power" argument is that great powers have clients and spheres of influence. On that I would make three related points:<br /><br />1. Putin, I think, is arguing that Syria is part of Russia's sphere and that, as a great power, the US should recognize that fact. More than that, though, I think Russia is drawing a red line here when one considers this opinion piece in context. Russia is making a stand and isn't got to sit on the sidelines out of weakness as it did in Libya and over the past two decades.<br /><br />2. Russia also wants to get back into the "great power" club. It never completely left of course, but, politically at least, the US doesn't consider Russia to be a great power. Putin is trying to change that and I believe that sentiment is reflected in his opinion piece.<br /><br />3. Finally, I would frame the US domestic problem a bit differently from you in terms of the influence of domestic and international interests on US policy. While I acknowledge there are certainly a lot of players looking to steer the US in various directions, I think that is symptom of a deeper problem: A combination of American exceptionalism and the belief (not just by Americans) that the US is the sole super power. In other words, the US foreign policy elite is operating under the assumption that we are the only "great power" and, furthermore, that our status is well earned. Great powers do what they want and if there is only one….Our elites have become too accustomed to operating without significant strategic constraints and are outraged that Russia, especially, would block our efforts in the UN. <br />In short the incoherence doesn't exist in a vacuum and can’t be completely explained by foreign and domestic factionalism. I think the incoherence is the result of a worldview that sees the US as the lone great power - a position that comes with responsibilities to protect the nice little countries and punish the bad little countries. As King of the Hill we don’t need to pay much attention to the concerns of othes. Putin is trying to remind us that they aren’t a little country anymore.<br /><br />Andynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-77410648922532724312013-09-19T20:30:33.220-07:002013-09-19T20:30:33.220-07:00Seydlitz:
Pfaff is not impartial. He is a member...Seydlitz:<br /><br />Pfaff is not impartial. He is a member of the Hudson Institute, which is a right wing organization whose primary aim is to slam Obama or any other Dem regardless of truth. So he makes stuff up. You should not put any faith in his article. mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-70308778152517567702013-09-19T20:23:27.521-07:002013-09-19T20:23:27.521-07:00Well I see Obama has also opened up dialogue with ...Well I see Obama has also opened up dialogue with the new Iranian president:<br /><br />http://www.indianexpress.com/news/rouhani-praises-obama-s-letter-as--positive-and-constructive-/1171299/<br /><br />The right wing, bomb-bomb-bomb folks here are going crazy over this and calling it antothetical to great power policy. They are also saying that by talking to Iran that Obama is a tool of foreign interests, but whose they don't say. Perhaps you agree with them?mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-50920567284271122013-09-19T12:59:32.762-07:002013-09-19T12:59:32.762-07:00mike-
"Or some might call that a successful ...mike-<br /><br />"Or some might call that a successful triple bluff. Which is what he just carried of on Syria."<br /><br />Sorry, I don't buy that for a minute.<br /><br />As to Simpson not peddling anything new . . . depends on whether the dominate narrative is also the one that you follow . . . seems to be the case with many. Just finished Gian Gentile's book trashing COIN. Nothing new there either for many of us, but definitely a book that needed to be written . . . given the level of current US strategic confusion. <br /><br />Nice view from Pfaff btw . . .<br /><br />http://www.williampfaff.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=645seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-6353740538199918532013-09-19T08:54:30.425-07:002013-09-19T08:54:30.425-07:00@Seydlitz: "My argument was and is that Obam...@Seydlitz: <i>"My argument was and is that Obama is inconsistent, turns on a dime to make an important policy decision and then the next day starts backtracking on it, only to turn on a dime in the opposite direction a bit further down the road."</i><br /><br />Or some might call that a successful triple bluff. Which is what he just carried of on Syria. In doing so he managed to outfox the Israelis, Saudis, Syrians, Iranians, and Russians. At least in phase one. Time will tell whether Assad and Putin will honor their agreement. And he managed to put one over on AQ elements in the FSA also, which is why Zawahiri got so steamed up.<br /><br />On your Simpson link. He is not peddling anything new. Many years ago most of the folks on MILPUB were saying the same thing about the Cheney/Bush GWOT. mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-50966151188525564402013-09-19T05:53:26.905-07:002013-09-19T05:53:26.905-07:00Interesting interview with Emile Simpson who has w...Interesting interview with Emile Simpson who has written a great book from a Clauswitzian strategic theory perspective:<br /><br />-In Simpson’s view, one of the biggest mistakes the US has made has been to talk about a “global war on terror”, a phrase he describes as silly because it raises expectations that can never be met. “If you elevate this to a global concept, to the level of grand strategy, that is profoundly dangerous,” he says. “If you want stability in the world you have to have clear strategic boundaries that seek to compartmentalise conflicts, and not aggregate them. The reason is that if you don’t box in your conflicts with clear strategic boundaries, chronological, conceptual, geographical, legal, then you experience a proliferation of violence.”-<br /><br />http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/8061f9a6-fde1-11e2-a5b1-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Flife-arts%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz2fHEZ3AkTseydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-42566778435203452092013-09-19T05:15:11.157-07:002013-09-19T05:15:11.157-07:00mike-
Actually I wasn't arguing for US interv...mike-<br /><br />Actually I wasn't arguing for US intervention in Libya on that thread, although I did on others. My comments on this particular thread were mostly about US strategic confusion . . . a very consistent argument of mine and with always plenty of new examples to bring up . . . <br /><br />"My argument was and is that Obama is inconsistent, turns on a dime to make an important policy decision and then the next day starts backtracking on it, only to turn on a dime in the opposite direction a bit further down the road. All this influenced by domestic US politics, or rather the corrupt reality of current US political relations. We've seen this numerous times, the Libyan example being simply the latest.<br /><br />We should be supportive of democracy in the Arab world, that was the reason supposedly for Bush's war in Iraq, his so-called "freedom agenda", but then that never really was what the Washington Rules wanted. Our hopelessly confused Libyan policy simply reflects this fact imo.<br /><br />As to Al Qaida, it seems obvious to me that we have to rethink our assumptions on that one. My comment as to "resuscitation" saw AQ as providing a useful prop for US policy, linking AQ/Islamofabulism with the Arab Spring would be in the best interests of the Washington Rules and of course our (remaining) autocratic proxies in the ME. To this we must now add the reality - which is hard to dispute imo - that AQ/OBL was essentially a state-sponsored entity. OBL would have never lasted as long as he did nor would have felt as secure as he obviously did were that not the case. The open question at this point is which other states, besides Pakistan, were its sponsers . . . ?"<br /><br />As to the Syrian refugees "surging" towards Europe (the NYT headline), we're talking 3,300 during August with 4,600 for the year reaching Italy.<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/world/middleeast/syrian-refugee-spillover-into-europe-surges.html<br /><br />But then in May 2011 who would have guessed that the Syrian revolt would have transformed into a full civil war with Saudi, Turkey, Israel and others supporting regime change (or simply chaos) hoping to use US military action as a tool for their own aims . . . Not to mention the attitudes of France and Britain . . . strategic decisions do have consequences as history shows . . . and if the Europeans end up with a refugee problem regarding Syria it will be to some extent one of their own making . . .<br />seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-83390411622531542982013-09-18T22:38:19.548-07:002013-09-18T22:38:19.548-07:00Seydlitz - Here is one of your comments from that ...Seydlitz - Here is one of your comments from that May 2011 post when you were asking for US military intervention in Libya:<br /><br /><i>"What happens in the Gulf and Syria won't spill over (in terms of refugees) as in the case with Libya. Imagine the chaos should MQ regain control of the entire country, the masses of refugees attempting to get to Europe . . ."</i><br /><br />Guess what? Those Syrian refugees have bled over into Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and Iraq. They are causing huge problems for the Middle East and will continue to do so for decades or more. And they are attempting to get to Europe now. 2.5 miilion as of last January and those were under-reported. How many now?mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-4787526149866867382013-09-18T16:06:50.762-07:002013-09-18T16:06:50.762-07:00Just as a comparison . . . a MilPub thread from Ma...Just as a comparison . . . a MilPub thread from May 2011, in fact posted 14 May and last comment 17 May . . . FD Chief's post . . . great text and pix btw and the expected level of comments from most of the usual suspects . . . <br /><br />We've been doing this for some time gentlemen . . .<br /><br />http://milpubblog.blogspot.pt/2011/05/its-not-you-really-its-me.htmlseydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-10221096721216710252013-09-18T13:21:16.100-07:002013-09-18T13:21:16.100-07:00seydlitz-
I was not suggesting that chemical weap...seydlitz-<br /><br />I was not suggesting that chemical weapons were a strategic issue. Rather the nature and substance of involvement in Syria's internal conflict. Allowing the chemical weapons issue to drive actions that will most certainly have strategic consequences is dysfunctional. But then, US policy makers seem to relish being overcome by events.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-8047597368943295032013-09-18T02:42:41.059-07:002013-09-18T02:42:41.059-07:00Al-
"There is only one basic strategic quest...Al-<br /><br />"There is only one basic strategic question. Is Putin's approach to the chem weapons right or wrong, or, perhaps more correctly, better or worse than a punitive strike. "<br /><br />Disagree. The basic strategic question has little to do with chemical weapons (which only provide the "moral" excuse for US intervention) and is rather in whose interest is it for the US to get directly involved in the Syrian civil war and overthrow Assad. It seems that BHO has used the Russian option to step away from war which is definitely in US interests imo. But then US "policy" or rather the inherent spasms due to our dysfunctional political relations, is all over the place so we'll see what happens in the next few weeks . . . seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-73919930096062262352013-09-18T02:21:29.190-07:002013-09-18T02:21:29.190-07:00mike-
Russia today is a long way from Russia in 1...mike-<br /><br />Russia today is a long way from Russia in 1945, or even 1995. Russia today as compared to 1945 is not Stalinist, with Stalinist institutions, terror, or an ideology that puts them on a collision course with most of the world. Putin took over a shambles in 2000 left in the wake of Boris Yeltsin. The oligarchs came to power under Yeltsin when he enjoyed full US support for his "economic reforms". <br /><br />I would remind you of the "Harvard Project" . . . notice that Larry Summers, aka "Larry the Turd" was involved . . .<br /><br />http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/Article/1020662/How-Harvard-lost-Russia.html?ArticleId=1020662&single=true#.UjltCKX4cUU<br /><br />Russia was in clear strategic decline in 1999, the year Putin was appointed Prime Minister, but the country has turned around to the point where Russia is able to act quite independently and in the nature of a great power.<br /><br />Putin has been consist in his strategic views. He made essentially this same argument in Munich in 2007 . . .<br /><br />www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021200555.html<br /><br />The US stands before a political abyss, similar and also very different from what Russia had to go through in the 1990s . . . we'll see how we look in 10-20 years time . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-75248100752818979082013-09-17T23:07:06.877-07:002013-09-17T23:07:06.877-07:00seydlitz wrote: "He's simply providing t...seydlitz wrote: <i><b>"He's simply providing the American people and their leaders with a short primer of how Great Powers operate . . . or in the case of the US, could operate. Nothing more than that . . "</b></i><br /><br />There can be no geopolitical objectives without domestic political objectives. Putin appears to be addressing "The American People" in a manner to influence domestic politics to result in a new geopolitical outlook. After all, the uniformed technocrats at DOD, who ideally should have no domestic political agenda, are not enamored with the idea of a strike on Syria.<br /><br />Don't really matter what Russia's domestic politics happen to be when addressing what international politics should be. Putin is not attempting to promote their political system. That ended with the fall of the USSR and the drive for "World Communism".<br /><br />There is only one basic strategic question. Is Putin's approach to the chem weapons right or wrong, or, perhaps more correctly, better or worse than a punitive strike. As far as his motives and revisionist history, what difference does than make? His delivery was intended to sway a constituency. Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.com