Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Flag Next Entry
Russia ‘Resets’ U.S. Relations … Back to Cold War Era by Kim Ziegfield

So much for the “reset.” It’s business as usual for the freedom-hating Russians, and that means trying to undermine the United States by any means possible — up to and including nuclear weapons.

No sooner had Barack Obama returned from his first visit to Moscow, at which he attempted to reset relations with Russia by holding out the hand of friendship (and practically begging for nuclear arms reductions) in a manner eerily similar to the kiss Jimmy Carter bestowed on Leonid Brezhnev, than for the first time since the collapse of the USSR two nuclear-powered attack submarines were found patrolling international waters off the American coastline.

It’s unknown whether these subs carried missiles that could strike the U.S., but it’s clear that if they didn’t, the only reason would be that Russia’s creaking, rust-bucket sub strike force can’t currently be mobilized for that purpose. Yet another SLBM recently misfired on launch after a test (now more failures have occurred than successful launches), so the Kremlin sacked its top nuclear missile official and went back to the drawing board. In other words, following a meeting with Obama, Russia immediately returned to its disturbing pattern of harassing the United States with direct strategic provocation, something the U.S. hasn’t done to Russia since the Cold War “ended” years ago.

So much for the naïve president’s effort to make friends with the KGB thugs who prowl the Kremlin.

Last December, for the first time since World War II, Russia sent a warship through the Panama Canal. A month before that, Russian navy ships participated in war games with the forces of psychotic Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, publicly sworn to the destruction of the U.S. Russia has long been providing huge quantities of military hardware to Chavez and it has been aggressively seeking to reestablish military support for Cuba as well. Five months ago, Russia announced it was exploring the basing of nuclear bombers in either Cuba or Venezuela. In September 2008, Russia had actually landed two nuclear bombers at a Venezuelan airbase.

In February 2008, two Russian strategic bombers buzzed the U.S. carrier Nimitz, and the carrier group had to scramble fighter jets to ward them off. One flew directly above the carrier at an altitude of just 2,000 feet, clearly displaying an open intent to terrify and provoke.

In August 2007, two Russian bombers harassed the U.S. military base in Guam, again forcing the emergency scrambling of attack aircraft to ward off the threat — the first time such a challenge had been mounted since the end of the Cold War.

In September 2007, fighters were scrambled against six Russian bombers that were flying perilously close to Alaska. Since then, buzzing Alaska has become a ritualistic practice. So far this year, Russia has done it thirteen separate times, including three times while Obama was in Moscow, a direct slap at the new American president.

The threat posed by such conduct is so obvious it hardly needs to be stated: the slightest mistake could easily be viewed as an act of war and Russia has already started making those mistakes. In February 2008, a Russian nuclear bomber crossed into Japanese airspace and two dozen attack aircraft were scrambled. Warnings were repeatedly given to the Russian warplane, but it ignored them. It was the second act of provocation that week; just days before the Japanese had been put on alert by an overflight of four strategic bombers.

There are no examples of Russia scrambling attack aircraft to ward off American nuclear bombers menacing Russian targets since the end of the Cold War. On the contrary, after meeting with Vladimir Putin in Slovenia in 2001, George W. Bush infamously declared that he had “looked the man in the eye” and got a “sense of his soul” and “found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy.” Bush never retaliated tit-for-tat to the Russian provocations, yet for more than two years now Russia has been aggressively seeking to reestablish Cold War tensions.

Bush, at least, finally got the message. He vigorously pursued a missile defense shield for Eastern Europe despite howls of protest from the Kremlin, yet Obama has done nothing but back away from this plan since taking office. Obama’s display of weakness during his recent visit to Moscow so panicked Eastern Europe that a large cadre of its most prominent citizens felt the need to write him an open letter imploring him not to sell them out to the Russians.

But forget about protecting Europe. Is Obama capable of protecting our own shores? Despite expressing a desire to “reset” relations and dial down tensions, there’s no indication Obama has said a word about all this nuclear brinkmanship from Russia. To the contrary, it’s quite clear that his equivocation is being perceived as weakness by Russia and thus as an opportunity to escalate tensions in the hope that Obama will, in fact, sell out not only Eastern Europe but also the Caucasus region and Central Asia, giving Putin a free hand to reestablish the Soviet empire.

The acid test for Obama is Georgia. Europe has just announced plans to go forward with a pipeline called Nabucco which will circumvent Russia and allow Europe to tap directly into Central Asia’s vast stores of natural gas. The pipeline runs straight through the heart of Georgia. No sooner had the announcement been made than Russia was seeking to provoke Georgia by grabbing even more Georgian territory than it obtained last August by annexing Ossetia and Abkhazia and accusing Georgia of responding with military force. President Eduard Kokoity of South Ossetia has been making declarations about restoring additional chunks of his “native land” and asking Russia for an even bigger military presence on his soil.

Expert Pavel Felgenhauer, who correctly predicted the last invasion, is blunt: “Russia is preparing the ground for a new war against Georgia with the goal of overturning the regime.” If Obama’s equivocations lead to the neo-Soviet annexation of Georgia and the escalation of Russia’s energy war against Europe, history will not be kind to the Obama presidency.

Obama spoke with Russian “president” Dmitri Medvedev on Tuesday and raised U.S. concerns about Georgia, but American policy remains hopelessly vague and, as such, an invitation to Russian aggression. Nobody in the White House will say whether Obama even discussed the military harassment issue. And where is Republican leadership on these issues? History will not judge the party kindly either if it fails to step into the vacuum created by the Obama administration.

  • 1
The problem is not knowing this. The problem is how the world leaders handle this issue. Saying "But Oh BeloRussian president is the last dictator in Europe" and at the same time shaking hands with massive murderers like Putin and Medvedev is just fucking ridiculous to me. You know what Lukashenko even with his all problems and autocratic style is not an invader/military agressor/energy blackmailer and so on, but those KGB scum in Kremlin are. The only difference is Lukashenko does not have nukes or gas and Oil, so EU and US can justify their hard line. What about Putin's Russia??? I think the world community will be fucked again if they continue to ignore the basic laws of international law. Even today much more people would rather criticize Georgian government for "mistakes" that "made" Putin invade Georgia than just say the simple truth, which is very obvious. It always was and is, but it's though to understand it if Kremlin pays you money, like Shroeder and many scum like him.

I think the history will prove once again that the Churchill was right:
"The belief that security can be obtained by throwing a small state to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm

Tis Goes not only to states like Georgia, but also KGB annihilated nations like Chechens, Dagestanians, Ingushetians and most of Russians too btw. This people are enslaved.

some answers can be found in comparing these 2 documents

1. http://americantownmeeting.net/Essays.php

The First Time I Heard of Barack

During the period of roughly February 1992 to mid 1994, I was making frequent trips to Moscow, Russia, in the process of starting a software development joint-venture company with some people from the Russian scientific community. One of the men in charge on the Russian side was named V. M.; he had a wife named T.M.

V. was a level-headed scientist while his wife was rather deeply committed to the losing Communist cause - a cause she obviously was not abandoning.

One evening, during a trip early in 1992, the American half of our venture were invited to V. & T.'s Moscow flat as we were about to return to the States. The party went well and we had the normal dinner discussions.

As the evening wore on, T. developed a decidedly rough anti-American edge - one her husband tried to quietly rein in.

The bottom line of the tirade she started against the United States went something like this:

"You Americans always like to think that you have the perfect government and your people are always so perfect. Well then, why haven't you had a woman president by now? You had a chance to vote for a woman vice-president and you didn't do it."

The general response went something along the lines that you don't vote for someone just because of their sex. Besides, you don't vote for vice-president, but the president and vice-president as a ticket.

"Well, I think you are going to be surprised when you get a black president very soon."

The consensus we expressed was that we didn't think there was anything innately barring that. The right person at the right time and sure, America would try to vote for the right person, be he or she black or not.

"What if I told you that you will have a black president very soon and he will be a Communist?"

The out-of-the-blue remark was met by our stares. She continued, "Well, you will; and he will be a Communist."

It was then that the husband unsuccessfully tried to change the subject; but she was on a roll and would have nothing of it. One of us asked, "It sounds like you know something we don't know."

"Yes, it is true. This is not some idle talk. He is already born and he is educated and being groomed to be president right now. You will be impressed to know that he has gone to the best schools of Presidents. He is what you call "Ivy League". You don't believe me, but he is real and I even know his name. His name is Barack. His mother is white and American and his father is black from Africa. That's right, a chocolate baby! And he's going to be your President."

She became more and more smug as she presented her stream of detailed knowledge and predictions so matter-of-factly - as though all were foregone conclusions. "It's all been thought out. His father is not an American black so he won't have that social slave stigma. He is intelligent and he is half white and has been raised from the cradle to be an atheist and a Communist. He's gone to the finest schools. He is being guided every step of the way and he will be irresistible to America."

We sat there not knowing what to say. She was obviously very happy that the Communists were doing this and that it would somehow be a thumbing of their collective noses at America: they would give us a black president and he'd be a Communist to boot. She made it quite obvious that she thought that this was going to breathe new life into world Communism. From this and other conversations with her, she always asserted that Communism was far from dead.

She was full of little details about him that she was eager to relate. I thought that maybe she was trying to show off that this truly was a real person and not just hot air.

She rattled off a complete litany. He was from Hawaii. He went to school in California. He lived in Chicago. He was soon to be elected to the legislature. "Have no doubt: he is one of us, a Soviet."

At one point, she related some sort of San Francisco connection, but I didn't understand what the point was and don't recall much about that. I was just left with the notion that she considered the city to be some sort of a center for their activity here.

ending is here

Re: some answers can be found in comparing these 2 documents

Well it is unfortunately clear that Obama is a spineless and very weak leader on the world stage. I hope at least he will do good for his country in inner reforms. As for foreign policy... everything is already clear. The world will pay for this mistake of not containing oil dictatorships right now, the future generations will be even under a bigger threat. And Russians and their neighbors will not see any dignity for times to come...

Jan Sejna, We Will Bury You


page 153

Soviet ambitions towards the United States were aimed at the
extinction of Capitalism and the 'socialization' of America, which
the) believed would be the last surviving dinosaur of the Capitalist
System. The main strategic goals on the road to their fulfilment were:

the withdrawal of the U.S.A. from Europe and Asia;

the removal of Latin America from the United States' sphere of influence and its incorporation into the Socialist bloc;

the destruction of United States influence in the developing world; the reduction of American military power to a state of strategic inferiority;

the advent to power in Washington of a transitional liberal and progressive government;

and the collapse of the American economy.

The Soviet planners speculated that the United States would reach a 'pre-revolutionary situation' by about 1990.

The Ideological Department of the Czech Central Committee was
frankly sceptical about these Soviet projections.

To us Czechs the United States seemed a great and stable monolith with far greater powers of resistance than the Russians calculated. Konstantin Katushev, Secretary of the Soviet Central Committee, came to Prague in
September 1967 to give us an oral briefing.

He countered our scepticism by telling us that the United States was a volatile society.

'It can move to either extreme,' he said, 'as we've seen in the
Macarthy period and the Vietnam war. If we can impose on the U.S.A.
the external restraints proposed in our Plan, and seriously disrupt the
American economy, the working and the lower middle classes will
suffer the consequences and they will turn on the society that has failed
them. They will be ready for revolution.'

Paradoxically, he went on, America's enormous progress in tech-
nology was a de-stabilizing influence because it led to unemployment
among unskilled workers and widened the social gap between the
technocracy and the masses.

'This phenomenon,' pronounced Katushev, 'is one I consider the
United States cannot deal with.' But he admitted that there was a chance
that when the masses turned on their society the United States might
swing violently to the right.

'It's more likely, however, that a progressive regime will emerge
because, in spite of their power, the governing bureaucratic and in-
dustrial elite, and the media, are fundamentally liberal in their outlook
and ashamed of their failure to solve basic national problems.'

Marshal Zhakarov visited Prague in the same year to bring us orders
from the Soviet Politburo to polish up our efforts to recruit 'high-level
agents of influence' in the American Government, media, and academic
elite to whom power was increasingly passing from the hands of the old
industrial plutocracy.

  • 1