The new Cold War.

[zerojunkie]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/21a28d08-dc...0779e2340.html

Russian newspapers looked back six decades on Friday as they reacted with alarm and indignation to Dick Cheney’s rebuke of Russia in Vilnius, some warning it marked the dawn of a new cold war.

[PETA]

yeah - better be nice to the Russians or - um - or - um - well - we just better

[Rufus Punk]

I don't see anything of the sort. Russia is a bunch of splintered countries that are secretly still one (by way of imposed pressures from the government). The U.S.S.R as a whole is no more, but the individual fingers from the hand are more deadly than the weak fist it could possibly make.

The Baltic Sea region is notorious for already doing business with the East.

If anything, Cheney's statements prove only our arrogance, but serve as nothing else.

[GLopez]

"Here's my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose."
- Ronald Reagan-

[Hey Bubu]

Iran + N. Korea = New lukewarm war

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by rufuspunk

If anything, Cheney's statements prove only our arrogance, but serve as nothing else.

waaaa, do explain...Russia's involvment in eastern European political shenanigans are pretty widely known.

[Rufus Punk]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

waaaa, do explain...Russia's involvment in eastern European political shenanigans are pretty widely known.

Oh, I don't doubt that part of it. The following supports that,

Originally Posted by rufuspunk

Russia is a bunch of splintered countries that are secretly still one (by way of imposed pressures from the[ir] government).

BUT the Euros (in both senses of the word, people and monetary denomination) are not held by them and their full grasp. In short, there would have to be a lot more clamor than Cheney's words to spark enough vitriol to get the WHOLE to swing against us, IMHO.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by rufuspunk

I don't see anything of the sort. Russia is a bunch of splintered countries that are secretly still one (by way of imposed pressures from the government). The U.S.S.R as a whole is no more, but the individual fingers from the hand are more deadly than the weak fist it could possibly make.

The Baltic Sea region is notorious for already doing business with the East.

If anything, Cheney's statements prove only our arrogance, but serve as nothing else.

Disagree.

First, the 3 Baltics are independant and aren't going back absent Russian tanks rolling in (though there is precedent for that)

Second, the central asian republics are aligned only loosely with Russia and in varying degrees republic to republic

Third, Ukraine fought hard to avoid being a Russian client - the Orange revolution

the Caucusus - what a mess - fighting largely to see who'll get the transportation fees for Caspian oil

all that aside - Russia itself is huge - HUGE - and it does have imperialist aims to gather back its lost provinces

Russia IS strong inthe sense that it always has been - - no state on earth could invade and take the territory, its resources in population and raw materials are huge (makes one wonder how such a rich state could be so fucked up and poor) anyway - blah blah blah

lastly, Russia's trying to dominate the world energy market we'll se how that plays out

Originally Posted by rufuspunk

BUT the Euros (in both senses of the word, people and monetary denomination) are not held by them and their full grasp. In short, there would have to be a lot more clamor than Cheney's words to spark enough vitriol to get the WHOLE to swing against us, IMHO.

ah, that much is true...


however, Cheney's comments were simply calling a duck a duck - which is not arrogant - just blunt

[Rufus Punk]

Originally Posted by xian

Second, the central asian republics are aligned only loosely with Russia and in varying degrees republic to republic

Ukraine -> Black Sea -> N. Korea -> Nukes = Wh-wh-what?

Originally Posted by xian

all that aside - Russia itself is huge - HUGE - and it does have imperialist aims to gather back its lost provinces

Ever since the crushing blow to its economic status in the 90's, it has always wanted to go back to being one, but there is no way for them to do so that would be allowed by the modern world (it would be tantamount to Saddam going after Kuwait in 1991).

Originally Posted by xian

Russia IS strong inthe sense that it always has been - - no state on earth could invade and take the territory, its resources in population and raw materials are huge (makes one wonder how such a rich state could be so fucked up and poor) anyway - blah blah blah

Agree with the implied thought, but not the sense that it is anything other than semi-political "muscle" tough.

Originally Posted by xian

lastly, Russia's trying to dominate the world energy market we'll se how that plays out

If they win that right by political ply, then yes, we would ALL have something to fear.

[E-Nice]

i dont believe the iraq insurgancy is just funded just by radical islam. every powerful nation stands to make significant military gains by our failure there. it's nothing personal; we always put the screws to others when they have their little military expeditions too(afghanistan 1980s).

time had an article a while back that claimed china has programs that perpetually attempt to hack govt pc networks. i find it an amazing feat that china puts together nukes identical to ours 10 times faster than we did when they were initially developed. in fact, some folks say they might even have stole our prints. i don't believe it though. it's coincidential.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by rufuspunk

BUT the Euros (in both senses of the word, people and monetary denomination) are not held by them and their full grasp. In short, there would have to be a lot more clamor than Cheney's words to spark enough vitriol to get the WHOLE to swing against us, IMHO.

Right, he said they weren't holding true to democratic tenets. I don't think that's arrogant since most people would probably agree.

[zerojunkie]

Originally Posted by E-Nice

i dont believe the iraq insurgancy is just funded just by radical islam. every powerful nation stands to make significant military gains by our failure there. it's nothing personal; we always put the screws to others when they have their little military expeditions too(afghanistan 1980s).

I wouldn't use Afghanistan as such a general example...that was very much payback for Russia's involvement in Vietnam. It would be a major row if it was found a country like Russia or China was funding Al Qaeda, not to mention incredibly stupid. I don't think a nation like that would stand to gain much from providing financial aid, a certainly not compared to what they would loose should we find out.

[Adam D]

Trans-Dniester is still holding it down for the USSR. What a bunch of cooks.

[E-Nice]

Originally Posted by zerojunkie

I wouldn't use Afghanistan as such a general example...that was very much payback for Russia's involvement in Vietnam. It would be a major row if it was found a country like Russia or China was funding Al Qaeda, not to mention incredibly stupid. I don't think a nation like that would stand to gain much from providing financial aid, a certainly not compared to what they would loose should we find out.

you say payback, i say posturing. I think they would fund even in the korean, nam and afghan conflicts never existed. there is more going on in iraq than al-qaeda. some of the militias are 10-20k strong. you say it would be incredably stupid. why? Think about how far the communist dollar went in Vietnam. rice and bullets. That little expediture fcked up the military for a whole decade. when I was in, i remember the old timers talking about the poor quality of enlistees and fucked moral after nam up until midway reagan.

besides if they were to have their finger in the pie could we punish them by limiting business? We'd only be hurting ourselves. Don't think for a second that world powers aren't perpetually looking for ways to weaken the US militarily (it's an economic thing too). We just provided them the ultimate opportunity by occupying in Islam, which historically has never, ever, worked out.

also, financing such ventures is untraceable. its just a little extra oil money. pick your intermediary country; saudi or iran.

by suggesting that russia or china would never fund our enemy i think you have a very limited perspective on our relationship with them and world affairs. just yesterday they announced no sanctions or action against iran. why? do they want iran to join the nuke club so they can seen effectivally as equals in that respect? or is it just to fuck with the US policy and military planners. i choose the later.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by rufuspunk

Ukraine -> Black Sea -> N. Korea -> Nukes = Wh-wh-what?

OK Brian - unwrap that - what do you mean?

The Ukrain and NK are not buddies. NK has nothing to do with the Black Sea. They do both have nukes - or so it would be foolish to thik otherwise.

Originally Posted by rufuspunk

Ever since the crushing blow to its economic status in the 90's, it has always wanted to go back to being one, but there is no way for them to do so that would be allowed by the modern world (it would be tantamount to Saddam going after Kuwait in 1991).

Actually that crushing blow came in the 80s - the collapse of the hollow center came about in about 1991. The 90s saw remarkable ups and downs but there was a lot of wealth created.

Originally Posted by rufuspunk

Agree with the implied thought, but not the sense that it is anything other than semi-political "muscle" tough.

Russia does have power through more than just political muscle. It has technology and natural resources as well.

Originally Posted by rufuspunk

If they win that right by political ply, then yes, we would ALL have something to fear.

they have a lot of oil and control a lot of territory over which much of it must (or could) be transported - - this permits a large degree of control - - I think they'll run into some pretty strong confrontation with China and India whose demand for petroleum is increasing in leaps and bounds