74 replies to this topic

[Cyberbrain]

Russia targets missiles at Ukraine

[basho]

More and more we are building an army that cannot support itself and instead is totally dependent on the private sector to provide support, a private sector that is unaccountable and will not operate if it is held accountable under international law.

Outsourcing of work related to national security is never good. It opens up all sorts of security holes. Worse, such a tight coupling of government and corporations in military affairs is a major step towards the worst form of corporatism where businesses start calling the shots and war is encouraged for reasons of profit.

[Cyberbrain]

More and more we are building an army that cannot support itself and instead is totally dependent on the private sector to provide support, a private sector that is unaccountable and will not operate if it is held accountable under international law.

Outsourcing of work related to national security is never good. It opens up all sorts of security holes. Worse, such a tight coupling of government and corporations in military affairs is a major step towards the worst form of corporatism where businesses start calling the shots and war is encouraged for reasons of profit.

Actually the US military has always been dependent on the private market for everything! Guns, tanks, food, uniforms, etc. The US army never really manufactured anything to begin with. Sure they have their own advertising, but even for research, DARPA for example doesn't really have any labs. They just pay private or university groups to do all the research. While it's sad, every war we fought was essentially fought to create to new economic ventures or for resources.

Oh unless if you guys were talking about companies like Black Water ... then yeah we're heading to pretty bad corporatism.

Edited by Kostas, 12 February 2008 - 11:31 PM.

[struct]

The first serious battle of the new Cold War has been fought, and Russia has lost it badly. The Kosovo region of the former Yugoslavia has boldly declared its independence from Serbian enslavement, thumbing its nose at Russian power in the region, and the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Turkey have recognized the new country immediately. More than half of the European Union member states support independence, and concerted Russian efforts to block the move proved futile. The EU "is sending a justice and law mission of 2,000 police, judges and administrators to Pristina." The U.S. announced that it "had given $77 million in assistance to Kosovo in 2007 and would raise that amount to roughly $335 million in 2008."

http://publiuspundit..._1_russia_0.php

[niner]

The first serious battle of the new Cold War has been fought, and Russia has lost it badly. The Kosovo region of the former Yugoslavia has boldly declared its independence from Serbian enslavement, thumbing its nose at Russian power in the region, and the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Turkey have recognized the new country immediately. More than half of the European Union member states support independence, and concerted Russian efforts to block the move proved futile. The EU "is sending a justice and law mission of 2,000 police, judges and administrators to Pristina." The U.S. announced that it "had given $77 million in assistance to Kosovo in 2007 and would raise that amount to roughly $335 million in 2008."

http://publiuspundit..._1_russia_0.php

From Steve Clemons at The Washington Note comes this analysis:

Kosovo has declared independence and America will recognize it as a state. Consequently, Russia will eventually make us pay a high price in other aspects of our national security portfolio for this international sleight-of-hand.

What saddens me is that I have learned from a source close to the Kremlin that the Russians secretly suggested a road map and time table for Kosovo independence to the Bush administration. The Russians would never have been pleased with Kosovo going it alone -- but there were things to manage Russian issues with Georgia, Serbia, Kosovo and the region that could have been simultaneously managed to keep both sides from undermining the other.

The Russians believe that their suggestions were ignored because the U.S. wanted to be able to declare a victory -- which is harder to do when negotiating outcomes that are face-saving to both sides.

America and NATO will now be in less of a position to help Georgia and other former Eastern European states and the US may pay a price in its ability to forge a common position with Russia on Iran.

[niner]

The U.S. announced that it "had given $77 million in assistance to Kosovo in 2007 and would raise that amount to roughly $335 million in 2008."

What the FSCK. "the US is giving 335 million to Kosovo"? Did I read that right?

Yes, why bother helping the 36 million of its OWN citizens that are below the poverty line? Or, I don't know, fund some research to find a cure for Alzheimers or Parkinsons, or even cancer. No, who needs that! Instead lets send 335 million dollars (that's more than a third of a billion, by the way) to Kosovo. Even though most of the world doesn't give a damn about whatever that is or their war of "independance".

Yeah, we could have given each of our impoverished citizens $9.31. I know they would have appreciated that bit of largess. Curiously, some people care a great deal about Kosovo. Like the Russians, for example.

You might want to take a look at the US federal budget. Check out the fraction that goes to foreign aid.

[niner]

Yeah, we could have given each of our impoverished citizens $9.31. I know they would have appreciated that bit of largess.

Yes, well, apparently you've missed the point of me subtly hinting that "lets indiscriminately give out money to random people" is a bad strategy of defeating poverty. Or anything else, for that matter.

Curiously, some people care a great deal about Kosovo. Like the Russians, for example.

Well, awesome. I am so very very happy for them. So with that in mind, lets leave the caring to the Russians, and concentrate on something important like, say, curing aging. You know, the goal that may or may not benefit 6.7 billion people, and not just a fraction of population from a 2 million Republic?

You might want to take a look at the US federal budget. Check out the fraction that goes to foreign aid.

Honestly, I am repulsed and appalled that there is a fraction there to begin with.

It's not about defeating poverty. It's called "Nation Building". The thing that Republicans sniffed derisively at, until five years, a trillion dollars, 4000 dead and 30000 maimed Americans and god knows how many dead Iraqis later, they decided it might be a pretty good idea after all.

Caring at least a little bit about what other people care a great deal about is how you avoid wars and other disasters. It's how you avoid airplanes flying into skyscrapers.

A third of a billion dollars is slightly larger than the Golden Parachute for a failed CEO. It wouldn't come close to buying a single decent bomber. If it was all yours, it might not even get you on the Forbes 400. But that's not the real point. The real point is that foreign aid, properly applied, is an investment that will pay very large dividends. Our foreign aid budget is not always properly applied. That could be improved a lot.

[niner]

The real point is that foreign aid, properly applied, is an investment that will pay very large dividends.

Curious: Please provide real life examples.

Marshall Plan.

[PWAIN]

Back on topic, I seriously doubt Russias ability to really wage a sucessful cold war.

It simply does not have the economic clout, the structure or focus to do so. Russia's economy may look much rosier that it did previously but dig a bit deeper and it becomes obvious that it is completly dependent on high oil and gas prices. Note that when Yeltsin left office, oil was around $10 - $15 a barrel and had been for some time. Gold and gas were also significantly cheaper. Now with oil hovering around $90 - $95 a barrel, the economy is much stronger - coincidence? Not likely, Russian manufacturing, agriculture and services are far from world class.

At the time of the cold war we were dealing with the soviet union which had twice the population. It also had nearly twice the land and a lot of strategic positions to put it's weapon systems. It also had a complete disregard for those in the satellite states and tapped them for money generation. It also spent most of it's budget on military and had an iron fist to crack down on anything internal that it felt like. (Admittedly they are starting to crack down but mostly it is for political gain. It also had a philosophy (communism) that it could use to preach to the people how everything is going to be much better one day when communism is achieved (it never was). Finally it had China fully onside, dependent and following the same philosophy.

Russias posturing is for internal use only. It is trying to make it's people proud - especially near election time. I bet things warm up really quickly after the elections. It is a shame that most don't get this. Russia cannot take on America any more other than with Nukes. The US is doing all it can to neutralise this threat and Russia know that at the end of the day there is nothing they can do about this - but they will still go through the motions. Russia is having great difficulty accepting that it is not a superpower anymore but the government is trying to deceive its people into believing that they are. Britain went through this in the first half of the last century and America will have to do the same this century as both China and India take the centre stage.

Don't mix nostalgia with real capability.

[Rational Madman]

Back on topic, I seriously doubt Russias ability to really wage a sucessful cold war.

It simply does not have the economic clout, the structure or focus to do so. Russia's economy may look much rosier that it did previously but dig a bit deeper and it becomes obvious that it is completly dependent on high oil and gas prices. Note that when Yeltsin left office, oil was around $10 - $15 a barrel and had been for some time. Gold and gas were also significantly cheaper. Now with oil hovering around $90 - $95 a barrel, the economy is much stronger - coincidence? Not likely, Russian manufacturing, agriculture and services are far from world class.

At the time of the cold war we were dealing with the soviet union which had twice the population. It also had nearly twice the land and a lot of strategic positions to put it's weapon systems. It also had a complete disregard for those in the satellite states and tapped them for money generation. It also spent most of it's budget on military and had an iron fist to crack down on anything internal that it felt like. (Admittedly they are starting to crack down but mostly it is for political gain. It also had a philosophy (communism) that it could use to preach to the people how everything is going to be much better one day when communism is achieved (it never was). Finally it had China fully onside, dependent and following the same philosophy.

Russias posturing is for internal use only. It is trying to make it's people proud - especially near election time. I bet things warm up really quickly after the elections. It is a shame that most don't get this. Russia cannot take on America any more other than with Nukes. The US is doing all it can to neutralise this threat and Russia know that at the end of the day there is nothing they can do about this - but they will still go through the motions. Russia is having great difficulty accepting that it is not a superpower anymore but the government is trying to deceive its people into believing that they are. Britain went through this in the first half of the last century and America will have to do the same this century as both China and India take the centre stage.

Don't mix nostalgia with real capability.

I don't think anyone intellectually serious has made the argument that the former strategic rivalry will return to its former intensity, but the dangers of miscalculation shouldn't be underestimated, since Russia is not incapable of causing considerable disorder, and since many policymakers continue to harbor real fears about the prospect of encirclement and subjugation. Russia does not need to achieve parity with the United States to remain a threat, it only needs to retain the capacity to frustrate our plans, and threaten our interests. And as long as it remains as an entity, such a capacity will be inexorable. So it would behoove American policymakers to proceed with the "reset" with all earnestness, and to begin construction on areas of mutual interest.

[bsmith86]

Cold war is not the only option left for Russia, they should change their way of thinking. I want to say that now a days everyone is increasing their power like preparing themselves from a long run battle which could be capable of destroying half of the world.