Alexander Nevsky's Battle on the Ice.
Angela Merkel's re-election is highly probable and is the pay-off for Merkel's move to team up with Moscow and Medvedev/Putin these last months. You recall after POTUS's clumsy and petulant mission to Moscow in early July, Medvedev raced to Munich to attend what Merkel described as a "Repair Summit." That was when they agreed to the Berlin-Moscow Alliance. Moscow agreed to help finance Merkel by using hot money in Euro banks (stolen by Yeltstin) to back up the Canadian Magna purchase of Opel. And other rewards. Putin speaks German; Merkel speaks Russian. The deal was sealed in the meeting on Black Sea in August. Merkel declared that she regards Obama administration policies detrimental to German interests. Putin agreed. Since then, Russia has moved to support arms deals with Caracas and Havana, to sortie attack submarines in the old boomer lanes off the US coast, and to declare Joe Biden's remarks about Ukraine and Georgia to be prankish. Steve Cohen regards the Moscow work with Berlin a natural development out of eight centuries of conflict and conversation. Alexander Nevsky's "Battle on the Ice" replaced by "Pow-wow on the Black Sea."
NATO Moves.
NATO's strategic review by Norway's Fogh Rasmussen, the new Secretary-General of NATO, aims at rebuilding Europe so that Russia and NATO combine defenses, chiefly air defenses, against a rogue state attack. Rasmussen also wants to find a way to include Ukraine and Georgia without triggering Russian might. The Rasmussen review was the background for the Obama administration climb-down on Star Wars in East Europe. However, poor timing has moved the topic from EU strategy to American politics. Lech Walsea of Poland condemns the move. The GOP and others join in opposition. What makes all this more complex is that the Berlin-Moscow Alliance is meant to keep out Washington. NATO is now capable of going over to Moscow. Is this a bad choice? Not for Europe, since it is dependent upon Russia for oil and gas, especially gas. What does it mean for Washington? Putin and Medvedev disregard POTUS. The enmity deepens. Berlin and the about to be re-elected and strengthened Merkel side with Moscow's oilfields. Savvy and practical Germans. While the Obama administration is flirting with isolationism in the Middle East and Asia, it looks to have been isolated in the North Atlantic. Diplomacy is perception. Weak and strong and sly and naive are how they keep score. Putin is strong and sly. POTUS?
Who makes foreign policy in this administration?? they are the invisibles--Hillary, Susan, et al. The only name I ever hear is Hollbrook. they could be clever and discrete or they could just be having doughnuts and coffee looking pitifully at hungry african children or marooned polar bears.
But I find myself not really having the old cold war instincts to push back and Russia and schmooze Germany back into our sphere. I'm sick of Europe. take our troops out of there.
Europe is probably going to start another world war with each other and we'll be called on to come in and straighten it out again.
Time for the USA to play the China card for awhile. and its hard to blame Germany. The US is too dumb or immobilized to solve its own energy problems and Germany has to fuel its own economy. And they will eventually regret their deal with the devil.
Is there maybe something behind the curtain? Did BO really cancel the Poland missle shielf on the day the UN finally decides Iran can make a bomb? are they that out of touch? or was there a bargain worked out between BO, Bibi, etc.?
Or....are the BO's just that inept?
Bad week for BO I think. Pelosi goes weepy, Carter goes racial (good old Ed Koch called Carter and "idiot" tonight on Bloomberg radio, Poles are pissed, German is cheating on US, Iran has a bomb, Acorn is falling from the tree, Chavez closes down nearly all the remaining radio stations, 7 CIA directors call for the investigation to be reversed... ....boohoo.
Weak & Naive
I said months ago that the Obama presidency would bring about a shift in global alliances. We had always been known as the leader of the 'free world'. Those who shared our ideals were considered our allies; those who did not were considered our adversaries. Now that we have so openly displayed our weakness (under this administration) there is no longer any reason for anyone to side with us. No one needs us for money, for we are bankrupt; no one needs us for protection, for we refuse to fight. No one even needs us as a credible adversary.
The betrayal and handover of an eviscerated America will not be celebrated by our enemies. They will not hate us less. Neither will they reward Obama for it. We will quietly slip into irrelevancy - like Myanmar; like North Korea. Some future dictator might even find it necessary to extort aid from the successful nations and build a bomb.
The world will laugh at our bravado; they will know that there is nothing behind our threats; our boasts; that we have squandered all we had to atone for the sex crime of a former American president.
As usual I disagree with the assumption that the US has gone weak and that we are quietly slipping into irrelevance and that it's because of a plan perpetrated by the PotUS. It's easy to say things without presenting facts for the arguments which makes them not debatable arguments, but, just some person's speculation. An uninformed speculation at that.
It should be an affront to everyone here for someone to accuse the good people who put their lives on the line in service to our country as civilians, military, and public servants that we won't fight for what's right or that we don't have any allies and even if we did, we wouldn't come to their aid in a time of need. It shows a great disregard and disdain to make such broad allegations without any basis. In nice terms, I guess it would be comparable to bearing false witness. Time after time we hear these declarations delivered in the manner of a prophet. Now, it's claimed that global alliances have shifted and he predicted they would as part of the plot to deliver US up to the devil.
If there was even an iota of reality to what Peter writes about I might be able to let it pass and not rebut. However, there is not. If Peter would spend a little time trying to find out the machinations that are driving the nation's policies around the world he would know that we never have been everything to everyone who shares our values and we shouldn't have to be. And everyone that happens to not have our view of the world or doesn't hold our ideals as theirs automatically makes them an adversary.
Personally, I wish it were true that we have begun to require friendly nations to not need US for money; not to need US to protect them; or need US for a credible adversary. But, that isn't the reality either.
Virtually every day, this President presents the American cause for liberty, freedom, responsibility, self reliance, and self determination. Most recently, today in the presentation of the MoH to Jared Monti's family. I took some excerpts from his remarks:
"Duty. Honor. Country. Service. Sacrifice. Heroism. These are words of weight. But as people -- as a people and as a culture, we often invoke them lightly. We toss them around freely. But do we really grasp the meaning of these values? Do we truly understand the nature of these virtues? To serve, and to sacrifice. Jared Monti knew. The Monti family knows. And they know that the actions we honor today were not a passing moment of courage. They were the culmination of a life of character and commitment.'
'Compassion. Perseverance. Strength. A love for his fellow soldiers. Those are the values that defined Jared Monti's life -- and the values he displayed in the actions that we recognize here today.'
'It was written long ago that "the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet, notwithstanding, go out to meet it." Jared Monti saw the danger before him. And he went out to meet it.'
'May God bless Jared Monti, and may He comfort the entire Monti family. And may God bless the United States of America."
People believe what they want to believe, but I, for one, wouldn't want to stand in front of the the Monti family and tell them that their President has betrayed their country.
Upon first hearing Cohen on the show, he irked me to no end. Now, I believe that he has it exactly right.
Even though there are major pipelines scheduled to be built that will bring natural gas into Europe from Middle and Near East sources, they are reliant on the East to West connection and that will not change for many years. As a whole, Europe knows that Russia has no problem turning the tap and putting the squeeze on their customers if they aren't happy with payments, terms, or politics. They have proven that and the impetus is there to engage rather than set up some confrontational regimen, especially with winter coming on.
The good news is that the Russians are showing that they are very much interested in coming out of the shadows which they seem to have great difficulty in accomplishing. These birthing pangs are not entirely a bad thing. If they truly desire to be involved in the region then the regional players can help influence the direction in which they interact. I think we see this all the time as the former satellites and empirical states consistently bicker and rebuff Moscow in demonstrations of independent will.
I applaud the NATO proposition and I agree with the US position to adjust and adapt concerning the MDS. Russia is a great nation and should be recognized as such. The struggle to contend with the past doesn't mean that they should be considered as a pariah forever. In this, they share common cause with Germany.
The KremWerks matter is for another discussion. I'll just say that Cash in Advance might be their terms for payment.
As a sign of what is wrong with our country now a days check out how many Medals of Honor have been awarded to living members of our military...none for either Iran and Afghanistan. So our standard has become--Medal of Honor, dead hero. This doesn't mean there isn't living possible Medal of Honor holders for the "war on Terror" just that our current culture doesn't believe we have living heroes. (Seriously--suddenly we are all about "with your shield or on it"--why is that? Those who return are shown as victims versus honored; oh, yes treated better than those returning from Viet Nam but with no less disdain--"you who so foolishly spent your lives for so little"). I am not implying this is you Spenser by the way, just tired of how what the military does is being portrayed.
With that issue off my chest let me say that NATO has had Russia inside it's ring for consultation for over eight years---what Rasmussen has suggested isn't new, it just sounds so very consensus driven and therefore so very European (and therefore not American).
Russia isn't showing interest in coming out of the shadows; it is showing interesting in a renewed and vigorous military that can command respect and throw it's weight where it thinks it needs it. Is this a good idea? Well, it's good for Russia. And Europe seems OK with it (if you are western Europe). So why shouldn't we we happy? Well, let's see who Putin has talked to lately--Castro to renew Russian military presence on the island, Chavez to offer $2B in arms sales and Iran to---just stick us in the eye because they Russians can't really believe that a nuclear Iran is a good idea (who is arming the Chechens anyway?)
Spenser, I am a hawk. I made my living as a hawk (retired military). As a hawk I can actually "smell" weaker prey--unfortunately, I believe, it's us. Anon.
There's some talk about gathering up the static nuclear arsenals of the Russians and US and them being brought in to central locations for storage and monitoring. Start I is set to expire in December and this proposal may be a consideration to revamping the treaty and easing inventory reductions verification.
Is this a good idea?