Thread: GEORGIA AN EXAMPLE !!! The BEAR is out of HIBERNATION

Wow. "Badgerboy". Nope. Not EVER and the mods absolutely know that, you old fool.

Nothing of the sort and not even close, mister. "Ignore" Glyn. Please, for your sake.

EDIT: Let's get this straight. I've never ONCE been consulted on banishment. Not Parihaka, OoE, Julie, Shek, Top Hatter...get the picture? NONE. EVER. Not one word has passed between these folks and myself.

Catch a clue. Really.

Originally Posted by brokeraz

It's is been the primary focus as far as the voters (and the world) are concerned and the sheer resources spent in past few years.

You will find that the economy has been the primary focus of the American voters for the past few elections.

Originally Posted by brokeraz

Guidelines that play a part in a decision making process. But no, they aren't decisions per say.

Guidelines? Anyone who contradicts my policies better be outranking me.

Originally Posted by brokeraz

I don't want to sound like Nader but a think tank can string together whatever position it's been asked for by whomever signs their paychecks.

Fine but they have at least the evidence to back up their position. You have not.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

You will find that the economy has been the primary focus of the American voters for the past few elections.

ok, bad phrasing on my part ..as far as "foreign relations go ME been the primary focus".

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Guidelines? Anyone who contradicts my policies better be outranking me.

Fine but they have at least the evidence to back up their position. You have not.

Damn right, decision-makers outrank policy writers.

Originally Posted by brokeraz

ok, bad phrasing on my part ..as far as "foreign relations go ME been the primary focus".

Which contradicts your statement that the Americans will kick out whomever cannot handle the ME.

I was a policy writer and a decision maker. My decisions are written into policies.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Which contradicts your statement that the Americans will kick out whomever cannot handle the ME.

My position is that there's a relentless and steady trend to block off Russia which has been going on ever since an opportunity came up (1991).

Expansion of NATO right upto Russian borders, plans for military installations which directly challenge Russian security, arms and training to Georgia, and just general support in the region to whomever has the potential to come to a position of power and is anti-Moscow.

Whether or not this fits into an official policy makes little difference. Though, since these events are taking place there's an indication it does.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I was a policy writer and a decision maker. My decisions are written into policies.

Policy writers have their role in the political process. However, a policy is a subject to interpretation - people who call the shots get to interpret. Policy writers do not run the country (unless a given writer is an elected official).

Originally Posted by brokeraz

My position is that there's a relentless and steady trend to block off Russia which has been going on ever since an opportunity came up (1991).

Expansion of NATO right upto Russian borders, plans for military installations which directly challenge Russian security, arms and training to Georgia, and just general support in the region to whomever has the potential to come to a position of power and is anti-Moscow.

Whether or not this fits into an official policy makes little difference. Though, since these events are taking place there's an indication it does.

Your position is therefore challenged. Not only is American policy not Middle East centric but you've also misplaced the blame for that European encroachment. The US cannot encroach if the East Europeans did not want them to encroach.

NATO bent over backwards to delay their entry, at first making the Partnership for Peace Program, setting the standards to which East Europe must meet (that of a functional democracy) before they can join and still they keep knocking at our doors.

Do not blame the US for coming into your backyard. Blame your neighbours for dragging them in because they were too scared.

Originally Posted by brokeraz

Policy writers have their role in the political process. However, a policy is a subject to interpretation - people who call the shots get to interpret. Policy writers do not run the country (unless a given writer is an elected official).

I see very little leeway in interpretation in the Rules of Engagement.

"Whether or not this fits into an official policy makes little difference."

Ludicrous. Of course it does matter. Otherwise, as I've earlier indicated, your premise is reliant upon "hidden-hand" conspiracies.

"Though, since these events are taking place would suggest it does."

Conspiracy theorists fare poorly here so let's begin by assuming published and stated (i.e. PUBLIC) policy DOES matter. If so, again, please show that you're not an intrigue-junkie by offering forth your proof that these were the avowed intentions of any one, much less successive, administrations tracing back to 1991. Links to papers, speeches,...you know- the usual. No think-tanks actually. Policy is original-source stuff. Comes with somebody responsible for it's implementation. ACCOUNTABILITY and TRANSPARENCY.

In particular, please isolate your search to those speeches or policy papers issued by the Office of the POTUS, SECSTATE, or SECDEF that might shed some rationale behind these interesting decisions. Something like this might suffice-

"It was our intent by offering NATO membership to the Baltic States and Ukraine that we obtain optimal positions from which to assure democracy's survival in Russia should that be threatened. Without these forward-basing opportunities, our ability to intervene in Russia on behalf of democratic forces is impeded".

Like that? That's what you need to search. Something like that, especially attributable to a POTUS or senior cabinet official would really gitterdun'. Until then your really wallowing in pedantic minutae.

Wasteful to the colonel's time but he seems entertained by you...for the time being anyway.)

May you live in interesting times...

[QUOTE=brokeraz;536118]My position is that there's a relentless and steady trend to block off Russia which has been going on ever since an opportunity came up (1991).

Expansion of NATO right upto Russian borders, plans for military installations which directly challenge Russian security, arms and training to Georgia, and just general support in the region to whomever has the potential to come to a position of power and is anti-Moscow.

Whether or not this fits into an official policy makes little difference. Though, since these events are taking place there's an indication it does.

a. Official reports does I agree does not amount to Government policy when done by a "thinktank" or some such comittee. What has Government policy written all over it is normaly signed - at least this is the case in the West.

b. Who has blocked you off and from what? I do not see this.

c. Yes the expansion of NATO is a breach of the promise that no former Warsaw Pact members should be alowed membership.

d. The shield in Poland has 10 rockets as I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong) and Russia has some 7000 nuclear warheads. Threat? It cannot be seriously considered as one.Russian security is quite safe with this, nor I believe does anyone want any Russian territory.

I honestly believe Mr brokeraz that you may sleep in peace! It just worries me though that you are so paranoid. Unlike the former Soviet Union (and the current US Administration lol) the West usualy wins its wars by ideas, at least in the long run.

Russia should be treated as an equal I agree and promises should never be broken by those who uphold justice etc... yet for Russia to be recognised as an equal requires that she BE an equal and not act as a soveriegn power over her neighbours. Equal means equal - not greater nor lesser.

The point about 10 missile interceptors is that there is possibility of using first strike weapons ergo 10 first strike missiles from the Russian point of view. Now if each missile carries several warheads thats a major problem.

Ideas don't win wars... thats a gimmick, with marketing and psychology intertwined to make you believe...

Ahem by your definition of Equality the U.S. should be treated just as poorly for all its adventures, which is not the case is it?
______________________________________

I am going to reiterate my point about Ukraine.
The most astute politician in Ukraine is Timoshenko, she is the
shark de la creme of Ukrainian politics. If anyone noticed she
did not jump on the band-wagon of condemning Russian action.
The only reason logically for her not to do it is because there
would be more to loose than to gain politically.

The amount of strain in society over this posturing to the west
without getting anything concrete in return is systemically dividing
the society between pragmatics and idealists. Pragmatics are the center
of Ukraine ones that are neither pro-region nor pro-nationalist in their
point of view. They are literally in the center most of those regions are close to 60/40 or 50/50 splits with people voting based on delivery or expected delivery. Wonderful speeches followed by gas hikes and European trade barriers are beginning to wear thin.

I'm not one for the political whys or what-ifs; BUT if Russia was SO worried about its citizens in South Ossetia, wouldn't its military(OOE please correct me if I'm wrong) have more priority targets than a non-moving, non-threatening oil pipeline?

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Your position is therefore challenged. Not only is American policy not Middle East centric but you've also misplaced the blame for that European encroachment. The US cannot encroach if the East Europeans did not want them to encroach.

NATO bent over backwards to delay their entry, at first making the Partnership for Peace Program, setting the standards to which East Europe must meet (that of a functional democracy) before they can join and still they keep knocking at our doors.

I never stated American policy is ME centric, ever.

Sounds like we've established that there is an encroachment

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Do not blame the US for coming into your backyard. Blame your neighbours for dragging them in because they were too scared.

Russia/USSR has done some s* awful things to it's neighbors in the past. U.S. is not entirely to blame for these countries rushing to sign up. Ghosts of the past will be around for a long time. Perhaps one can't blame U.S. for jumping at an opportunity but this sort of rhetoric is ultimately irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I see very little leeway in interpretation in the Rules of Engagement.

If I'm in position of power I can deem a policy as non-applicable to a given case and move forward.

Originally Posted by brokeraz

I never stated American policy is ME centric, ever.

Originally Posted by brokeraz

Bottom line: U.S. is at the crossroads - there's a finite amount influence and resources to go around. Middle East is far more important in the next few decades.

Originally Posted by brokeraz

Because whoever f*s it (Middle East) up won't be getting the votes, regardless of policy positions.

Originally Posted by brokeraz

Sounds like we've established that there is an encroachment

I have never denied NATO expansion. I challenged your position that it contradicted American policy.

Originally Posted by brokeraz

Russia/USSR has done some s* awful things to it's neighbors in the past. U.S. is not entirely to blame for these countries rushing to sign up. Ghosts of the past will be around for a long time. Perhaps one can't blame U.S. for jumping at an opportunity but this sort of rhetoric is ultimately irrelevant.

It seems pretty well that you laid the entire blame on the US.

Originally Posted by brokeraz

If I'm in position of power I can deem a policy as non-applicable to a given case and move forward.

Have you been in a position of power?

Originally Posted by snapper

d. The shield in Poland has 10 rockets as I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong) and Russia has some 7000 nuclear warheads. Threat? It cannot be seriously considered as one.Russian security is quite safe with this, nor I believe does anyone want any Russian territory.

I think current proposal for the shield doesn't present significant threat to Russia even if these missiles work. The radar in Czech can be a hell of an asset though. Anyway, what prevents expanding this system in the future? Going from 10 interceptors to a 100 to a 1000. It is the Russian's job to keep this in check. The best way is to not to let this sort of endeavors take roots to begin with.

Originally Posted by snapper

I honestly believe Mr brokeraz that you may sleep in peace! It just worries me though that you are so paranoid. Unlike the former Soviet Union (and the current US Administration lol) the West usualy wins its wars by ideas, at least in the long run.

I sleep just fine You say "ideas", I say "power and influence".

Originally Posted by brokeraz

Going from 10 interceptors to a 100 to a 1000. It is the Russian's job to keep this in check. The best way is to not to let this sort of endeavors take roots to begin with.

And you're being played for a fool by your leadership. Polish based interceptors are going to absolutely squat against Russian missiles going to Europe or North America. They might do something about Siberian based missiles going to Algeria but Poland is an extremely poor place to intercept anything that Moscow deemed worthwhile.

Your generals know this. At least they should. We've been at this game for over 40 years.