Russia To Send Warships To U.S. Coast

Discussion in 'Your Bloody Soap Box' started by Carrera, Sep 9, 2008.

  1. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    It looks as if Moscow has found a means of getting back at Bush and McCain for interfering in Ukraine and Georgia. Now Russia has plans to ally with Venezuela (as the USSR effectively did in Cuba under Krushchev, back in the sixties).
    It's certainly the case Russia has far fewer allies now in Europe and even less allies around its own borders but the U.S. may have miscalculated the potential for Russia to extend its influence into South America. A fleet of nuclear equipped marine vessels will be invited by Venezuela to its shores, in view of the fact Venezuela fears an attack by Bush and his cohorts.
    However, by stirring up trouble in Georgia, the U.S. has only itself to blame if a new Cold War is triggered, which is what appears to be taking place.

    "CARACAS (Reuters) - Russian warships will sail into the Caribbean later this year, helping Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to fend off perceived U.S. aggression and weaken Washington's influence in its traditional backyard.

    Evoking Cold War memories, Russia said this week it would send the missile-laden, nuclear-powered cruiser Peter the Great and other hi-tech ships for joint naval exercises with Venezuela scheduled for November.

    The maneuvers show a resurgent Russia flexing its military muscle at a time of diplomatic tension with the United States after the Georgia war and over Washington's plans for a missile defense shield hosted by several former Soviet states.

    For Chavez, the Russian visit serves notice to the United States that is no longer rules the waves around South America.

    It also reinforces Venezuela's diplomatic and domestic policies designed to protect his government against a U.S. attack he says could come at any time.

    Chavez, the socialist leader of South America's top oil exporter, likes to antagonize Washington and enthusiastically supports the rise of Russia as a balance to U.S. political and economic dominance, including in Georgia."
     
    Tags:


  2. bkaapcke

    bkaapcke New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    131
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just understand that George Bush wouldn't mind if a new cold war got going. It would sop up any excess dollars that might go towards social programs. Disabling social programs with military needs was one of their known goals before he was elected in 2000. I looks like they have pulled it off. bk
     
  3. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Looks like the U.S. is making the same mistakes as the USSR did. It's gained many anti-Russian former USSR neighbours as allies but has also lost alliances closer to home. There is plenty of scope for Russia to expand its influence in the Middle East and parts of South America so Russia can create a lot of problems, especially in Iran.
    It should be clear, though, it was the Republicans who provoked this current stand-off by interfering with tensions on Russia's borders.



     
  4. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    No it cannot. Russia does not have the financial strength to cause serious problems outside its own backyard. It can prick the U.S.' nose by putting on a show with Venezuela, but it cannot sustain the financial outlay it would cost to project power in far off countries. It is unlikely the robber barrons who now control Russia would even want to spend their money on such a useless endeavor.

    Russia is also in a fairly precarious financial position. They are locked into the world economy in a way they never were during the U.S.S.R. days. They can no longer act without considering what effect it will have on their economy.
     
  5. wolfix

    wolfix New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bro Deal and I agree? {I must be in the wrong forum]................Russia is not as strong financially as they would have to be in order to pose any domination of the waters. And not to set you straight Carrera, Russiia had nothing in Cuba but a welfare state. They had nothing . If you remember they put their tails in their asses when Kennedy called them on it.
     
  6. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    "They can no longer act without considering what effect it will have on their economy."

    That's where the British Press have read it wrong. It's also where America is making a very bad call.
    Consider Putin's tactics and strategy: Over the last decade he's placed a stranglehold on oil and gas. Russia has in full abundance what Europe needs - oil. The idea that if Europe doesn't buy oil, Moscow will go bust is wishful thinking since Russia is now building pipelines to Asia. It can find new markets. Above all, there is China - the emerging new global superpower that needs oil to drive its huge economy.
    I agree, Russia's economy is really quite crude and basic but I also think the Brits especially are seriously underestimating Russia's strengths. O.K. Russia has no network of global businesses, no Mcdonalds, Microsoft or even movie industry expanding globally. But it does have oil and gas, it has arms exports, satellites, space tourism and technology. It's now a very very different country than it was in the Yeltisn era when it seemed to me Russia was spent and finished.





     
  7. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Krushchev era was one where the USSR was still a good deal behind the U.S.A. which is why Mr. K. put missiles on Cuba, the idea being to equalise the military equilibrium. Still, it was really under Brezhnev that Russia began to overtake the U.S., by developing the first anti-missile defence system, i.e. missiles that could shoot down other incoming missiles. Under Brezhnev, the era of mutually assured destruction came to its climax. Under Andropov and Chernenko, stagnation and apathy set in.
    Now, modern Russia is at more of a disadvantage than even the Krushchev period. It can still match NATO missile for missile but has lost important, strategic alliances. However, it does get scary if you consider the potential for Moscow to create alliances in the Middle East where Bush is basically loathed. Also, in parts of South America.
    The Europeans (especially the Germans) are now well aware that if a genuine Cold War breaks out and Russia is isolated, the risk of new alliances in the Middle East would be highly undesirable and not at all in America's interests.

     
  8. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    By the way, when I was over there I used to love this song that's really catchy. This is Murat Nasirov who is no longer living:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NT7saUM3L0

     
  9. limerickman

    limerickman Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    16,130
    Likes Received:
    115
    I agree with you on this.

    Europe is very heavily dependent upon Russia for it's energy needs.
    This dependency is biased toward Europe and not the other way around.
    if Europe decided to move to an alternative energy supplier or Europe decided to move to another energy resource (ie nuclear power), Russia would still be able to sell oil to other markets.

    So I agree, Russia hld on the cards vis-a-vis Europe and it's energy requirements.




    I agree with this also.

    Russia has made huge progress in relation to it's commercial activity as a sovereign nation.
    For example, it's banking system has become more integrated with the worldwide banking system.
    Look at the amount of western (european) countries and businesses now trading with Russia.
    The Russian/Eurasian market is vast.

    In addition, infrastructural development (telecommunications/roads/airports)
    make access to Russia from mainland Europe more and more viable.
    Russia has become more coupled to the entire international trading mechanism.
     
  10. wolfix

    wolfix New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    0
    Several weeks ago [the day of the Georgia announcement] I was in charge of delivering 3 trucks loads [130,000 lbs. ] of meat product from Kansas to Chicago docks that was headed for Moscow.
    Upon arrival, I was told to put a hold on delivery. I am not sure if this had to do with the Georgia situation in the way that the sellers were afraid of a boycott and not getting paid or what. Maybe it was something else.
    But I have a feeling that Moscow has the ability to get "credit" in the international market. The amount of food sent there from the US heartland is enormous...
     
  11. Bro Deal

    Bro Deal New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,701
    Likes Received:
    2
    Russia froze importation of chicken from many U.S. production facilities. Ostensibly this was for health and safety reasons. Russian chicken production has increased significantly, so it might have been done to aid their domestic suppliers.

    I think Russia's position is fragile. Their GDP is about the same as Britain's, $2T. That is still a very small fraction of the size of the U.S.' GDP. The U.S. government budget is the size of Russia's entire economic production. Russia's military budget is roughly $80B. Again that is a small fraction of direct U.S. military expenditures; add in the secret, indirect, and war money plus expenses shared with the intelligence agencies, and the relative size of Russia's military is smaller still. Russia's entire government budget is about half what the U.S. spends on its military.

    The U.S. has more than seven hundred military bases outside its borders. By some counts the count is in the mid 800s. It would be insane for Russia to attempt to compete with that. I don't see that they can project military power beyond their own neighborhood.

    Russia's economy is transitioning to one that is more robust and diverse and less reliant on exportation of raw materials. They are at a critical juncture. They need to remain integrated with the West. They can rattle sabers and make a small move here and there, but they will not do anything that causes a severe break with their current trade partners and sources of investment capital. Give them time to more fully integrate with Asia and improve their economic diversification then things will get interesting.

    It will also be interesting to see how Russia handles an economic slump. Their stock market crashed 17% before trading was halted.
     
  12. Carrera

    Carrera New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    4,856
    Likes Received:
    0
    Putin gave a speech where he made it clear Russia needs to use technology to overcome it's more limited budget for the military. It doesn't have as much to spend on arms as China, for example, but is still ahead of China in weapons technology. For example, Russia has the world's most potent vacuumb bomb that, unlike the less powerful U.S. variant, can be practically delivered. Russia is now working on superior quality and more advanced technology to keep its head above the water.
    Although Russia would lose a war with NATO, it could technically cause huge destruction in the process. It has mobile launchers in strategic locations it can use to fire WMD. It has thousands of ballistic missiles. It has a significant number of submarines, now more modern or revamped. There is a huge amount of weaponry left from the Soviet era, some almost obsolete and some modernised.
    More chillingly, it's what Russia can do to harm the U.S. that has been underestimated by Bush. For a start, the U.S. is virtually out of the space race without Russia for the time being. America's shuttles aren't safe enough to be launched if the truth be known. They're old and dated. Yet Russia can send crews into space quite safely. This co-operation could now end. Bush will have to spend billions of dollars to rectify this yet his country is now in serious economic straits. Moscow, on the other hand, is booming.
    Also, Russia could expand well into South America militarily. There is nothing to stop Putin doing exactly what Mr K did back in the sixties. The strategic bombers for now have merely been a warning that actual missiles could be located close to the U.S. coast.
    Then there is Iran and North Korea as well as Syria. Russia could cause huge problems for the U.S. in these countries.
    My own theory is this: The U.S. under Bush stands at the brink of a serious diplomatic mistake that could cost it its NATO alliance. If Bush and Mccain are foolish enough to risk war with Russia, my own feeling is Europe would get cold feet. Germany and France don't wish to be in the middle of a nuclear war or even a new arms race. The alliance could come under too much pressure and fall apart. Sure, if Russia were invading Europe or trying to become an Empire Europe would back America but my bet is Europe knows NATO is becoming a bad risk. There is a feeling in Europe its time to move on and form a European security alliance. That would leave Russia and America out on a limb and both those countries would have to get used to a multipolar world.

     
Loading...
Loading...