I call... bullshit, too, just on something completely different
On Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin taped an interview with Fox News. Details of the interview can be found in the AP article "Russia Said Won't Resume Cold War Rivalry". The taped interview was broadcast Sunday, September 17 18.
Mr. Putin had comments on a variety of interesting issues in addition to the article's title subject, such as referral of Iran to the UN Security Council (no), hectoring of Russia regarding its adherence to Western-style democracy (no) and whether he'll amend the Russian constitution so that he can run again in 2008 (again, no).
But he also had an opinion to share on the exit of US-led troops from Iraq, and I found it interesting in its wording, if not its intent - those opposed to the military presence and action in Iraq, for whatever their reasons, seem all to be calling for a timetable for withdrawal, and Putin's no different. Well, almost no different - he actually emitted several nuggets of truth, though he might not have intended to do so:
Putin, whose government fiercely opposed the war to oust Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, said the U.S.-led coalition's military presence in Iraq is fueling the insurgency and urged that a deadline be fixed for the withdrawal of foreign troops."In our opinion, the fact of their presence there pushes the armed opposition to perpetrate acts of violence," Putin said.
The Russian president acknowledged that fledgling Iraqi security forces need time before they can take over from U.S.-led forces but said a timetable for a pullout is essential to "make everybody move in the right direction."
"I believe it should be within just over a year, or within two years, something like that. It will all depend on the situation in that country," he said.
So, it seems he agrees with Rumsfeld, Bush, and the rest of the US administration - the troops should be withdrawn when the time is right. And I don't think "uh, whenever" is, strictly speaking, a timetable for withdrawal. But it sure seems like the correct answer.
Because, like the man said, "It will all depend on the situation in that country."
on
| § 6
§ 6 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
Even if he isn't going to
Even if he isn't going to renew "Cold War Rivalry" I have concerns about Russia cozying up to China like they have.
It strikes me as odd, and contrary to Russia's long term strategic needs. I would think that China - and all the illegal imigrants China is sending into Siberia - would pose a greater threat to Russia than the US ever could.
Granted, you have the old nugget of wisdom, keep your friends close and your enemies closer, but still, making an alliance with China that is drifting more and more into an antagonistic relationship with the US would make Russia a junior partner in a conflict it can ill afford to participate in, and gives it no leverage or friends should the Chinese start demanding things. Like, say, Vladivostok - or the oil rights to Eastern Siberia.
I agree.
I agree.
Putin obviously doesn't read enough Tom Clancy novels.
Funny thing is, Clancy likes
Funny thing is, Clancy likes Russia, and can't imagine anything but them getting corncobbed by the Chinese.
B,
B,
I don't remember if it was here or at MO, but I gave my interpretation of the recent Sino-Russian joint exercises.
Surely there may be specific instances where something like interoperability might be helpful, such as maritime rescue/reconaissance, say, or space stuff.
But beyond those narrow parameters, there's little reason for this stuff other than measuring the capabilities of your neighbor.
Even if there were sound strategic principles for an alliance- and I'm not sure that there are here- I don't understand what Russia could contribute to it.
China has plenty of population for labor, infantry, or specialized jobs, with the manufacturing and transportation base to make things happen. Yes they lack home-grown modern weapon designs, but anything they need they can buy on the open market, or reverse-engineer themselves. Ditto for resources like oil, timber, steel.
I don't get it.
The United States has, with
The United States has, with some difficulty, largely kept the west from selling high tech weapons to the chicoms. The only place they can buy the stuff is from Russia. Russia is trading that for a measure of security, I think. It won't last for long, though.
As far as resources, China has some, but is not notably resource rich. And they don't have any oil at all. While we complain about dependence on foriegn oil - we at least have Texas, the Gulf and Alaska.
Remember what happened when we cut off supplies of strategic materials to Japan. An expanding power will be paranoid about access to resources. More on this later.
B,
B,
Oh I get that much. But if China can buy whatever it needs- and it does- what's the point of an alliance? At least, an alliance in the traditional sense of shared goals and shared resources toward achieving that goal?
Much of the Russian land forces have rusted in the field. The Rooskies are barely capable of projecting land power beyond their pwn borders, and that will be limited. So they don't bring land power to the alliance.
The Russian navy is in the same, er, boat. A handful of capable units can do their thing, but it's a shadow of its former self. No seapower boost.
We all know the Russian airforce has top-shelf designs, but I don't believe more than a handful of them are fielded.
So aside from a clutch of specialized units, I don't get what Russia brings to the table in martial terms. Oh, the ICBM fleet, sure- but the Chicoms have their own, too.
But let's say for a minute that this relationship *is* primarily about access to resources, with oil and other essentials flowing east. What would flow west in return? Alot more sway at the Security Council...?