Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Ok, let's assume you are right, and this is about the will of the US and not about the will of PL and CR.  You still have not adequately explained why, WHY, the US would want to target Russia.  Because they won't be our vassals?  War is based on perceived threat, not perceived independence.  Not when we're talking about this level of military engagement.  The rule Proportional Response might have gone out the door with BushCo., but people still have to believe there is a threat strong enough to warrant such loss of life.  What's the threat Russia poses?  Seems to me like the only offense they've caused is that they are doing exactly the kind of things we as Americans always prided ourselves on.  Only perhaps better...

There are no longer 2 opposing imperialist ideologies, 2 trains sharing one track headed straight for each other with MAD being the only device to keep them from slamming into each other.  The political landscape isn't dictating another match-up between us.  Russia seems content to draw its strength from its own resources and seems to be looking eastward for strategic alliances, which can carry a lot more influence than, uhm, the Czech Republic, while America is steeped in the GWOT - which Russia actually is not actually ideologically opposed to, just critical of the way its being carried out- and is drained of resources, having no recourse if god-forbid this muscle-flexing accidentally resulted in international incident.  We're all bark and no bite at this point.  Why go out of our way to bark at the dog that could bite back?

The current power struggle and war of words might  look to the common observer like Cold War 2.0.  But it lacks credible "cause" for this "effect."   Most importantly, in this version of the Cold War, there is a general lack of consequences for avoiding the containment of Russia, whereas the consequences for getting all up in their face could not possibly help us at the moment.  It would however, help them.

Metaphor:  Igorant punks decide to go to the zoo for kicks, and bring with them a sling-shot to the tiger's den...  

I just don't get it.  We don't have enough enemies in the world at the moment?  We have to go invent more?  

PL and CR having some collective PTSD from their relationship with Russia in the 20th Century, wanting a restraining order, and asking the US for protection in return for their agreeing to be in the coalition of the willing makes more sense than just the us provoking Russia just because ... it's Russia.

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Mon Jan 14th, 2008 at 12:19:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it is about the metaphor with much stronger words and we don't get it because it doesn't make any sense.  43 et al are psychopaths who cannot distinguish between old resentments and reality.... and cannot give up their bluffs because their lives are not at stake.  They live in a parallel, barbarian playground world!

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
by metavision on Mon Jan 14th, 2008 at 01:10:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
poemless:
PL and CR having some collective PTSD from their relationship with Russia in the 20th Century, wanting a restraining order, and asking the US for protection in return for their agreeing to be in the coalition of the willing makes more sense than just the us provoking Russia just because ... it's Russia.
But the idea of the missile shield did not originate in Poland or the Czech Republic: it is entirely a US project and the Iranian excuse doesn't hold water. It would be laughable if we didn't have government officials spouting it. As it is, it is a transparent lie meant to sway a supposedly gullible, uninformed, and scared public.

Initially there was a lot of opposition from major European governments, but gradually they all fell back into line, with some behind-the-scenes diplomacy at NATO involved.

It's the same thing that happened with the CIA secret flights/prisons. The USA asked presumably Poland and Romania (why hasn't the WaPo said yet where they were told the prisons were? They've been sitting on it for over 2 years) to allow them to use bases on their territory. We don't even know whether they were told there would be detainees there. WHen the thing blew up there were denials from all quarters and a lot of hand-wringing from European governments. The noise level forced Condi to make a lightning visit to Europe, during which it was reported (a slip, surely) that the European Governments asked her for help managing their public opinions. That is, the problem were not the prisons, the problem was that the public opinion was questioning Atlanticist's complicity or incompetence regarding human right violations on our soil, not to speak of violations of the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation.

So there is a pattern.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 14th, 2008 at 01:21:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I really agree with you; I mean, everything you say makes sense.  I hope I haven't come across as suggesting this was the idea of Poland and us nice Americans are just helping out a friend, only suggesting that explanation would be more logical than any other I've heard (Iran being a particularly bizarre exlanation.)  I've no doubt this is all about Washington, from beginning to end.  And am aware of the pattern.

What I don't understand is why?  Why anyone believes they would benefit from this, including ... Washington.  Why do European countries remain complicit?  Why does the US want first strike capabilities against Russia, or lacking that, why does it insist on Nato enlargement and military escalation with the containment of Russia the goal?   Yes, Bush and Cheney and their cabal are Dr. Stangelove nut jobs.  But there are saner people in the Pentagon, and how are they justifying these missile defense shields?

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Mon Jan 14th, 2008 at 01:51:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, yes, because, it is NOT POSSIBLE to understand.  

Unless.  

You are obsessed with control.  In which case, it is really a no-brainer.  

There are indeed strategic reasons to oppose Russia.  Russia has oil and gas; the US wants it.  (Not for itself, not yet, but it wants the profits and it wants the control.)  

The US wants to control the Caspian, and its oil.  Russia is in the way.  

The US wants to take back Iran.  Russia goes and supplies Iran with defensive missiles.  

These are all substantive reasons.  And the US does not NEED reasons: Look at its history with Cuba.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Mon Jan 14th, 2008 at 03:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The West DOES control the Caspian and its oil, mostly. It's just not that big.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jan 15th, 2008 at 04:37:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series