What's new

Russia develops military forces, strategic alliances to counter US

The same can be said about the US considering the human rights abuse both in Afghanistan and Iraq. It all comes down to self interest and nothing more. Russia did what it had to do.


Don't even compare the Russians to the US in terms of Human Rights. Like they say "asmaan aur zameen ka farak hai".

Also, its not because Americans are saints..they have their own strategic advantages to look out for. However, the Americans have a fairly transparent system in place which keeps a check on what is going on. The Russians don't have that, which is why we never hear about Russian abuses. They never let it leak out.
 
Don't even compare the Russians to the US in terms of Human Rights. Like they say "asmaan aur zameen ka farak hai".

Also, its not because Americans are saints..they have their own strategic advantages to look out for. However, the Americans have a fairly transparent system in place which keeps a check on what is going on. The Russians don't have that, which is why we never hear about Russian abuses. They never let it leak out.

The abuses are there for all it matters. So whether a transparent system keeps the check or does it not, like i said it comes down to self interest and while Russia would do anything in its power so will the US and others. So when i hear US talking about human rights values against be it Russia or for that matter China, i cant stop thinking what bloody hypocrisy.:tsk:
 
This reminds me of 1971 war when our military dictator Yahya Khan thought that Task Force 74 of the Seventh Fleet was going to help us. :crazy:


Who got Georgia into this?

Actions by Bush and McCain misled the country into thinking the U.S. would come to its aid.
Rosa Brooks
August 14, 2008

The Georgians have now been punished enough, declared Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Tuesday. Or maybe not. At press time, Russian tanks were reportedly rolling through the Georgian city of Gori, in violation of a cease-fire agreement. So there could be more punishment in store for the Georgians, who were stupid enough to imagine that if they picked a fight with Russia over the disputed region of South Ossetia, Uncle Sam would come riding to their rescue.

Puh-lease. Haven't the Georgians noticed that we're sort of busy in Afghanistan and Iraq? That even if we had any available troops, we're not going to get involved in a shooting war with Russia, which has the world's second-largest nuclear arsenal? That we have no other forms of leverage over Russia these days?

So where did the Georgians get the silly idea that the U.S. would bail them out?

Maybe from John McCain, Republican heir apparent, whose top foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, also just happens to be a highly paid lobbyist for the Georgian government. Whoops -- correction! Scheunemann usedto be a highly paid lobbyist for Georgia. The McCain campaign says Scheunemann hasn't taken a dime from the Georgians since May 15. (Which is lucky for the Georgians, who are going to need all the spare cash they can get to rebuild all the stuff the Russians just bombed.)

According to the Washington Post, the relationship between Scheunemann and Georgia used to be very cozy (not to mention lucrative for Scheunemann). Between Jan. 1, 2007, and May 15, 2008, while Scheunemann was also a paid McCain advisor, "Georgia paid his firm $290,000 in lobbying fees."

And what did Georgia get in return? Well, no troops, that's for sure. But they got Scheunemann's (expensive) pledge to garner U.S. support for Georgia's admission to NATO and for its claims to South Ossetia, and his commitment to use his ties to politicians such as McCain to advance Georgia's causes. McCain has sponsored legislation supporting Georgia's claims over South Ossetia, an issue on which he was lobbied by Scheunemann's firm. And as recently as mid-April, Scheunemann was simultaneously taking money from Georgia and actively preparing McCain for supportive calls with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.

Is it any wonder that Saakashvili concluded that he had the backing of the U.S. Republican power structure when it came to South Ossetia?

But Scheunemann and McCain aren't the only ones who irresponsibly encouraged the Georgians to think that baiting the Russians was going to work out for them.

President Bush shares the blame. Once he stopped swooning over the soulfulness of "Vladimir's" baby blues, Bush seemed intent on showing Putin and other Russian leaders that he no longer gave a damn. The Bush administration supported the "color revolutions" in Russia's backyard and denounced antidemocratic crackdowns in Russia -- while making excuses for "friendly" authoritarian regimes elsewhere. The administration also virtually shut down extensive multi-issue dialogues with Russia that had been maintained by previous administrations, hammering in the message that we didn't care much about good relations with Moscow.

The administration also aggressively pushed policies that couldn't have been better designed to enrage the Russians. At the April NATO summit in Romania, Bush urged a fast track to NATO membership for Georgia. Th U.S. also insisted this summer on the deployment of an almost certainly useless missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, virtually on Moscow's doorstep.

Meanwhile, the administration singled out Georgia for the "Our Best Buddy in the Caucasus" award. The U.S. has supported the development of gas and oil pipelines running through Georgia that will challenge Russia's regional economic hegemony, and provided the fledgling Georgian republic generous economic and military aid, including an overhaul of its forces. In return, Georgia sent 2,000 troops to Iraq, and the administration pretended to be deaf when Georgian politicians crowed that their newly improved military would be perfect for teaching those pesky South Ossetian separatists a lesson.

But it's all gone disastrously wrong for our best buddies, and we're sitting on the sidelines, offering empty reassurances to the Georgians and empty threats to the Russians.

Moscow will stop pummeling Georgia when it decides the Georgians have truly been punished enough. And this being the real world, punishment will rain down on the pawns -- but those who egged them on (to score political points, seek power or gain profit) will, of course, face no punishment at all.
 
The resurgence of Russia onto the world stage has important lessons for a country like Pakistan.

Russia under Boris Yeltsin was in danger of of collapse . . . despite its resources . . . it was poorly lead, riddled with corruption, its energy assets had been stolen and put into the hands of a select few, the IMF and World Bank had prescribed its [usual] structural adjustment policies that put millions of Russians in poverty. On the international arena, Russia was getting pushed around by the EU/US.

In a matter of a decade, Putin set about restoring Russia as a global power by taking the countries vast energy wealth back into public hands, curtailing the power+influence of oil oligarchs, investing up to $200 billion dollars in defence and challenging the expansion of NATO eastwards.

Moscow is benefitting from a bold, visionary and credible form of political leadership. Think what Islamabad could achieve with a credible political system !?
 
The resurgence of Russia onto the world stage has important lessons for a country like Pakistan.

Russia under Boris Yeltsin was in danger of of collapse . . . despite its resources . . . it was poorly lead, riddled with corruption, its energy assets had been stolen and put into the hands of a select few, the IMF and World Bank had prescribed its [usual] structural adjustment policies that put millions of Russians in poverty. On the international arena, Russia was getting pushed around by the EU/US.

In a matter of a decade, Putin set about restoring Russia as a global power by taking the countries vast energy wealth back into public hands, curtailing the power+influence of oil oligarchs, investing up to $200 billion dollars in defence and challenging the expansion of NATO eastwards.

Moscow is benefitting from a bold, visionary and credible form of political leadership. Think what Islamabad could achieve with a credible political system !?

That depends entirely on how you view your country. Do you view it as an empire which must expand at whatever cost, or do you view it as a welfare state whose primary goal is to ensure the well being of its people.
 
That depends entirely on how you view your country. Do you view it as an empire which must expand at whatever cost, or do you view it as a welfare state whose primary goal is to ensure the well being of its people.

I take your point.

However, the world is becoming [increasingly] inter-dependent and globalized. Nations such as China and India require access to energy in order to fuel their growth. It is, also, true that most of that energy lies beyond their borders . . . having a credible and independent foreign policy is vital to the the interests of a growing nation.

As far as empires are concerned . . . there is only one global empire on the planet [at this moment in time] . . . :usflag: !!

Even with 737 US military bases around the world, 2,500,000 military personnel and the sponsorship of every dictator from Morocco in the west to the Central Asian Republics, the word "EMPIRE" rarely passes the lips of a US State Department Official.
 
I take your point.

However, the world is becoming [increasingly] inter-dependent and globalized. Nations such as China and India require access to energy in order to fuel their growth. It is, also, true that most of that energy lies beyond their borders . . . having a credible and independent foreign policy is vital to the the interests of a growing nation.

As far as empires are concerned . . . there is only one global empire on the planet [at this moment in time] . . . :usflag: !!

Even with 737 US military bases around the world, 2,500,000 military personnel and the sponsorship of every dictator from Morocco in the west to the Central Asian Republics, the word "EMPIRE" rarely passes the lips of a US State Department Official.

The USA didn't aim to build an empire. Their empire is coincidental and a result of their domestic success.
If you want an "empire" ala USA, then ensuring that your own citizens are rich and productive is the first step.

Most countries do the opposite, they curtail their people and make them suffer in order to expand territory for "strategic interests". They don't realize that their own citizens are their biggest strategic weapon.
 
For example, a tiny country like Switzerland has power far beyond its size or population. It controls a huge amount of wealth, and its leaders have a history of being able to manipulate global politics so that Swiss interests are not harmed. Even during WWII, Switzerland was the only country which didn't suffer.

For the Swiss, the Afghans and Palestinians are the biggest fools. They are sending themselves and their families to the bullet in order to win freedom. They don't realize that they would get real freedom only by educating their children and giving them some skills other than bomb-making.
 
Last edited:
At least, you accept that America is an Empire!

However, most people will disagree that nations [accidentally] acquire empires!?
Scandanavian countries look after their populations, have the highest living standards in the world and successful economies, however, they don't have military bases in other peoples countries, don't sponsor dictatorships and don't illegally invade countries in the Middle East that pose no threat to them. Only America does that . . aided and abetted by Britain, [unfortunately].

Might I venture to say that you have a very 'generous' view of US foreign policy - both in its historic and present day contexts. America has a tremendous track record of invading other countries, sponsoring coups, assassinations, bombings and subverting the democratic will of sovereign peoples . . . all of this was conducted through a carefully planned and orchestrated foreign policy.
 
At least, you accept that America is an Empire!

However, most people will disagree that nations [accidentally] acquire empires!?

I didn't say accidental. I said coincidental.

Scandanavian countries look after their populations, have the highest living standards in the world and successful economies, however, they don't have military bases in other peoples countries, don't sponsor dictatorships and don't illegally invade countries in the Middle East that pose no threat to them. Only America does that . . aided and abetted by Britain, [unfortunately].

Scandinavian countries are far, far smarter than that. They control the money supply, which goes a much longer way in taking care of their interests. However, rest assured, if Norway every crossed paths with Pakistan, its not Pakistan which would come out on top.

However, they are definitely not powerful enough to send their armies marching across the globe.

The USA, after WWII, sees itself as the great peacemaker, the global hero. However, when this global heroism begins to hurt at home, all wars come to an end. We saw that in 1971, and we are seeing it again in the coming elections.

Might I venture to say that you have a very 'generous' view of US foreign policy - both in its historic and present day contexts. America has a tremendous track record of invading other countries, sponsoring coups, assassinations, bombings and subverting the democratic will of sovereign peoples . . . all of this was conducted through a carefully planned and orchestrated foreign policy.

America is a big nation. A huge nation. Its like an elephant in a China shop. Anything it does tends to have a massive impact.
It meddles around with global politics because it can afford to do so, not because that is its primary objective.

The only way a nation can earn the respect of the USA is if the people of the USA communicate with them. For example the USA wouldn't dare to openly meddle in Europe, Ausralia, Japan, Korea, etc. beacuse these are democracies whose people can communicate with Americans. Same goes with India....Indians (atleast the educated ones), can see eye-to-eye with Americans on a number of issues.
 
Quick list of American interference in foreign countries . . . this can be either political+military+covert or a combination of all. I'll leave you to decide if America is an "accidental Empire" . . . sorry [coincidental]


China 1945-51

France 1947

Marshall Islands 1946-58

Italy 1947 - 70's

This is [by no means] an exhaustive list . . .
Greece 1947-49

Phillipines 1945-53

Korea 1945-53

Germany 1950's

Iran 1953

Costa Rica 1950's/1970-71

Indonesia 1957-58

Haiti 1959

Iraq 1958-63

Vietnam 1945-73

Cambodia 1955-73

Thailand 1965-73

Ecuador 1960-63

Congo/Zaire 1960-65/1977-78

Brazil 1961-64

Peru 1965

Dominican Republic 1963-65

Cuba 1965 - present
 
Last edited:
America has been intervening in the affairs of Europe on a regular and perpetual basis since WWII . . . starting with the Berlin Airlift, the Eisenhower Doctrine, the Marshall Plan and the presence of NATO in Europe.

America played an instrumental role in the break-up of Yugoslavia by supplying arms and cash to the Kosovan Liberation Army and then exploiting a civil war situation to cement its military domination of Europe. Indeed, Washington continues to undermine the EU's relations with Moscow by insisting on an eastward expansion of NATO . . . this is what the crisis in Georgia is all about.

Kosovo has become an important satellite for Washington . . . a base for the illegal detention facility of Camp Bondsteel that has been implicated in the CIA run "rendition" programme. Additionally, America has deployed anti-missile batteries in Poland and the Czech Republic . . . ensuring that the military and political domination of Europe by America will continue.
 
America has been intervening in the affairs of Europe on a regular and perpetual basis since WWII . . . starting with the Berlin Airlift, the Eisenhower Doctrine, the Marshall Plan and the presence of NATO in Europe.

America played an instrumental role in the break-up of Yugoslavia by supplying arms and cash to the Kosovan Liberation Army and then exploiting a civil war situation to cement its military domination of Europe. Indeed, Washington continues to undermine the EU's relations with Moscow by insisting on an eastward expansion of NATO . . . this is what the crisis in Georgia is all about.

Kosovo has become an important satellite for Washington . . . a base for the illegal detention facility of Camp Bondsteel that has been implicated in the CIA run "rendition" programme. Additionally, America has deployed anti-missile batteries in Poland and the Czech Republic . . . ensuring that the military and political domination of Europe by America will continue.

Alright, let me make myself clearer...by Europe I mean the original European countries aka what is now known as Western Europe.

NATO is a voluntary organization. I hardly think that USA forced NATO members to join up.

As far as Balkan states and former Soviet states are concerned, they wouldn't really count as Europe, and in any case their governments are too weak to resist outside pressure.

As I said, to prevent USA from meddling with your country, you have to build public opinion in the US against such a move. Unfortunately, if you are in Russia's or China's path, there is nothing you can do to stop them because their government controls public opinion.
 
Alright, let me make myself clearer...by Europe I mean the original European countries aka what is now known as Western Europe.

NATO is a voluntary organization. I hardly think that USA forced NATO members to join up.

As far as Balkan states and former Soviet states are concerned, they wouldn't really count as Europe, and in any case their governments are too weak to resist outside pressure.

As I said, to prevent USA from meddling with your country, you have to build public opinion in the US against such a move. Unfortunately, if you are in Russia's or China's path, there is nothing you can do to stop them because their government controls public opinion.


Putin has engineered a very successful public opinion in favour of Russian expansionism and a hostile anti-US stance . . . he's supported by most Russians.
Hostility against US foreign policy and The War On Terror exists in Pakistan, but, Islamabad has a discredited and bankrupt political system.

As far as US public opinion is concerned, most Americans now feel that they were lied to by the neocons in the Bush Administration and that Iraq and Afghanistan are broken 'crocks' that are sucking in vast quantities of US resources, but, without having any progress to show for it. It would not require a political genius to kill US foreign policystone dead in the Muslim World. However, America is fortunate in having lackeys/dictators/half-wits/turd-for-brains/puppets/bast#rds in charge of managing the affairs of the most important location on the planet. This will not last long.
 
NATO is, indeed, a voluntary organisation. However, former eastern-bloc nations like Poland/Czech Republic/Hungary/Romania and places like Kosovo and Georgia regard NATO membership as a passport to properity and economic development. The US exploits this situation by using them as a military 'platform' to expand her influence and military domination eastwards.

The US wishes to see NATO displace the UN as the forum for western security and influence. The deployment of NATO in Afghanistan shows that the organisation has gone beyond its Cold War roots and is now seen as a global security organisation. Its principal role in the 21st Century will be to prevent any moves towards political unity in the Muslim World.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom