War with Russia ‘inevitable within 5 years’ says advisor

[vector7]

War with Russia ‘inevitable within 5 years’ says advisor

08Nov08


Today a report surfaced which quoted a former advisor of Leonid Brezhnev as saying that a war between NATO and Russia is inevitable in the coming five years.

Here is the link to the article for any who care to read: http://www.allnewsweb.com/page90009.html

This is alarming not just because such a war would have domino-effects such as the re-militarization of Germany, but because both Russia and NATO have an alliance system which would draw in a dozen or so other nations, making it a world-war.

If Germany were to militarize, and considering the likely economic climate there and in Europe over the next 1-2 years, those events alone would likely create the conditions for a sharp cooling of ties between Britain and Central European powers such as Germany, Italy and France, as economic protectionism and a new arms race emerge as real dangers of an all-out collapse of the EU.

If the EU and NATO do collapse, it would see a return to 1930’s style politik, similar to when the League of Nations was disbanded. In the modern-day case, the UN faces the threat of disbandment if current trends in international relations continue. The growing irrelevance of the UN becomes apparent when member states openly ignore its charter and resolutions. Such member states include the United States and Russia, who are even permament members with veto power!

I do not personally believe that the collapse of the UN is imminent, but the growing tit-for-tat moves being taken by the US and Russia demonstrate that the UN cannot prevent a war from erupting.

When the US felt that it was in its national security interests to invade Iraq, despite the UN having declared such an action ‘illegal’, the US did so regardless.

When Russia felt that the partition of Georgia and the diplomatic recognition to two of its provinces would bolster its security in the Caucusses, despite the UN having declared such an action ‘illegal’, the Russians did so regardless.

When Israel feels that the time is right to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will do so.

When North Korea feels that to avoid implosion it must strike at South Korea, it will do so.

When Germany feels that re-armament is due in the absence of US security, it will do so.

The big picture is global, and we must consider all the perspectives, but the truly terrifying threat is the aforementioned one of a Russia-NATO war. The alliance system that would draw in dozens of other countries is not only set in the NATO and SCO charters, but also in the spirit of foriegn relations in general. When a threat emerges, nations often band together to face it. In this case, I believe the opposite to be true, but with involvement still factoring.

What I mean by this is that I believe that the Russia-NATO conflict will not be one involving two solid alliances going head-to-head, but rather the individual countries in those alliances being drawn in gradually, and reluctantly. As such, there won’t be a NATO, or an SCO for that matter.

It will be the economic and political interests of the Russian Federation clashing with those of the United States. All the other countries which happen to become involved would do so as a reaction to their territorial integrity being encorached upon and violated.

On TV and in the papers it will look like the alliances are solid and its a Good-Evil battle, but in reality, it’ll be a dogs breakfast of entangled interests coming into open conflict, and a true embarrassment to the very nature of what an ‘alliance’ is. It will certainly be an ‘every state for itself’ battle, with many demonstrating some very ambiguous policies during the conflict.

At the end of it all, they will wonder why they were even allies in the first place.

The very purpose of NATO was designed to counter the threat of the USSR. The Warsaw Pact (which was Russia’s version of NATO) was designed to counter the threat of NATO. Today, NATO is claiming to have legitimate grounds for deploying missiles on Russia’s border to “counter the Iranian threat�. This action caused Russia to deploy missiles on NATO’s border, on the doorstep of Poland.

So further to enticing Iran to take a more hostile tone with it, NATO has inadvertently created a new Cold War with Russia. In several months time, it may even do something clumsily to create a threat from China!

An alliance system that has its roots in military confrontation has no place in today’s world. The SCO is an economic alliance. NATO is an outdated military alliance. It is the real reason why the Third World War is closer to becoming reality today than it was at any time since the 1962 missile crisis.

And it adds weight to the former Brezhnev advisor and the article titled “war with Russia is inevitable within five years�.

If Barack Obama wants to tear down walls and change the world, this may be an area in which he may want to start, lest there is no world left to change.

[vector7]

The Risk Of Confrontation With Russia

Douglas E. Schoen, 12.17.08, 12:00 AM EST

From oil to Cuba, recent political moves heighten tension.

Russia's actions over the last few days underscore a central but largely unacknowledged challenge in American foreign policy: that Russia is in the process of implementing a series of initiatives that will inevitably lead to a confrontation with the U.S.

For one, Russia decided for the first time this week to join an OPEC effort to cut oil production, a move that will inevitably heighten tensions with the West. In the past, Russia has resisted, but now the world's largest oil producer and second-largest exporter of petroleum has indicated it would even consider formally joining OPEC. Russia, which could risk losing its coveted membership in the G-8, may well reduce the 9.75 million barrels it produces each day by 300,000.

Additionally, recent talks between Moscow and Washington over arms control and missile defense have yielded no tangible results. While both sides expressed generalized optimism about the future of their negotiations, Russian leaders don't expect that the "serious differences" they've spoken of will be resolved anytime soon.

Meanwhile, Russia announced on Monday that its warships will visit Cuba for the first time since the end of the Soviet era. The ships have been in the Caribbean since last month and their presence in our hemisphere has been widely viewed as a response to the U.S.' use of warships to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia this summer after that country's war with Russia.

And on Saturday, North Korea suggested it might slow the disablement of its main nuclear facility--after the U.S. suspended energy aid to the state because talks failed to verify that it was, in fact, disabling its nuclear facility.

While the U.S. State Department said that all five countries negotiating with North Korea--Japan, Russia, China, the U.S. and South Korea--agreed that future energy shipments would not be delivered until progress was made on a "verification protocol" with Pyongyang, Russia said that it will continue to send oil to North Korea.

Further, Russia emphatically denied agreeing with the U.S. to implement a delay or to suspend oil shipments if North Korea did not cooperate with their dismantling process.

These recent actions represent Moscow's latest attempts to challenge U.S. interests around the world.

Immediately after the U.S. presidential election, in response to the U.S. plan to place a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, Russia announced plans to place offensive missiles aimed at Western Europe in Kaliningrad. The Russians, according to President Dmitry Medvedev, believe that the U.S. missile defense system is designed exclusively to target them and is part of an aggressive, hegemonic act by the U.S.

Indeed, Western leaders have made it clear that the system is not meant to protect the U.S. and Europe from Russia, but rather is intended to protect the U.S. and NATO from the possible use of nuclear weapons by Iran. Russia has been a longtime supporter of the expansion and growth of Iran's "peaceful" nuclear energy development, and commercial ties between the two nations are robust.

In addition, through one of Russia's close allies, the Venezuelans, there are ties to rogue states and terrorist organizations. So the Russians are, at the very least, turning a blind eye to possible terrorist activity. The level of cooperation between the Venezuelans and the Iranians is so substantial--with respect to arms transfers, agricultural projects and explicit, direct support of Hamas and Hezbollah--that it would be a profound error not to hold the Russians at least partially accountable for actions by these groups, which are destabilizing an already unstable world.

The U.S. needs to stand firm on its positions vis-Ã*-vis Russia. But it must also make clear that there could be large benefits from U.S.-Russian relations if the Russians are responsible. Of course, on the most straightforward level, there is the possibility for additional arms control agreements and the withdrawal of our plan to put a missile shield in the Czech Republic and Poland.

But there is also the possibility for substantial, direct economic cooperation between the two countries. Russia desperately needs additional foreign investment for its energy sector. The U.S. should make it clear that with closer cooperation on security goals and terrorism--and if Russia backs away from its strong ties to North Korea, Iran and Venezuela--it would facilitate and encourage this investment.

To that end, the U.S. needs to make the case that it can offer better economic incentives to a struggling Russia than Russia can gain from arms sales and nuclear exchanges with state sponsors of terrorism.

The Russian threat is clear, immediate and obvious. The Russians have the ability to help stop nuclear proliferation and restrain terrorism around the world. Unless the new administration develops a policy aimed at cooperation, Joe Biden's worst fear--that Barack Obama would be tested by an international crisis--will be realized, perhaps sooner than anybody expected.

Douglas E. Schoen, a pollster and writer, has been a campaign consultant for more than 30 years and is the author, most recently, of Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two-Party System.

www.forbes.com

[vector7]

EURASIA INSIGHT

RUSSIA: ECONOMIC CRASH COULD FUEL AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR BY THE KREMLIN

12/18/08
A EurasiaNet Commentary by Stephen Blank
Print this article

In late August, immediately following the Russian army’s blitz on Georgia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev proclaimed that Moscow had "privileged interests" in countries "with which we share special historical relations." The vague terminology of Medvedev’s pronouncement indicated that the Kremlin wanted to establish a sphere of influence that extended beyond the traditional boundaries of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

These days, it’s doubtful that the Kremlin has the money to back up its bluster. But the lack of means might actually make Russia more inclined to make geopolitical mischief than back when state coffers were brimming over.
In recent months, the Russian economy has tanked like no other. The Central Bank is hemorrhaging foreign currency reserves at an alarming rate, industrial production is crashing and officials announced on December 16 the second devaluation of the ruble inside a week. In addition, Russia’s all-important energy industry is feeling severely squeezed by the rapid decline of energy prices. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

It should be noted that even before the global economic crisis torpedoed the Russian economy, Russia lacked the influence to enforce its geopolitical will. This fact was quite visibly demonstrated during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in late August. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. SCO members flat out refused to ratify the dismemberment of Georgia, and effectively rejected the notion that Russia enjoyed a right to intervene in other states where "Russian" citizens lived in order to defend their interests. Given this rejection, Medvedev’s sphere-of-influence pronouncement could be interpreted as a reflection of Russia’s lack of trusted friends.

But the Western allies should take little comfort from the fact that Russia doesn’t have outside support for its aggressive behavior. Moscow has repeatedly demonstrated that it is quite capable on its own of making trouble - whether it is violating its own ceasefire agreement in Georgia, or making nuclear threats to Central European states.

Such actions are hallmarks of a regime out of control. It is clear that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s political machine, having grown accustomed to unquestioned obedience at home, wanted Moscow to be able to operate without any constraints in what it considered to be its "near-abroad." What the Kremlin didn’t realize was that the hubris that accompanied the successful invasion of Georgia clouded sound judgment. To quote a Georgian who was once master of the Kremlin: Putin became "dizzy with success."

The costs of Moscow’s over-ambition were mounting even before the economic crisis started draining the treasury. How Russia will climb out of its fiscal hole is anybody’s guess, especially if energy prices remain at current levels, or decline further. Urals crude is now trading at $44 per barrel, while the government’s budget projections were based on a $70 barrel of oil. Meanwhile, the debt ratings agency Standard & Poor’s has lowered Russia’s rating for the first time in a decade, and double digit inflation is fast putting many Russian families in a bind. Indeed, Putin’s legacy as the great builder of Russian prosperity is rapidly coming unraveled.

Hardship may not chasten Putin’s Kremlin, however. As Russia’s crisis widens, the Kremlin may be increasingly tempted to prove its worth by indulging in a new form of Great Power-wannabe bullying. One of the less noticed lessons of the August war was that it yet again exhibited the arbitrary nature of Russia’s decision-making apparatus, and how the dependence on an authoritarian leadership structure encourages aggressive action.

Since Medvedev is on record as saying Russia neither fears a Cold War, nor a rupture in ties with NATO, it is not clear whether the Kremlin can dispassionately evaluate the risks it might face in any future crisis. For this reason, the Kremlin’s sphere-of-influence attitude raises the likelihood of a future crisis in its neighborhood. Russia’s economic difficulties are bound to call into question its regional leadership status. No doubt Russia will be tempted to crack the whip in the CIS to show that it remains the regional boss.

Editor's Note: Stephen Blank is a professor at the US Army War College. The views expressed this article do not in any way represent the views of the US Army, Defense Department or the US Government.

Posted December 18, 2008 © Eurasianet http://www.eurasianet.org

[American Patriot]

Ok.. who believes that good old Mother Russia would be aggressive and attack the USA?

Raise your hands....

[Toad]

Normally, I would say no... except for Putin. Putin scares me. He is classic KGB and entirely willing to sacrifice any and everything to further his agenda. If Putin wasn't the puppet master, I'd say no. Until he is dead and gone... yes. And even then I'll keep a lookout for his ghost.

[American Patriot]

I was being a tad sarcastic, you know. haha

[vector7]

Bump

Companion Threads:

• At end of 2008 Russian Advisor warns War ‘inevitable within 5 years’
• Russia scrambles to build 5000 new bomb shelters by 2012 for strategic nuclear strike
• Russian AF to Get First T-50 Fighters in 2013
• Russia May Deploy First S-500 Missiles in 2013 - Air Force
• New Russian Tank 'Armata' to appear in 2013
• Russian Air Force To Receive Up To 100 Sukhoi Fighter Jets By 2015
• China Aiming To Have Its Own GPS In Place By 2012
• U.S. and China Declare Cold War
• China's Hu urges navy to prepare for combat
• China's new alliance strategy to isolate U.S. from its allies before war
• PLA says war with U.S. imminent
• F-22 is irrelevant in a Sino-American conflict
• China’s Navy Will Overtake US Fleet by 2015

[American Patriot]

Russia, China... bring it assholes. LOL