Right all the way.

I am probably wrong, but I sense we are dealing with a new breed of cat here. Putin strikes me as willing to engage in edgework of which would have given the (often) geriatric Sov leadership cardiacs. The poisoning of that Russian reporter living in London, for example. That plutonium could have sickened or killed many. The old Sovs would not have dared using such a dreadful weapon (Stalin precisely took down Trotsky with an icepick). Rumors of the Russian mega-air-sea-land base in Syria with nukes is a direct attempt to put the kibosh on our surrogate in the Middle East. To me it looks like Putin is going up against the biggest player with a small bankroll and playing very high risk poker. It is reminiscent of Hitler to me---like seizing the Rhineland with one regiment. It's funny how powerful even second or third tier powers look when they move aggressively!

Agreed in the sense that Putin is a new kind of cat in European (or world) politics.

Now I don't think you could compare him to any of the ideological leaders of the 20th century. To me he more seems to be like that kind of "Gassenjunge", ragamuffin, urchin, who is generally acknowledged leader of the gang because of his cleverness and toughness. And that's what his political adventures make up to me: punches below the belt or worse wall-to-wall counselling people get who do not accept the territory of the gang. That's a different breed than a megalomaniac.

Putin's Russia is a fascist pseudo-democracy built on oligarchic capitalism. As it is, it cannot be accommodated. Yet I would prefer old-fashioned containment to appeasement or aggressive engagement (as it is a nuclear super-power). But by just excluding Russia from the West and Europe - what is actually what we are doing right now -, what could it do but either grovel or engage with worse? That's why I am asking for a long-term (after Putin) prospect.

quote:

Yet I would prefer old-fashioned containment to appeasement or aggressive engagement (as it is a nuclear super-power).

Agreed! But there will be times (see my earlier post) where it will be necessary to call the Bear's bluff. You can only do that with a united West and a strong military. Scary, but unavoidable, if containment is to be successful.

quote:

Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I was watching CNN this morning. A reporter in Poland was asking Poles whether they believed the U.S. would defend them against Russia. One man who looked to be in his 40s had absolute faith the U.S. would do so. She asked two older gents who had been through WWII. Both of them guffawed.

No difference whether those two went through WWII.The Polish society, however ignoring it may be, knows that the West will not defend them when it`s time.The only reason why about 63% Poles agree with the government on the agreement is positioning strategic installations of another superpower on their land, to actually give Americans a good reason (American soldiers and hardware) to react. They will not defend us so maybe they will defend their own stuff in Poland.

Another factor is to give Russia something to be afraid of.If the shield is going to work out, Russian threatenings to Poland are basicly the same to the USA.

Ok, so what is the latest news o the Georgian/Russian War?

It is my understanding that The Russians have sent in 2 Nuclear Aircraft Carriers to stand watch over 1 of Our Nuclear aircraft Carriers that went there to deliver food and other things to the Georgians.

Also, what's up with Russia & Poland?

Russia doesn't have any nuclear powered aircraft carriers. As far as I know they have only one carrier which is named Kuznetsov.

quote:

Originally posted by berg417448:
Russia doesn't have any nuclear powered aircraft carriers. As far as I know they have only one carrier which is named Kuznetsov.

I guess you're right, according to this link anyway.

http://128.121.102.226/rcar.html

I wonder where the client I had in the car tonight got that information from?

This has all the makings of the two classic Cold War clashes of the Kennedy administration: (1) Berlin 1961 and (2) Cuba 1962---the two most dangerous confrontations of the Cold War. It also reminds me of 1914 because the law of unintended consequences is going full bore---all the numbers could go random all of a sudden and all of us would be wondering what in the blazes happened.

And, see this tidbit:

"In a secret agreement between Israel and Georgia, two military airfields in southern Georgia had been earmarked for the use of Israeli fighter bombers in the event of preemptive attacks against Iranian nuclear installations. This would sharply reduce the distance Israeli fighter bombers would have to fly to hit targets in Iran. And to reach Georgian airstrips, the Israeli Air Force (IAF) would fly over Turkey."

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/04/israel-of-the-caucasus/