Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

New nuclear policy ‘strategically loopy’

April 9, 2010

Advertisement

— Nuclear doctrine consists of thinking the unthinkable. It involves making threats and promising retaliation that is cruel and destructive beyond imagining. But it has its purpose: to prevent war in the first place.

During the Cold War, we let the Russians know that if they dared use their huge conventional military advantage and invaded Western Europe, they risked massive U.S. nuclear retaliation. Goodbye Moscow.

Was this credible? Would we have done it? Who knows? No one’s ever been there. A nuclear posture is just that — a declaratory policy designed to make the other guy think twice.

Our policies did. The result was called deterrence. For half a century, it held. The Soviets never invaded. We never used nukes. That’s why nuclear doctrine is important.

The Obama administration has just issued a new one that “includes significant changes to the U.S. nuclear posture,” said Defense Secretary Bob Gates. First among these involves the U.S. response to being attacked with biological or chemical weapons.

Under the old doctrine, supported by every president of both parties for decades, any aggressor ran the risk of a cataclysmic U.S. nuclear response that would leave the attacking nation a cinder and a memory.

Again: Credible? Doable? No one knows. But the threat was very effective.

Under President Obama’s new policy, however, if the state that has just attacked us with biological or chemical weapons is “in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT),” explained Gates, then “the U.S. pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against it.”

Imagine the scenario: Hundreds of thousands are lying dead in the streets of Boston after a massive anthrax or nerve gas attack. The president immediately calls in the lawyers to determine whether the attacking state is in compliance with the NPT. If it turns out that the attacker is up-to-date with its latest IAEA inspections, well, it gets immunity from nuclear retaliation. (Our response is then restricted to bullets, bombs and other conventional munitions.)

However, if the lawyers tell the president that the attacking state is NPT noncompliant, we are free to blow the bastards to nuclear kingdom come.

This is quite insane. It’s like saying that if a terrorist deliberately uses his car to mow down a hundred people waiting at a bus stop, the decision as to whether he gets (a) hanged or (b) 100 hours of community service hinges entirely on whether his car had passed emissions inspections.

Apart from being morally bizarre, the Obama policy is strategically loopy. Does anyone believe that North Korea or Iran will be more persuaded to abjure nuclear weapons because they could then carry out a biological or chemical attack on the U.S. without fear of nuclear retaliation?

The naivete is stunning. Similarly the Obama pledge to forswear development of any new nuclear warheads, indeed, to permit no replacement of aging nuclear components without the authorization of the president himself. This under the theory that our moral example will move other countries to eschew nukes.

On the contrary. The last quarter-century — the time of greatest superpower nuclear arms reduction — is precisely when Iran and North Korea went hellbent into the development of nuclear weapons.

It gets worse. The administration’s Nuclear Posture Review declares U.S. determination to “continue to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in deterring non-nuclear attacks.” The ultimate aim is to get to a blanket doctrine of no first use.

This is deeply worrying to many small nations who for half a century relied on the extended U.S. nuclear umbrella to keep them from being attacked or overrun by far more powerful neighbors. When smaller allies see the United States determined to move inexorably away from that posture — and for them it’s not posture, but existential protection — what are they to think?

Fend for yourself. Get yourself your own WMDs. Go nuclear if you have to. Do you imagine they are not thinking that in the Persian Gulf?

This administration seems to believe that by restricting retaliatory threats and by downplaying our reliance on nuclear weapons, it is discouraging proliferation.

But the opposite is true. Since World War II, smaller countries have agreed to forgo the acquisition of deterrent forces — nuclear, biological and chemical — precisely because they placed their trust in the firmness, power and reliability of the American deterrent.

Seeing America retreat, they will rethink. And some will arm. There is no greater spur to hyper-proliferation than the furling of the American nuclear umbrella.

— Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group. letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Comments

paulette2 4 years ago

Snap changed his avatar ?

what's up with that ?

0

Liberty275 4 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

porch_person 4 years ago

Liberty275,

""How you expect to retain respect" --- porch_person

"Respect of others is optional unless you want something from them or you need their approval to prop up your weak opinion of yourself. You are a good example of the latter." --- Liberty275

(laughter)

Everyone can see your annoyance at my responses. Calling me "porchi" (Italian for "pigs") and using the asterisk as a synonym for a$$hole is evidence that you don't appreciate your fringe opinions highlighted by another blogger.

(laughter)

You came out in favor of noted child raper Vernon Lee Howell / David Koresh.

You defended noted nutcase Randy Weaver.

You came out for polygamy. That won't get you "respect" or "approval" from the ladies or anyone who believes in monogamous marriage.

(laughter)

You refused to take responsibility for losing an argument with jonas_opines, declaring that you couldn't lose an argument because you are a nihilist and words have no meaning. That's funny because if words truly had no meaning for you, you wouldn't be calling me "pigs" or a$$hole. You have figured that out, haven't you?

(laughter)

You stated that conservatives are more tolerant than liberals then almost immediately afterward, recommended that Republicans filibuster anyone who Obama submits to replace Justice Stevens.

That's tolerant.

(laughter)

You revealed, unsolicited, that you spent several years in a rescue mission in South Carolina. What was that for, Liberty275? What was your problem? You directly asked me to explore that subject. I'm sure the experience forms some basis for this "Screw the world, I don't have to conform to rules (nihilism)" attitude you have.

(laughter)

0

Liberty275 4 years ago

"iberty, problem is 90% of posters are too stupid to know they are being manipulated by Fox, Beck and the druggie."

I'm not sure I see a connection between people believing right-wing news organizations and entertainers and people recognizing that ^ supports his arguments with inaccurate information, outright lies, out of context quotations and logical fallacies.

The only way I see to parse your statement (disregarding that you might just be commenting on irrelevant coincidences) is that the 90% group are the same, and therefore being manipulated by fox beck and limbaugh make you more able to spot someone that routinely uses deficient strategies in an attempt to prove their point.

I know you don't believe that. I also know you are one of the 90% capable of recognizing *'s faulty arguments. To remove the conflict from those two statements, I can only surmise you are trying to provide cover for him because he's playing on your team. That's OK I suppose, but it's sad to to see you disregard honesty to cover for a liar-by-various-methodologies.

If I have a premise wrong, or you intended some other logical connection, fill me in.

0

beobachter 4 years ago

liberty, problem is 90% of posters are too stupid to know they are being manipulated by Fox, Beck and the druggie. Apparently they are all mindless teabaggers.

0

Liberty275 4 years ago

Obama job approval since this story hit the press:

Gallup 4/8 - 4/10 Agree 45 Disagree 48 Rasmussen 4/8 - 4/10 Agree 47 Disagree 53

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

0

Liberty275 4 years ago

", just quote me. At least that way you will get what I say right and sound a lot more interesting.

"Anyhoo, not surprised to see you coming out in defense of a racist statement made by jaywalker."

I'll defend the right of anyone to make a racist statement that doesn't incite an eminent threat to the rights of others. You should know that by now. Racist speech is protected speech in America. That wascally First Amendment always twips you up.

Whether any speech on this forum is racist is at the sole discretion of the editorial staff. On their property, I defer to them regarding the matter.

"I took a poll " Did it hurt?

"You did say you were from South Carolina, didn't you?" Yes. I am proud to have been born in the first state to declare it's independence from England and the first state to secede during the civil war. I'm not sure why that matters though.

"The other thing that people notice about you is that you have no honor." I am the only arbiter of my honor.

"How you expect to retain respect" Respect of others is optional unless you want something from them or you need their approval to prop up your weak opinion of yourself. You are a good example of the latter.

0

porch_person 4 years ago

Liberty275,

Ok, you found out that defending David Koresh and Randy Weaver was, perhaps, not the best way to make friends and influence people. Coming out in support of polygamy didn't help either. People aren't digging on polygamy like they might back in South Carolina. Describing the Windows product line as "stable" didn't help your stature here either. There are more than a few people here who have some experience with computers and that statement was laughable.

The other thing that people notice about you is that you have no honor. When presented with arguments that refute your BS, you bail to "I'm a nihilist" Words have no meaning for me. It's impossible for me to lose an argument." How you expect to retain respect from your fellow man when you make statements like that shows you don't think things through. Probably the same thought processes that got you into that rescue mission in South Carolina for a few years.

Anyhoo, not surprised to see you coming out in defense of a racist statement made by jaywalker. You did say you were from South Carolina, didn't you? I took a poll and 100% of people can follow the link and see that my account is accurate and both of you are two peas in a pod.

(laughter)

0

Liberty275 4 years ago

"You're a liar, porch. Period. "

When * quotes me, I always look at it as giving him a way of posting original thoughts instead just spitting up the logically weak product of his own mind.

We should be happy to help out the intellectually challenged.

"You're a liar, porch. Period. You can re-post the quotes for the thousandth time, but it still won't make them mean what you want them to."

90% of people on this forum are smart enough to see the lies in *'s posts. I wouldn't worry too much about them.

0

jaywalker 4 years ago

"defending an incident that got Don Imus kicked off the air for nine months"

That's a lie.

"Jaywalker said if Sonia Sotomayor had been white, she would not have gotten "this far""

That's a lie.

You're a liar, porch. Period. You can re-post the quotes for the thousandth time, but it still won't make them mean what you want them to. Don't blame me for your dementia. I've attempted to set you straight, you refuse to heed the words. Bully for you for taking the casual nature of a forum and twisting someone's words; you're an innovator, pal.

To follow will be the Porch Playbook:

(laughter)

quotation represented out of context preceded or succeeded by "they're your words"

(laughter)

more repetition of points from an argument long ago lost

(laughter)

more blahblahblahblahblah......retch........

0

George Lippencott 4 years ago

Poor Tom - so many of you would miss him!

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years ago

November 2010---November 2012:

Like a thief in the night for Democrats.

They'll have a blank expression on their disgusting faces the morn' after. Can't wait. America is sick of them.

0

George Lippencott 4 years ago

How fitting. The left and the right are at it again here in Lawrence. Mr. Obama will destroy us all by increasing the nuclear threat. No, Mr. Obama will save us all by reducing the nuclear threat. Great. When, faced with a nuclear policy question we go on about prose.

Just exactly what did Mr. Obama do? Just exactly what is there that would keep him from changing his mind in the future. Is some petty tyrant somewhere going to complain to the UN after Mr. Obama crisps him for killing a whole bunch of innocent Americans with a nasty biologic? Don’t you think they realize he can change his mind at any time?

I suspect this whole thing is for domestic consumption. The Democratic Party base did not get a national health care program. OK, let’s give them a perceived positive “change” in nuclear policy. I suspect there will be more of these initiatives. I can only hope the next one has a more substantive impact.

0

Liberty275 4 years ago

Meh. Any country that attacks us with chemical or biological weapons can be decimated with air blast ordinance, which are comparable in effect to small nukes. A few MOABs hitting five major cities simultaneously would get the point across pretty quick.

Obama may be a rookie wannabe, but the military won't let him put our country at risk.

0

porch_person 4 years ago

barrypenders,

Sarah Palin as the 2012 Republican nominee for President is the best possible present Democrats could receive. Someone anyone could beat.

She's this era's Dan Qualye. A money maker on the expensive luncheon circuit. Nothing more. She has so many negatives, it's hard to know where to start. Republican insiders can't figure out how she's gotten where she is. I'm referring, of course, to the Noonan incident at the Republican National Convention in 2008.

0

beobachter 4 years ago

barry, quoting you. "She is what she seems to you". So that means she is a mindless bimbo? After all that's what she seems to be to me.

0

barrypenders 4 years ago

Keep your 'Eye' on Mrs. Palin pp. She is what she seems to you and the PADs.

Stimulus, Follow The Bouncing Ball, and Posercare live unprecedented

Darwin bless you

0

porch_person 4 years ago

Barrypenders,

Sarah Palin questioned Barack Obama's policy decisions regarding nuclear weapons, policy decisions which seem to mirror Ronald Reagan's. Is this another area where Sarah Palin is uninformed? Will there be "blowback" when this ignorance is reviewed, as is already being done? Do any of her handlers consider these things before she goes out and looks at her hand in front of an audience?

(laughter)

What's funny is that Newt Gingrich says that Palin is "tremendously important right now, I mean for maybe 40 percent of the country, she personifies courage, clarity,..... "She's attractive, she's articulate, she has energy,"

Has Newt lost the part of his mind that he left in the classroom that he tried to sell insurance in? When he had that affair during the Clinton Administration?

Can you help us out here, barrypenders? You seem to be the only right winger with the courage to defend the demonstrably ignorant.

(laughter)

0

Olympics 4 years ago

Let's play the hypocrisy of the conservatives game (again). Obama policy = Ronald Reagan policy, but Obama's a socialist/marxist.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-epis...

Stop being afraid right wingers!

0

barrypenders 4 years ago

Flesh tones are very, 'Very', important to PADs pp.

If that is not so. Since when?

"Nappy" is a term that is used, and 'Conking' alleviates it.

Thanks

Stimulus, Harry Reid Portraitures, and Posercare live unprecedented

Darwin bless you

0

jaywalker 4 years ago

Matter of choice? What are you talking about? It's not a matter of choice to hold a bigoted attitude toward a race or to smear gays? Stand by it if you like but it's still an incredibly foolish generalization, particularly since you have no idea who you're talking about. The "average right winger"? Know an incredibly large number of them do you? That's the kind of brilliant deductive logic my 11 year old niece uses when she declares she doesn't like a certain meal even though she's never tried it. The fact is, you have no clue how "decent' any of these people you'd like to smear are. Like I said, pathetic. What happened to the tolerance of liberals? What happened to the revulsion of stereotyping the left is supposed to champion? Do unto others, brother. lest you become a porch person.

0

jaywalker 4 years ago

"That's the only way to take on the US, as we have no stomach for prolonged war."

True dat, 75, that's certainly the other side of the coin. It's all good if we can swoop in and save the day, but it has to be lightning quick with little to no loss of U.S. soldiers, ala Desert Storm. 'Course, not cleaning up afterwards by pulling out so quickly gave us our latest rendition. Makes me want to read Catch-22 all over again.

"No, Barney was a decent human being. Most wingers aren't at all decent humans."

Yet another example of how you lose all credibility with a single sentence, scott. "Most wingers...?" Isn't that along the same lines as 'most homosexuals are pedophiles' or 'most blacks are untrustworthy'? Doesn't take any discretion, rationality, nor intelligent thought to drum up such blanket accusations, does it now? Pathetic, brother.

0

barrypenders 4 years ago

Give Poser a break. He has issues with beer and is a heavy smoker so he may have been under the weather when handing this country's defense over to Putin. Rest assured that Putin has alot of respect for Kenyan descendants and would never ever take advantage of the 'Blessed One'.

Stimulus, Whew, and Posercare live unprecedented

Darwin bless us

0

Mixolydian 4 years ago

Not one single country, not Iran, not North Korea, not Libya, not anyone, will sign the non-proliferation pact because of this. Not one.

All Obama did was make us weaker.

2012 cannot come soon enough.

0

commuter 4 years ago

What country are we at war with??? I am confused??

0

75x55 4 years ago

Curious, MyName, how that elephant in the mirror looks like a donkey too...

"we've got an election to win so it's time to make up another bogeyman to scare people with!"

Dems have never done that, have they? LOL!

0

MyName 4 years ago

And once again good ol' Chuck proves that there is no issue that the GOP hacks can't try to turn into some kind of political spin contest.

Nevermind the fact that Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, Clinton and many other past Presidents were in favor of limiting the number and potential to use Nukes, we've got an election to win so it's time to make up another bogeyman to scare people with!

0

preebo 4 years ago

One thing that "The Hammer" fails to acknowledge is that George Shultz, President Reagan's Sec. of State has commented that President Reagan would have endorsed this maneuver. Just another example of how the ol' part of the Grand Ol' Party is being reduced to a bumper sticker campaign alongside the Confederate Flag.

Nixon was for a mandate, and now it is Socialism, Reagan was for reducing "loose nukes" and now that is seen as weak.

For those of you who believe fmr. AK half-term Gov. Palin is the second coming of Reagan, I bid you and your relevance, adieu.

0

George Lippencott 4 years ago

Well, lets see. I know have the promise of a guy that has broken what some people consider promises (more to come). Will he pass me by or turn me into a cinder??

0

Richard Payton 4 years ago

Barrypender needs to remove his picture and word jihad because the Blessed One doesn't want us to use this term anymore. Future censorship and new world order should be hurled. Who needs nukes we have stronger more dangerous bombs if needed. Nobody use the F----bomb.

0

deathpenaltyliberal 4 years ago

I see that our favorite Canadian conservative Krauthummer is leading the charge of the bedwetting whiners. His scenarios are pure fiction, he ought to write for "24".

The President is just continuing the rational treaty policy of Ronald Reagan.

It is hypocritical to bleat about government spending, but have no problems with paying for the development and maintenance of thousands of nukes that will never be used. We can maintain a smaller arsenal that will still be a deterrent.

0

feeble 4 years ago

This treaty is a continuation to START I, as proposed by Reagan, and keeps within the goals and guidelines outlined by Reagan's proposal.

Given the conservative caterwaulin' going on over the new START treaty, I can only conclude that Reagan was a closet socialist, bent on selling out the U S of A to his soviet overlords.

This is the man, after all, who famousl claimed that he would tell Yuri Andropov "The only way there could be war is if they start it; we're not going to start a war" .

0

barrypenders 4 years ago

A good question whats_going_on. Might I suggest asking one of the 'Tea Baguetts' that query.

Stimulus, Bombs Away, and Posercare live unprecedented

Darwin bless us all

0

whats_going_on 4 years ago

What does a country have to do to be in compliance?

0

Ricky_Vaughn 4 years ago

I've heard it's much like Reagan's plan back in the day....isn't he the favorite conservative hero from the past?

0

Clint Gentry 4 years ago

Tommy follows with another beauty...you guys are really on fire today!

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years ago

blah blah blah

Wow!

Disaster. Who's ready?

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

vanguard3 4 years ago

The Russians seemed very pleased with the agreement, and that's not a good sign. I do enjoy the way the Russians deal with terrorists, though. Their rhetoric is also quite good.

0

Clint Gentry 4 years ago

Nonsensical attempt at disparaging president through vague reference of campaign slogan: check, and check...

good one snaps...

0

Clint Gentry 4 years ago

Tom Shewmon states: "War is peace, smart is dumb, lies are truth!"

Penders invokes racist sentiment, "Arabic name" and "Presidential class", (see the more common usage of the term, 'uppity', if you want to know where he's really going with that one)

Again, teeth gnashing, flailing with bad metaphors, mistruths, conservative "Dialog" at it's finest...

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years ago

On the job training may just get a few million folks gassed, incinerated or blown to smithereends but eh, oh well, hmmmf, I mean, it's Obama right! Who's to question this presidential trainee who is a constitutional scholar? He's learning, growing, transforming, befriending, categorizing and re-engineering society; telling the who, what and where of social class and global standing of America. Obama is all down with global togetherness. Go dawg!

0

barrypenders 4 years ago

The Honorable, Noble Peace Laureate with the Arabic name, full to the brim with 'Nuclear' Know-how, had this to say to ABC's George Stephanopoulos about Mrs. Palin:

"I really have no response, because last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues,"

The Commando n Chief, with plenty of 'Presidential Class' would have gained more respect had he Articulated about Mrs. Palin and her Nuclear 'Prowess',

"I am rubber, you are glue, whatever you say, bounces off me, and sticks on you"

Stimulus, Commando Bent, and Posercare live unprecedented

Darwin bless us all

0

Flap Doodle 4 years ago

Remember bozo's last post the next time he gets all huffy about someone else going to name-calling.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years ago

"This President need to be questioned about everything."

Every president and every governor shouldn't be questioned about everything. But the "questioning" by idiots like Krauthammer merely because Obama isn't part of his perceived team is of absolutely no value.

0

Clint Gentry 4 years ago

rhd99 - "why does the president need to point out the inherent racism in a 'confederate month'?"

We were hoping maybe you could answer that for yourself "rhd99", but since you couldn't, we needed the president to point it out for you. Ignorance = Intelligence right?

0

rhd99 4 years ago

This President need to be questioned about everything. That flap about the VA. governor the other day, the governor apologized. Why does this President need to re-hash history. MOVE ON ALREADY!

0

Clint Gentry 4 years ago

Conservative mantra: Violence = Peace, Ignorance = Intelligence, Black = White.

(Well, thats how their corporate masters want them to think anyway...)

0

Tom Shewmon 4 years ago

Why do guys like Krauthammer, Beck, Hannity, Rush and O'Reilly keep stirring the pot by questioning this president? He was elected to be be our Supreme Commander in Chief, not to be questioned about everything he does and says. There is solid unchecked power, which is needed in these times and this also includes a large majority of the media. Then you have the above named trouble makers and those pesky astroturfing, unpatriotic, Nazi-like Tea Partiers trying to diminish and destroy Obama's transformation plan. it's very troubling.

0

Olympics 4 years ago

When I think about American conservatives, I often think it must suck to live in fear all the time. Bunch of Barney Fife's.

0

75x55 4 years ago

"I don't believe any country wants to take our forces on for a prolonged war. "

That's the only way to take on the US, as we have no stomach for prolonged war.

Fools that argue about how many nukes we have and how many we should get rid of might consider that this country hasn't had the stones to actually use a nuke in decades. Doesn't matter if it's one or a thousand, we won't throw the rock, no matter what happens.

Thousands of citizens did lay dead in our streets, and we didn't throw a rock. It doesn't matter if we have any at all - we won't use them.

A superpower with self-esteem issues, we will negotiate with terrorists over three Berkley-deluded moron hikers held hostage by Iran, or the most recent useful-idiot that got snatched by North Korea.

The US is neuter.

0

Roland Gunslinger 4 years ago

I'm all for cutting our nuclear arsenal- we have roughly 2500 nuclear weapons. We'd be good with 150 or so. The costs to maintain these weapons are huge, so scaling back the number would ease our defense budget some.

I'm totally against tieing our own hands when it comes to how we would react to an attack on us. The deterrence of a chem or bio attack against the U.S. by a state that is NPT compliant is gone.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years ago

Charles never fails us-- there's never a problem that can't be solved by massive violence and destruction, or the threat thereof.

0

cato_the_elder 4 years ago

Obama again demonstrates why he is the most dangerous president to America in its history.

0

jaywalker 4 years ago

Snap made me laugh out loud.

Krauthammer starts his argument with an incredibly weak analogy. Sorry Charlie, but incurring the wrath and the military attack that would come from our forces is never the equivalent of "100 hours of community service." While it's not the same as the immediacy and total annihilation a nuclear attack would render, I don't believe any country wants to take our forces on for a prolonged war. 'Course, the real threat comes from expatriates and shadow entities like Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, but nuclear attacks against such entities are already a non-issue. Iran and North Korea won't attack us with biological weapons or any other weapons, at least not directly. Their posturing is self-serving for the most part; they know they can blackmail us 'cuz the rest of the word will decry any action or sanctions in due time.

Nope, we have to start looking at the world in new ways. I don't see anything wrong with the way the President is proceeding here.

0

barrypenders 4 years ago

Russia’s main goal within that struggle is to have Western influence pulled back from its former turf — especially in the former Soviet states — and for the United States to accept Russian pre-eminence in the former Soviet sphere. But Russia is not just waiting for the United States to hand over its former turf. Instead, it has been actively resurging back into these countries using a myriad of tools. Russia has long exerted its influence in the former Soviet states by attempting to ensure their economic reliance on Russia — as an integrated part of each country’s economy, and as an energy provider or energy transistor. This was seen in 2006 when Russia started cutting off energy supplies to Ukraine and also in Lithuania, to force the countries and their supporters in Europe to be more compliant. Russia proved in 2008 that it was willing to use military force against its former Soviet states by going to war with Georgia. This move was particularly poignant since Georgia also had been a country turned pro-Western via a color revolution, and was pushing for membership into NATO. In early 2010, Russia showed that it could slowly organize forces in Ukraine to be democratically elected, replacing the pro-Western government elected in the Orange Revolution. As of Wednesday, Russia has now added to its repertoire of tools used in the former Soviet states the ability to pull off its own style of color revolution with the toppling of the Kyrgyz government. Russia has been systematically tailoring its resurgence into each country of its former sphere according to the country’s circumstances. This has not been quick or easy for Moscow. The overthrow of Kyrgyzstan has been painstakingly planned for nearly a decade to either flip the country back under Moscow’s control, or at least roll back U.S. influence and make the country more pragmatic to the Russian mission. Russia knows there is no one-size-fits-all plan for its former Soviet states. The Kremlin cannot simply wage war with each country like it did with Georgia, cut off energy supplies like in Lithuania, set up a democratically elected government like in Ukraine or overthrow the government as in Kyrgyzstan. Now and going forward, Russia will tailor the type of influences it uses to each country it wants to control.

Stimulus, Bent Terrorist Enabler, and Posercare live unprecedented

Darwin bless us all

0

barrypenders 4 years ago

FRIDAY, APRIL 9, 2010 STRATFOR.COM Diary Archives

Russia's Growing Resurgence E VIDENCE OF RUSSIA’S ROLE IN THE OVERTHROW of the Kyrgyz government Wednesday became even clearer Thursday. Not coincidentally, members of the interim government that the opposition began forming on Wednesday have lengthy and deep ties to Russia. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was not only quick to endorse the new government, but he also offered the opposition Russia’s support — financial or otherwise. Interestingly, Russia on Thursday also sent 150 of its elite paratroopers to its military installation in Kant -– twenty miles from the capital of Bishkek –- leaving a looming suspicion that Russia could step in further to ensure the success of the new government. Protests take place regularly in Kyrgyzstan. The fact that Wednesday’s protests spun into riots, followed by the seizure then ousting of the government, followed by the installation of a replacement government set to take control — all in less than a 24-hour period — are all clear indicators that this was a highly organized series of events, likely orchestrated from outside the country. Furthering this assumption were reports from STRATFOR sources on the ground that noted a conspicuous Russian FSB presence in the country during the riots. These reports cannot be confirmed, but it is not unrealistic to assume that a pervasive presence of Russian security forces exists in the country. There are many reasons why Russia decided to target Kyrgyzstan. The country lies in a key geographic location nestled against China and Kazakhstan, and surrounds the most critical piece of territory in all of Central Asia: the Fergana Valley. Whoever controls Kyrgyzstan has the ability to pressure a number of states, including Kazakhstan, China, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Kyrgyzstan was also the scene of the 2005 Tulip Revolution, which ushered in President Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who is now sheltering himself in the southern regions of the country. It was not that Bakiyev was pro-Western like other color revolution leaders in Georgia and Ukraine, but he was available to the highest bidder and the United States was willing to pay. The United States has maintained a transit center at the Manas International Airport — which serves as a key logistical hub for its operations in Afghanistan — since 2001. Though Russia has four — soon to be five — military installations in Kyrgyzstan, Manas is the only serious U.S. military presence in Central Asia. With a Russian-controlled government coming into power in Bishkek, Moscow now holds the strings over Manas. This gives Russia another lever to use against the United States within the larger struggle between the two powers.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years ago

scott, you forgot to use the phrase "running dogs of imperialism" in your rant. You'll never get that Order of Lenin at this rate.

0

scott3460 4 years ago

The military/industrial complex cannot abide diminished access to the public trough and has sent its minions out to protect future revenue streams. The taxpayer must be scared in to submission and no tactic will be out of bounds. Behold the corporate propaganda arm of our fascist government in action.

0

independant1 4 years ago

America can carry herself and get along in pretty fair shape, but when she stops and picks up the whole world and puts it on her shoulders she just can’t “get it done. (Will Rogers)

0

independant1 4 years ago

No man is great if he thinks he is. (Will Rogers)

0

jmadison 4 years ago

President Obama is obtaining "peace in our time"

0

Corey Williams 4 years ago

barrypenders (anonymous) says…

"I'm with Mahmoud."

April 8, 2010 at 4:49 p.m.

0

barrypenders 4 years ago

Police departments all over the country should heed the 'Blessed Ones' behavior by eliminating 'Firearms' their Police Officers carry.

The most dangerous people in the 'World' are Police departments with 'Firearms'.

Stimulus, Bend Over, and Posecare live unprecedented

Darwin bless us

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.