1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Russia and China do Joint Military Maneuvers & Oil/Gas. Neocons Paranoia Bears Fruit

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by glynch, Dec 18, 2004.

Tags:
Page 1 of 2
  1. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,786
    Likes Received:
    3,394
    Those crazy neocons with their plans for The New American Century which brough us the Iraq quagmire are now bringing us a new coalitiion of enemies so we can waste a few more trillions on "defense". We saw Iran and China getting more and more together and doing major oil/gas deals. Now Russia and China doing manuevers and oil/gas deals.

    Wouldn't it have been better just to let the oil markets decide who gets the oil, instead of essentially trying to seize it with the Iraq War and engaging in lose talk about dominating the world for another century by grabbing a strangle hold on Mideast Oil? I thought the cons were so market oriented?

    This whole thing reminds me of when a paranoid acts so strange he engenders in others the reactions he is fearing.

    *************
    Laughing Dragon, Dancing Bear
    by Ray McGovern

    While President George W. Bush, his neoconservative advisers, and centrist Democrats bask in the glow of America’s status as "the one remaining superpower in the world," signs are mounting that other major powers do not intend to hunker down and suspend their own efforts to shape history.

    The most striking result of Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov's four-day visit to China this week was the agreement announced Monday to hold "substantial military exercises on Chinese territory in 2005" (quote from Russia's Interfax news agency). This was Ivanov's second trip to Beijing this year, and Chinese President Hu Jintao used the occasion to assert, "Sino-Russian strategic coordination has attained an unprecedentedly high level."

    The agreement to hold joint exercises is, in fact, unprecedented, and Hu went on to express satisfaction at the growth in relations between the two armies. Not that you would know any of this from our lethargic press.

    The Chinese and Russian news services played up the story, and AP and Reuters correspondents promptly filed detailed reports from Beijing. But most U.S. print media – The Washington Post, for example – ignored the story. The New York Times Tuesday cut it down to two sentences tacked onto the end of a roundup titled "World Briefing" on page A6.

    Nevertheless, it is a highly significant development, pointing out how major regional powers are reacting to the policy and actions of what they perceive to be the world's big bully.

    .....

    Putin's October visit also produced an agreement to jointly develop Russian energy reserves, an agreement by which China hopes to help ensure the supply of fuel for its burgeoning economy. Over the past decade Sino-Russian bilateral trade has grown by leaps and bounds. Most important, China has become Russia's arms industry's premier customer. This year, the Chinese are buying about $2 billion in weapons, many of them top of the line. For Russia, these sales are an important source of export earnings and keep key segments of its defense industry afloat. Cut off from arms sales from the West, Beijing has come to rely on Russia more and more for sophisticated arms and technology.

    .....

    The Russians and Chinese look on the quicksand in which U.S. forces are trying to stay afloat in Iraq with mixed feelings: alarm at what they see as unconstrained, unpredictable U.S. behavior, and schadenfreude at the fiasco brought about by ineptitude on the part of senior civilian defense officials and careerism among the generals, many of whom know better but have not the spine to tell their superiors that the war in Iraq cannot be won.

    What seems clear is that because of the U.S./U.K. attack on Iraq, China and Russia intend to give each other meaningful political support if Washington embarks on a new military adventure – against Iran, for example. That same assurance of mutual support and cooperation could also serve to embolden the Russians or Chinese for adventurism of their own – vis-à-vis Taiwan, for example, or Ukraine – taking advantage of the fact that the United States is pinned down in and preoccupied with Iraq.

    Pandora's World

    The lid is now off Pandora's preventive box. Just before leaving for Beijing, Defense Minister Ivanov made it clear that Russia "reserves the right to carry out preventive strikes with conventional weaponry on terror bases anywhere they are found in the world." Indeed, it may be a short step to applying the "terrorist" label to those wearing orange in Kiev.

    Like subterranean geological plates that shift imperceptibly, changes with immense political repercussions can occur so gradually as to be imperceptible – until the earthquake. Over the past several years, there has been rather broad consensus among specialists that, despite the gradual rapprochement between Russia and China, both remain more interested in developing good relations with the United States than with each other.

    This may no longer be the case. If it is not, our leaders ought to be given this bad news. Those who work on these questions would, I believe, be well advised to get together, give the issues fresh scrutiny and spell out what their findings imply for U.S. policy.

    There has always been a mix of challenge and opportunity in U.S.-Russian-Chinese triangular diplomacy. But with Condoleezza Rice in the role Henry Kissinger once played so deftly, it is possible that the dangers will escape notice and the opportunities will be squandered.

    link
     
    #1 glynch, Dec 18, 2004
  2. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,506
    Likes Received:
    181
    Wow. Two historical enemies (with large nuclear arsenals) are reapproaching and this is a bad thing? And we're responsible for it?

    Sweet.
     
    #2 HayesStreet, Dec 20, 2004
  3. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,267
    Likes Received:
    13,520
    Glynch,

    I have real question, I hope you'll give me an honest answer...

    If someone posted an article from www.prowar.com and it had absolutely unfounded leaps of logic that were the inverse of the following from your article:

    something along the lines of "Iran and Syria are disturbed about the US policies in Iraq, and have been talking. It won't take much for them to team up and deliver one of those new Iranian nukes via Syria to the US to blow up Washington".

    If this theoretical article were posted by, say, Trader_Jorge, do you understand how such an article would be widely viewed as disingenuous in that it was probably written with a conclusion already in mind and the facts most likely warped in order to reach that conclusion?

    Furthermore, do you understand that even if said article from www.prowar.com was supporting the correct or virtuous position on the subject, their arguement was tainted by the deceptive nature of their motives which would inherently cause a knee jerk reaction from many people towards the opposite position?
     
    #3 Ottomaton, Dec 21, 2004
  4. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,506
    Likes Received:
    181
    What a post...
     
    #4 HayesStreet, Dec 21, 2004
  5. Cohen

    Cohen Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    10,751
    Likes Received:
    6
    Why is www.prowar.com ... er... Amazon.com?

    (It must be part of the Military-Industrial Complex conspiracy)
     
    #5 Cohen, Dec 21, 2004
  6. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,786
    Likes Received:
    3,394
    Ottoman, do you understand that your post is little more than saying you don't like anti war . com? You make a point that you think it would perhaps be more effective to quote from say Time Mag. I agree.

    Don't you think that it is significant that China is doing joint military maneuvers with Russia-- When they weren't before? Is it significant that China and Iran are doing more energy deals? Even if the source citing this is from a forum you don't like?

    If you dispute factually that these maneuvers will take place, please cite. I will look at it even if it has an orientation that I might not generally approve of.

    Don't you think that it is not exactly open minded to not even consider factual assertions if you don't agree with the source?
     
    #6 glynch, Dec 28, 2004
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2004
  7. rimbaud

    rimbaud Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    Didn't Russia and China start things similar to this in 2002?
     
    #7 rimbaud, Dec 28, 2004
  8. Mango

    Mango Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 1999
    Messages:
    7,525
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    Yes.
     
    #8 Mango, Dec 28, 2004
  9. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,786
    Likes Received:
    3,394
    Didn't Russia and China start things similar to this in 2002?

    Interesting and more responsive than complaining about anti war dot com.

    Of course by then Bush had already talked about premptive wars and we had all the talk about the Plan for the New American Century and trying to dominate the world by controlling Middle East Oil.
     
    #9 glynch, Dec 28, 2004
  10. rimbaud

    rimbaud Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    Does this even mean anything?

    Sure, Bush is an idiot and his FP leaves much to be desired, but that doesn't make every fantastical article and doomsday predictions true. China and Russia have been going down this path since 1994 (no evil Bush then, mind you), got serious in 2002, and now seem to be genuinely building a cooperative local strategy. This is good for them. China reaching out, even to Russia, is a good thing. They remain, however, insular and it is extremely premature to even suggest that they would send troops to the Ukraine or even allow Russian troops to help them invade Taiwan.

    The immediate, regional goal is that of protecting borders and within. The potential long-term bonus is having a little more weight at the bargaining table with the US. This is the same thing the EU is trying. Does that mean we will be forced to war with them also?

    Regardless of the source, the article is premature conjecture at best and silly fantasy at worst.
     
    #10 rimbaud, Dec 29, 2004
  11. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,786
    Likes Received:
    3,394
    Do you have any cites that the joint maneuvers are nothiing new and are just more of the same since 1994? I don't think you are correct there and trust the author given his long term expertise in the area.

    Your straw man of war with Europe "also" is silly.. It is strange that you bring up the hypo of Chinese trrops in the Ukraine or Russian troops in Taiwan. Even the author, who you claim is "fantastical" doesn't make such a fanciful claim.

    Overall I think the article is more measured than your response suggests.

    You of course are entitled to your opinion ; so is the author who has an impressive background with the CIA. He even briefed George Bush Sr.
    *********

    Interview: 27-Year CIA Veteran by Will Pitt
    t r u t h o u t | Interview

    Thursday 26 June 2003

    Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years, serving seven Presidents. He is on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is co-director of the Servant Leadership School, an outreach ministry in the inner city of Washington.

    -------

    PITT: Could you give me some background regarding who you are and what work you did with the CIA?

    McG: I was a graduate student in Russian studies when I got interested in the Central Intelligence Agency. I was very intrigued that there was one central place to prevent what happened at Pearl Harbor from happening again. I had been commissioned in the US Army, so I needed to do my two years service there, but wound up down in Washington DC. I took a job with the CIA in 1963, and it was what it was made out to be.

    In other words, I was told that if I were to come on as an analyst of Soviet foreign policy, when I sat down in the morning, in my In-Box would be a bunch of material from open sources, from closed sources, from photography, from intercepts, from agent reports, from embassy reports, you name it. It would be right there, and all I had to do was sift through it and make some sense out of it. If I had an important enough story, I would write it up for the President the next morning. That seemed too good to be true, but you know what? It was true, and it was really heady work.

    PITT: Which Presidents did you serve?

    McG: I started with President Kennedy and finished with President Bush, the first President Bush. That would make seven Presidents.

    PITT: What was your area of expertise with the CIA?

    McG: I was a Soviet Foreign Policy analyst. I also worked on Soviet Internal Affairs when I first came on, but then my responsibilities grew and I became responsible for a lot of different parts of the world. During the 1980s I was briefing the Vice President and Secretaries of State and Defense, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I did this every other morning. We worked in teams of two, and on any given morning depending on schedules, I would be hitting two or perhaps three of those senior officials

    link
     
    #11 glynch, Dec 29, 2004
  12. rimbaud

    rimbaud Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 1999
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    676
    My first response is that I did not say it was "just more of the same" but that it was a continuation of something that has been building. My second is that your response does not even give an idea as to whether you know what happened in 1994. Look up the treaty (I ctually could have extended it to 1993, by the way, because that was when they had some serious diplomatic meetings). Third, joint maneuvers were in the news in 2002 and references are all over the web. A quick google search came up with things such as this:

    By the way, are you also worried about China-India? Because they have expanded military relations as well.

    Your straw man of war with Europe "also" is silly..

    Aw, shucks...I didn't realize that.

    It is strange that you bring up the hypo of Chinese trrops in the Ukraine or Russian troops in Taiwan. Even the author, who you claim is "fantastical" doesn't make such a fanciful claim.

    True, but it was implied. He said it would embolden each country with their respective regions, due to having the other country on their side. I just took it farther because the logic would follow that if there were an escalation (US intervention) the other country would have to get the parent company's symbolic back. That would be the purpose of such a military alliance.

    Also, the author is not fantastical. I trust he is a real person. I actually was speaking in general terms that I look at doomsday articles with skepticism. Of course, I look at everything with skepticism so I am just dumb. Booo.

    You of course are entitled to your opinion ; so is the author who has an impressive background with the CIA. He even briefed George Bush Sr.
    outreach ministry in the inner city of Washington.

    I have better hair, though. Remember that.
     
    #12 rimbaud, Dec 29, 2004
  13. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,506
    Likes Received:
    181
    Is it me? Or is it wierd that glynch is warning us about the expansionist desires of Russia and China? How they could join forces to oppose us militarily? This sounds more like a RAND document than glynch. And who does he use as his source but a no longer relevant CIA SOVIET era analyst that got laid off!

    It would be much more consistent for glynch to argue that the CIA sent this guy into the community to do charity as a cover for this warmongering doomsaying, lol.
     
    #13 HayesStreet, Dec 29, 2004
  14. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,786
    Likes Received:
    3,394
    Hayes, are you sure you are not unconsciously supporting policies that can lead to a resumption of the Cold War ? Old habits can be comforting.

    Or having equated Sadam and Muslims with Stalin and Communism, have you decided that this new state of near permanent war with the Muslim World is sufficeint to replace the Cold War and to defeat the threat of a possible "Peace Dividend"?
     
    #14 glynch, Dec 29, 2004
  15. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,506
    Likes Received:
    181
    You're chasing your own tail, glynch.

    Glynch: There are no threats. That's just neocon fearmongering.
    Glynch: The Soviet Union wasn't a threat.
    Glynch: China's not a threat.
    Glynch: Saddam wasn't a threat because of sanctions (but sanctions were evil).
    Glynch: There is no Muslim threat.....

    Then -
    Glynch: China and Russia are forming a military alliance to confront the US. Russia wants to forcefully retake Ukraine and the Chinese will help - China wants to forcefully retake Taiwan and the Russians will help. This will be very bad for the US, because we'd have to face both when we oppose Russia annexing Ukraine and China annexing Taiwan (but WE'RE the BAD guys :rolleyes: ).
     
    #15 HayesStreet, Jan 4, 2005
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 4, 2005
  16. Mango

    Mango Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 1999
    Messages:
    7,525
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    I hope the <i>Blog</i> Forum will open soon.
     
    #16 Mango, Jan 6, 2005
  17. rodrick_98

    rodrick_98 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2000
    Messages:
    4,362
    Likes Received:
    6

    we are not at war with the muslim world, we are at war with extremists. if we were at war with the muslim world we would bomb within our borders, as well as in france, spain, and other largly populated muslim areas.
     
    #17 rodrick_98, Jan 7, 2005
  18. glynch

    glynch Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2000
    Messages:
    17,786
    Likes Received:
    3,394
    Hayes, you misunderstand. Picking one point out of an article to attack is symptomatic of your tendency to miss the forest for the trees. You always think in terms of actual hot war, which you are always up for as long as you can hang out in Bermuda.

    I don't think we will actually have a war with Russia or China over Ukraine or Taiwan. If Eastern Ukraine or Taiwan were actually annexed I doubt the US would fight. Too bloody if a ground war. In the hope of sanity, I hope you would agree that nuclear exchanges shouldn't be done. I doubt you would leave Bermuda for a ground war as after all Sadam was a world class threat, in your mind, and you hardly stirred.

    The problem is the additional hundreds and hundreds of billions or even trillions which will be wasted as both sides build up another generation of weapons. Another generation of poverty for billions etc. I know, not as sexy as high intrigue and war.

    I'm sure you "up" for the "Long Rod Penetrator".

    .
     
    #18 glynch, Jan 7, 2005
  19. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,506
    Likes Received:
    181
    Listen, glynch. For someone who scampered off to Canada when called, I don't think you should be throwing stones.

    I enjoy how you completely sidestep the problems the article creates for you. One would think you would call for the US, among others, to protest if Russia annexed Ukraine or if China annexed Taiwan, but maybe I'm wrong. The position of the US in this scenario is as a 'good guy' which inherently contradicts you continuous US bashing babble. Who's missing the forest for the trees, me or you?


    Uh, since we're talking about two huge military powers making friendly - its the opposite.

    I'm afraid to open a thread with a title like that.
     
    #19 HayesStreet, Jan 7, 2005
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 7, 2005
  20. Mango

    Mango Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 1999
    Messages:
    7,525
    Likes Received:
    1,955
    A <b>new</b> coalition?

    A nice read here:
    <a HREF="http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pdffiles/PUB101.pdf">THE NEW RUSSIA IN THE NEW ASIA: Stephen J. Blank (July 22, 1994)</a>

    <hr color=red>

    Another nice read here:
    <a HREF="http://www.csis.org/pacfor/cc/992Qchina-rus.html">
    NATO's Unintended Consequence: A Deeper Strategic Partnership
    . . . Or More (1999)</a>
    <hr color=red>
    <a HREF="http://www.csis.org/ruseura/ponars/policymemos/pm_0084.pdf">Russian Security Policy and the Prospects for Multilateralism in the Asia-Pacific (October 1999)</a>


    <i>..........• Military-to-military contacts, joint exercises, exchanges and visits. In November 1993, the Russian and Chinese defense ministers signed a 5-year agreement providing for regular consultations between the two ministries, the establishment of direct ties between adjoining Russian and Chinese military districts, military exchanges, and an increase in the number of military attachés. In late 1994, Admiral Feliks Gromov, commander of the Russian Navy, signed agreements on military cooperation, including
    joint naval exercises. By 1997 about 200 Chinese officers were trained in Russian military academies. Also significant is the fact that China and Russia have resumed intelligence ties...............</i>

    <hr color=red>

    <a HREF="http://www.csis.org/pacfor/cc/994Qchina-rus.html">Back to the Future</a>

    <i>October 18-25, 1999: Vice Adm. Shi Yun-sheng, commander of the PLA Navy, arrives in Moscow for a week-long visit to Russia. Shi's itinerary includes a working discussion with his Russian counterpart Adm. Vladimir Kuroyedov on implementing agreements for naval arms and technology transfers, joint naval exercises in 2000, and training of Chinese personnel in Russian military academies.</i>

    <i>November 16-17, 1999: The third round of Russian-Chinese general staff talks are conducted in Moscow, discussing issues concerning military and military-technical cooperation, international security, and the need to fight ethnic separatism, religious extremism, and terrorism at an early stage. </i>

    <i>December 11, 1999: China and Russia reportedly reach another major arms sales agreement shortly after Yeltsin ends his Beijing trip. The Russian side reveals the $1 billion deal consists of dozens of Sukhoi-30MKK aircraft or even more advanced models.</i>

    <hr color=red>

    <a HREF="http://www.csis.org/pacfor/cc/001Qchina-rus.html">New Century, New Face, and China's "Putin Puzzle" (2000)</a>
    <i>..........So far, all indications suggest Putin certainly tries to avoid conflict with the West. He is also, perhaps more than any of his predecessors, ready to defend Russia's interests, particularly at a time when both Russia and China perceive the world to be increasingly unipolar in nature.</i>
    <hr color=red>

    Exactly where should China and other countries get hydrocarbons from, if not from places like Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia etc?

    There are only a limited number of countries that have sufficient quantities of energy deposits to be able to export.

    <a HREF="http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/fp/cnaps/papers/1999_troush.htm">China's Changing Oil Strategy and its Foreign Policy Implications (Fall 1999)</a>

    <i>..........With regard to its foreign policy, China is interested in building the necessary political climate for such future options. A variety of diplomatic instruments is being used for this purpose in China's interaction with its "energy-related" partners. These instruments include general political and diplomatic support of countries such as Iraq and Iran, whose position seriously conflicts with that of the major powers. China uses its position and influence in international organizations to lobby for the interests of such states. Beijing's role in the United Nations Security Council and also its position in the UN bodies dealing with sanctions, were of exceptional importance to progress on its energy deals with Iraq.19

    The other instrument used to create the necessary political atmosphere for its "energy-related" ties, is arms sales. Many states selling oil or oil concessions to China—Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Angola and Nigeria—are buyers of Chinese weapons. The purchase of weapons by these countries is viewed by Beijing not only as the construction of close "special" ties with the states, but also as an instrument by which to decrease its energy import bill...............</i>

    <hr color=red>
    I have read the initial article several times and don't recall any mention of the SCO and how it relates to the forthcoming military exercises. Why wasn't it mentioned?

    My suggestion is for you to expand your reading list beyond sites such as <i>antiwar</i> and <i>truthout</i>. Would this thread exist if you had a broader perspective on world events and didn't have the urge to blame everything (except the sun rising in the East and setting in the West) on <i>Neocons</i>?
     
    #20 Mango, Jan 8, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 2

Share This Page

Toggle Width
Style
ClutchFans Original

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Rockets Content

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now