PDA

View Full Version : The Scoundrels! The Cheats!



Carbo
27-06-2009, 14:03
Russia accuses Kyrgystan of treachery over US military base

Russia accused Kyrgyzstan of treachery on Wednesday after the central Asian state revoked a Kremlin-backed order to close down a US military base considered vital for the war effort in Afghanistan.

Escalating a row that could sour President Barack Obama's inaugural visit to Moscow next month, the Russian foreign ministry said it had been double-crossed after the Kyrgyz government halted the eviction of American forces from the Manas Air base.

Hailed as a foreign policy victory by the Obama administration, the decision was seen in Moscow as a rare reversal in the Kremlin's campaign to regain dominance over the five former Soviet states in central Asia.

The Kyrgyz government agreed to expel US troops after receiving 1.3 billion in aid and soft loans from Moscow in February.

But after the United States agreed to triple its rent for Manas, an important re-fuelling and re-supply base for US forces across the border in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan changed its mind -- to the fury of Russian officials.

"The Kyrgyz leadership has repeatedly stated that the decision to close the base was final and not subject to revision," said Andrei Nesterenko, a spokesman for the Russian foreign ministry.

Although some observers had speculated that Russian acquiescence in the new deal had been obtained, the foreign ministry insisted that the Kremlin had not been consulted.

"The news that the base would be preserved was, for us, a very unpleasant surprise," a senior foreign ministry official was quoted as saying by the Kommersant newspaper.

"The fact that the US military retains a presence in central Asia runs counter both to Russia's interests and to our agreements with the Kyrgyz leadership."
Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president, last year unilaterally declared the former Soviet Union to be part of Russia's sphere of influence.

While retaining the Manas base is considered a vital part of American strategy in the campaign against the Taliban, the United States has been criticised for remaining silent in the face of a deteriorating human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan.

Several government critics have been killed or badly beaten during the months that the future of Manas was being negotiated. In a shift from earlier policy, however, the United States has largely refrained from condemning the attacks.

It seems that after all the far right hysteria about Russia 'duping' Obama and that the President is a soft touch, that he isn't as easy a target as the far right in America had hoped.

Instead of coming out hysterically to condemn Russia, as the previous administration would have, he has worked quietly and got the job won.

The real smarty pants, of course, is Kyrgystan, which has made fools of Russia by securing billions in aid, and then left the base there anyway.

Oops.

Carbo
27-06-2009, 15:32
This really rather reminds me of a scene in A Fistful of Dollars. Clint Eastwood rides into town and is informed by his friend that the town is dominated by two warring families, the Baxters and the Rojos, who are involved in some kind of blood feud for control of the town and cattle.

"Don't get involved, it's too dangerous," Eastwood's friend advices him.

"I don't know," replies Eastwood. "Baxters on one side, Rojos on the other, and me in the middle. I think I can make money here."

Russian Lad
27-06-2009, 17:19
It seems that after all the far right hysteria about Russia 'duping' Obama and that the President is a soft touch, that he isn't as easy a target as the far right in America had hoped.

Instead of coming out hysterically to condemn Russia, as the previous administration would have, he has worked quietly and got the job won.

The real smarty pants, of course, is Kyrgystan, which has made fools of Russia by securing billions in aid, and then left the base there anyway.

Kyrgyzstan made a smart move indeed, if this info is true. However, I doubt they will benefit in the long run. They won a battle, not the war. For example (there can be many offered), there are hundreds of thousands of ghastarbeiters from Kyrgyzstan working in Russia and sending money back home to their families. If this food chain is severed the Kyrgyz economy will lose a lot of cash, and Russia can be bringing in more of Tadjiks in, for instance.
Anyway, Carbo, your joy over this failure of the Russian government clearly shows whose and what side of the fence you are on. I know about Fenrir, but you like engaging a smoke screen from time to time, unlike him, which makes it harder to detect your true position. Not in this case.

Scrat335
27-06-2009, 18:37
I'm not surprised at all. Clint would be proud 'eh Carbo? Let's see what the Russians will do. Have they given the Kyrgyz all the money?

I wouldn't have just demanded triple the rent, I think the Kyrgyz are being soft. The US really needs that base and it is all about supply and demand.

Carbo
27-06-2009, 19:31
Kyrgyzstan made a smart move indeed, if this info is true. However, I doubt they will benefit in the long run. They won a battle, not the war. For example (there can be many offered), there are hundreds of thousands of ghastarbeiters from Kyrgyzstan working in Russia and sending money back home to their families. If this food chain is severed the Kyrgyz economy will lose a lot of cash, and Russia can be bringing in more of Tadjiks in, for instance.
Anyway, Carbo, your joy over this failure of the Russian government clearly shows whose and what side of the fence you are on. I know about Fenrir, but you like engaging a smoke screen from time to time, unlike him, which makes it harder to detect your true position. Not in this case.
I hope I didn't give the impression that I was happy the Russian government had been duped.

It's not that at all.

If you'd have said, though, "Anyway, Carbo, your joy that the American Neo-Con/far right conservatives were wrong clearly shows whose and what side of the fence you are on," then you'd have had a point.

I saw that poisonous dwarf Karl Rove on Hannity's Fox TV show the other day saying that Obama was a "soft touch" and "could be had" because he was beaten by Russia on the air base issue, hadn't made his European allies hate him, and hadn't came out and condemned the Iranian government and threatened action.

See, what the right want is to continue the Bush policy of "we're right and you're wrong and we have the moral authority to do what the hell we want because we're right"; the policy of not engaging and just invading; the policy of ignoring that morals and diplomacy are in shades of grey not black or white. That was disastrous for America, and now someone has come to power who realizes that, the neo-cons need to paint him as soft -- a man who will be manipulated because he doesn't lay down the law and whip out the F-22s at the first opportunity.

So I was happy to see Rove's prognosis proved wrong. I was happy to see proven that quiet, subtle diplomacy works best, you see.

Hope I cleared that up.

Russian Lad
27-06-2009, 20:21
See, what the right want is to continue the Bush policy of "we're right and you're wrong and we have the moral authority to do what the hell we want because we're right"; the policy of not engaging and just invading; the policy of ignoring that morals and diplomacy are in shades of grey not black or white. That was disastrous for America, and now someone has come to power who realizes that, the neo-cons need to paint him as soft -- a man who will be manipulated because he doesn't lay down the law and whip out the F-22s at the first opportunity.

So I was happy to see Rove's prognosis proved wrong. I was happy to see proven that quiet, subtle diplomacy works best, you see.

Hope I cleared that up.

Indeed you did, thank you, Carbo. Let's see how it goes.
I quite often get a queasy feeling that we are seeing only the top of a very deeply seated iceberg when politics are concerned, let's see how Obama fares.

Carbo
27-06-2009, 20:43
Indeed you did, thank you, Carbo. Let's see how it goes.
I quite often get a queasy feeling that we are seeing only the top of a very deeply seated iceberg when politics are concerned, let's see how Obama fares.
I think foreign policy is going to be very interesting now. Instead of the death embrace of the US and Soviet Union dominating matters to an extent little else mattered and little else happened that wasn't a small move on the larger board of capitalism v communism, now we are back to the 18th and 19th century process of great powers against eachother in a more multi-sided game.

It needs subtlety, guile, strategic adroitness and flexibility, as well as massive brains.

It's a game for Bismark, Churchill, and Kissinger, not old cold warriors like Rove, Wolfowitz, Cheney et al.

robertmf
27-06-2009, 21:44
[foreign policy] needs subtlety, guile, strategic adroitness and flexibility, as well as massive brains.

It's a game for Bismark, Churchill, and Kissinger, not old cold warriors like Rove, Wolfowitz, Cheney et al.


Bismarck ? Wasn't he on "the losing side" ?
Churchill ? Do you mean the bloke who got fired as First Sea Lord after the Gallipoli fiasco (ask any Aussie)?
Kissinger? Vietnam, right ?


Nah. Ya gotta go further back to find a good leader ... atleast back to Genghis ... Attila ... once in the time machine you might as well include Alexander and Sulla.

Carbo
27-06-2009, 21:56
Bismarck ? Wasn't he on "the losing side" ?
Churchill ? Do you mean the bloke who got fired as First Sea Lord after the Gallipoli fiasco (ask any Aussie)?
Kissinger? Vietnam, right ?


Nah. Ya gotta go further back to find a good leader ... atleast back to Genghis ... Attila ... once in the time machine you might as well include Alexander and Sulla.
Eerrrr.. Otto von Bismarck was certainly not on the losing side. The man is widely regarded as a forgeign policy genius. You should read this here --> Otto von Bismarck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-2005-0057,_Otto_von_Bismarck.jpg" class="image" title="Otto von Bismarck"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-2005-0057%2C_Otto_von_Bismarck.jpg/245px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-2005-0057%2C_Otto_von_Bismarck.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/1/10/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-2005-0057%2C_Otto_von_Bismarck.jpg/245px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-2005-0057%2C_Otto_von_Bismarck.jpg

Churchill had a strange obsession with Europe's "soft underbelly" (note the allied invasion of Italy in WWII). However, he was a very smart cookie when it came to foreign policy.

And Kissinger, if you remember, didn't get America involved in Vietnam: that was first Kennedy, and then on a far greater scale, Johnson. Kissinger was National Security Adviser, and later Secretary of State, to Richard Nixon.

Kissinger was a nasty man -- as was Churchill on occasion and Bismarck -- but they were all adept in foreign policy analysis and execution.

I think what you're doing, Robert, is mistaking great generals for great foreign policy experts.

DDT
27-06-2009, 23:06
Come on Carbo, the DDT's never said Obama would change US foreign politics!

What I've always said is that Obama will have little effect on foreign policies. For 2 reasons;
1st He's an inexperienced puss!
2nd He doesn't have much say when it comes to Military strategy. That's why the US is still in Iraq and still in Afghanistan. There are others, more powerful, who make these types of decisions.

Obama's only forte, as a former community activist, is in domestic policies......in which he can soon destroy the whole American system!

Judge
28-06-2009, 11:05
Kyrgyzstan is playing a very dangerous game .

Scrat335
28-06-2009, 18:53
I think its pretty obvious Judge. It's all about the money. Like Carbo said, itused to be all about the cold war essentially 2 sides America and Russia. Now there are many involved and it is a vastly more complex game.

I say it's all about the money because what's obvious to me is the powers that be in the country care little for the future stability of the country, they just want to enrich themselves as fast as they can as much as they can. Not only does this undoubtedly raise concerns for China and others, it shows the weaknesses to other elements, namely the radicals of Kyrgyz society.

It is certainly dangerous.

Qdos
29-06-2009, 03:47
Kyrgyzstan is playing a very dangerous game .

Every Kygyrz I've ever known has considered reneging on their word an act of supreme accomplishment when it means they get to keep the benefits of an arrangement, and also poke their enemy in the eye with a sharp stick...

I'm also pretty certain Bishkek would kick Uncles Sams butt right back out if they had any serious reason to believe US military were using a Kygyrz base for missions which directly threatened Russian security, they're not quite as stupid at they may seem at first glance...

There must be plenty of seasoned politicians still active in Kygyrzstan, from the days of Frunze, who remember taking all sorts of sh!t from the powers in the Kremlin of course... :)

vladimir_seroff
29-06-2009, 05:49
The real smarty pants, of course, is Kyrgystan, which has made fools of Russia by securing billions in aid, and then left the base there anyway.

It is also a good training ground for both Medvedev and Obama, just as Venezuela is, for instance. No disrespect to Kyrgyzstan or Venezuela.