jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (12 posts)

Is The Cold War Coming Back?

  1. My Esoteric profile image89
    My Esotericposted 2 years ago

    Everyone should know about Russia's aggression in the Ukraine, its annexation of the Crimea, and the theft of Ukrainian military assets including a submarine (well maybe you didn't know about that).  But did you know that Russia is reestablishing its bases in Cuba and creating new ones in Venezuela and Nicaragua where he plans to send naval ships and long-range bombers? 

    What does that portend?

    1. JayeWisdom profile image94
      JayeWisdomposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      What is worrying is that Putin is establishing a military presence in Latin America, which the U.S. has neglected for a long time. Putin's power hungry and wants to ramp up Russia's status as a world power. This should be a major warning signal to the U.S. and to the EU. He's former KGB and cannot be trusted. It concerns me that citizens of Crimea are cheering on his aggression in the Ukraine, but I suppose that is because the ethnic background of so many Crimeans is Russian.

  2. CMerritt profile image77
    CMerrittposted 2 years ago

    I would say that Ronald Reagan is turning over in his grave!

    That Mitt Romney WAS indeed correct when he stated that Russia was our number one international opponent and Obama had nothing to add but to MOCK and RIDICULE him.  Even Sarah Palin had enough moxy to call it out.

    It also doesn't help that Obama with his desire to play neutral in this.  It makes me wonder what he meant when he told Putin that he would have more “flexibilit on missile defense after the election".

    Peace through Strength is a proven strategy.....cutting our military back to pre-WWII conditions certainly sends a very bad message to those who have other motives...such as Cold War.

    That is what I believe this portends.

    btw, How you doing ME?

    1. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Doing OK, CMerritt, still trying to finish my book.  The editor suggested I put in a glossary and that led to more writing, sigh.

      I couldn't agree with you more on the military cut-backs.  I worked for the Air Force and OSD and was part of the large group of resource types challenged with reducing first the size of the military during the Reagan-Bush 41 era and then the civilian workforce during the Clinton era.  Fortunately, I was still around and participated in developing the analysis that led to the first increase in military O&M the year before Clinton left office.  I led the AF cost portion and put that together with operational data others developed to make a clear case on how 14 years of reduced budgets (it started in 1986, if I remember right) had destroyed AF readiness.  The other Services produced similar stories; I got to brief the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force on that one.

      While the military needed some trimming after drawing down from Iraq and Afghanistan, nobody including Obama, the Democrats, or the Conservatives expected or wanted it to get this bad.  However, and I won't lay blame, the inability of the Republicans and Democrats to compromise back before the sequester, and after, has led to this sad state of affairs ... and nobody is budging.

      As to dealing with Russia, Obama has several problems and has to tread carefully.  A wrong move might send Russia into the Ukraine and I doubt that NATO would respond militarily; Russia would have to move further West for that to happen.  He must also stay somewhat in sync with Europe, who have much more to lose by getting too tough too soon.  I know you disagree, but Obama, in practice, has not been much of woose regarding foreign affairs; there is quite a bit of difference between his words and actions; the most obvious being the droning the crap out of terrorists.

      The real test will come out of this weeks talks with Europe.

      And, how are you doing?

      OH, and I also need to say that Bush 41 and Clinton's Congresses did an absolutely terrible job of establishing the proper relations with Russia when they had the chance.  Clinton himself had all the right words, but he didn't or wasn't able to follow-up with the right actions.  By the time Bush 43 and Obama arrived on the scene, the damage had been done and Obama was unlucky enough to be around when Putin made his move.

  3. CMerritt profile image77
    CMerrittposted 2 years ago

    I am doing wonderful, thank you.

    I cannot help but be a little cynical regarding politics on this issue.  I realize both sides has disregarded what needed to be done, AFTER Reagan and others accomplished putting an end to the Cold War.
    I think the new START that Obama supported was a very, very bad move that expedited Putins plan.  I don't envy Obama for being in the postion that he is in, but I really do believe that his actions has only made this more critical than it could have been.  I realize that he must tread lightly, but I am a firm beliver that image has much to do with negotioations.  Reagan was the epitome of implementing a "tough" image to support his words and actions.  He was bold and had convictions for what was right and wrong with the USSR.

    I think we lack tremendously in that department with our current POTUS.

    How he represents himself along with Kerry is detrimental in the outcome of the upcoming talks.  I don't see a strong message being put forth, but I may be wrong.

    Hang in there with your Book!

  4. 85
    Education Answerposted 2 years ago

    President Obama will merely set a red line, and this entire mess will be averted.  It worked so well in other areas, right?

    If that doesn't work, we could always negotiate and send in inspectors.  That's worked well too, right?

    How about sanctions?

    We have an ineffectual foreign policy right now.  Putin, and the rest of the world, knows this.  As America has failed to lead, a vacuum has developed.  At best, we're "leading" from behind.

  5. paradigmsearch profile image91
    paradigmsearchposted 2 years ago

    Attention Russian men. No more sex for you...

    http://news.msn.com/offbeat/ukrainian-w … ussian-men

  6. aka-dj profile image79
    aka-djposted 2 years ago

    For another cold war to develop, there needs to be two, equal and opposite sides. this is not the case today.
    Russian might, and will is on the rise, and an equal, opposite power (US) is on the decline.
    The EU, is not an alternate in this standoff.

    But, all that said, I believe, it's  all eyes on the Middle East. That's where the most volatility is.

    1. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You make great points, @aka-dj.  The other thing about the Middle East is it has brought a new type of warfare to the table.

    2. 85
      Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You are absolutely correct here.  Well put.

  7. maxoxam41 profile image79
    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago

    If a country aggressed Ukraine, it is us the US. Nuland and Asley comploted to overthrow the existing president. Crimea, may I remind you voted at 93% its attachment to Russia. Apparently, you don't know how to swallow a piece of information.
    Did you know that we are arming all Europe with missiles pointed at Russia? Last info, our mercenaries are in Poland. It is fair that Russia is looking for allies since we infiltrated Europe, isn't it?

    1. My Esoteric profile image89
      My Esotericposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You must be Russian ... no, I see you are from the U.S.  Then, in that case, if you had made only one of those misstatements or mischaracterizations of fact and history, I could respond to it; but given their totality, I just have to wonder which alternate universe you live on.

      I will pick on one, however.  You could have reminded me that only 58.5% of Crimeans are Russian, and only a percentage of them actually voted of of which 97%, not 93%, voted to join Russian; everybody else, Ukrainians, Tartars, and non-Russia unification supporting Russians boycotted.  The TRUTH of the matter is that several UN sponsored surveys prior to the Russian invasion showed only 34% support for joining Russia. see http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/crimea-re … t-adviser/