U.S. admiral raises alarm over Russian military threat

OrphanSlug · Mar 14, 2015

MMC said:
From the Institute of Peace.

National Defense Panel Releases Assessment of 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review
Report Addresses U.S. National Security, Sequestration, Force Structure

The consensus conclusion of the report is that there is a growing gap between the strategic objectives the U.S. military is expected to achieve and the resources required to do so. In their cover letter to Congress, NDP co-chairs Dr. William Perry and General John P. Abizaid wrote, “We must act now to address our challenges if the nation is to continue benefiting from its national security posture.” .....snip~

National Defense Panel Releases Assessment of 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review | United States Institute of Peace

Exactly!

To achieve all we want today will require a level of spending even more unreasonable than what we currently do. My point is changing those "strategic objectives" after really discussing our present military needs, and that means looking at our foreign policy for all it has not handled well.

If we objectively review what we have not accomplished over the past decade or so around the globe we might learn a little more about the importance of a strong national defense in place of modern day imperialism that in truth overextends our military capability at a huge expense.

We could have all the latest toys, we could have all the best equipment, we could still have the best trained military force on the planet and it cost far less than it presently does if we were not committed to running around the globe being involved in, and in some cases directly causing, fiasco after fiasco.

Russia knows this, and is doing to us what we did to the USSR at the height of the Cold War at the time.

Montecresto · Mar 14, 2015

OrphanSlug said:
There are plenty of parallels. At the time the US was able to push the USSR into financial oblivion just to keep up with US / NATO activity, going into Afghanistan was the nail in the coffin for the USSR.

These days we seem to have a bit of a conundrum. Between Obama's inexperience and Bush 43's actions we have dug ourselves into one hell of a mess. We are being challenged because these other nations can see what we have done, and more importantly what we have spent to get such lackluster results.

Think about it this way...

Afghanistan is still not all that stable, with plenty of the nation not really under anyone's control. Pakistan happened to be where we found the most wanted man from 9/11. Iran is still not all that interested in abiding by the NPT agreement (or any other agreement.) Israel and the Palestinians are in a continual state of being the right shot away from a real mess, and it appears Israel wants to engage Iran. Syria collapsed into a multiple way long term civil war with no end in sight. The results in Egypt's change of power are highly questionable, the results from Libya's collapse are even worse. Iraq after years of war engaged in for dubious reasons was left in the hands of a weak polarizing ideological government backed by a run at the first sight of the enemy military, so now a sizable portion of that nation is no longer under their control. ISIS formed being able to take advantage of both Iraq's weak state and Syria's fiasco. And that is just really the last decade, and the entire region seems worse for it all.

Now, consider all the money the US has spent on the military and influence in the region when looking over these results. It is no wonder that Russia is baiting us into spending even more on our military simply because they know how ideologically divided, tired of war, and broke from it all we truly are. Well some of us, we have plenty on the right taking the bait suggesting spending even more than we already do simply because the Russians are giving us a taste of what we gave them 30-40 years ago.

Somewhere some historian paying attention would be laughing if it were not so sad what little we have learned from then to now, with damn near bipartisan stupidity.

To the bolded. Very true. This is the stated reason by China and Russia for vetoing every attempt by the US for securing a resolution for the use of force in Syria. Libya sighted as the straw, with abuse of UNR1973.

MMC · Mar 14, 2015

Montecresto said:
Nah, the days of US hegemony, dominance and exploitation are waning, much as that rubs the right a rash, it is what it is.

Its not the people who are into defense that are worried over US Hegemony.

But most of the planet is taking Note of Irans Hegemony.....which is about to be put in check. So they know where they stand on the food chain.

humbolt · Mar 14, 2015

Montecresto said:
Humanitarianism like attacking nations that haven't attacked us and fighting others by proxy and contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians across the region. But putting those positive aspects of US foreign policy aside, every time we roll out our military, it's good for business, that can't be denied.

Monte, your view is entirely cynical and avoids an entire aspect of history that doesn't fit your preferred view. The US determined a very long time ago that open sea lanes and free trade accrued to not only our benefit, but to the benefit of the entire globe. So yes, we do benefit from the effort to maintain such things, but were the rest of the world to embrace the same objectives, they too would greatly benefit. The effort by Russia and China, and others, is to simply cheat the natural progression of such a system with agressive short cuts to get there sooner, and at a significant cost to others nation states. That's the difference, and it's pretty clear even if you choose to ignore it.

MMC · Mar 14, 2015

OrphanSlug said:
Exactly!

To achieve all we want today will require a level of spending even more unreasonable than what we currently do. My point is changing those "strategic objectives" after really discussing our present military needs, and that means looking at our foreign policy for all it has not handled well.

If we objectively review what we have not accomplished over the past decade or so around the globe we might learn a little more about the importance of a strong national defense in place of modern day imperialism that in truth overextends our military capability at a huge expense.

We could have all the latest toys, we could have all the best equipment, we could still have the best trained military force on the planet and it cost far less than it presently does if we were not committed to running around the globe being involved in, and in some cases directly causing, fiasco after fiasco.

Russia knows this, and is doing to us what we did to the USSR at the height of the Cold War at the time.

Nah according to Senate Arms Committee.....their only asking for 58 Billion over Sequestration.

Montecresto · Mar 14, 2015

MMC said:
Its not the people who are into defense that are worried over US Hegemony.

But most of the planet is taking Note of Irans Hegemony.....which is about to be put in check. So they know where they stand on the food chain.

Food chain!!!! Such predatory language, but it's been obvious all along. And no, of course US hegemony isn't troubling to service personel.

Montecresto · Mar 14, 2015

humbolt said:
Monte, your view is entirely cynical and avoids an entire aspect of history that doesn't fit your preferred view. The US determined a very long time ago that open sea lanes and free trade accrued to not only our benefit, but to the benefit of the entire globe. So yes, we do benefit from the effort to maintain such things, but were the rest of the world to embrace the same objectives, they too would greatly benefit. The effort by Russia and China, and others, is to simply cheat the natural progression of such a system with agressive short cuts to get there sooner, and at a significant cost to others nation states. That's the difference, and it's pretty clear even if you choose to ignore it.

No, it's not clear. And China isn't interested in closing sea lanes, they're even creating a new one as we speak in Central America. It's just that there's at least some that they want to control! And that's the rub for America, but, nobody remains in control forever.

Jetboogieman · Mar 14, 2015

American said:
Don't expect much support of your notion from the Left side of the house.

Obama has proposed I believe 595 billion for defence spending...

Russia spends between 70-80 billion.... Are they really the threat you think they are?

Russia has 10-18 foreign bases in the world.

You guys have over 500...

polgara · Mar 14, 2015

MMC said:
Nah....they don't do an assessment on whats Unrealistic......they are dealing with what has to be met now.

And they're short by $58 billion dollars? :shock: Not too surprising, though, considering we're involved in six or seven dangerous hot spots at the moment!

joG · Mar 14, 2015

Montecresto said:
You seemed to agree that NATO inclusion is a Ukrainian ambition.

I do not believe i ever said otherwise. After all it was Ukraine that applied and Nato that stalled till they withdrew the application. in other words Putin had no reason to think that Nato wanrwanted the country as a member.

MMC · Mar 14, 2015

polgara said:
And they're short by $58 billion dollars? :shock: Not too surprising, though, considering we're involved in six or seven dangerous hot spots at the moment!

Heya Lady P.

That's what they are saying. All due to Sequestration......don't forget we also send our Military to provide all that Humanitarian, Disaster relief, and emergency response too.

Maybe all those talking about we are not the policeman of the world.....should also carry that thought on how we can't Try and Save everybody too.

Montecresto · Mar 14, 2015

joG said:
I do not believe i ever said otherwise. After all it was Ukraine that applied and Nato that stalled till they withdrew the application. in other words Putin had no reason to think that Nato wanrwanted the country as a member.

But Ukraine does want membership, and Putin will resist it, and I don't blame him.

Fearandloathing · Mar 14, 2015

OrphanSlug said:
There are plenty of parallels. At the time the US was able to push the USSR into financial oblivion just to keep up with US / NATO activity, going into Afghanistan was the nail in the coffin for the USSR.

These days we seem to have a bit of a conundrum. Between Obama's inexperience and Bush 43's actions we have dug ourselves into one hell of a mess. We are being challenged because these other nations can see what we have done, and more importantly what we have spent to get such lackluster results.

Think about it this way...

Afghanistan is still not all that stable, with plenty of the nation not really under anyone's control. Pakistan happened to be where we found the most wanted man from 9/11. Iran is still not all that interested in abiding by the NPT agreement (or any other agreement.) Israel and the Palestinians are in a continual state of being the right shot away from a real mess, and it appears Israel wants to engage Iran. Syria collapsed into a multiple way long term civil war with no end in sight. The results in Egypt's change of power are highly questionable, the results from Libya's collapse are even worse. Iraq after years of war engaged in for dubious reasons was left in the hands of a weak polarizing ideological government backed by a run at the first sight of the enemy military, so now a sizable portion of that nation is no longer under their control. ISIS formed being able to take advantage of both Iraq's weak state and Syria's fiasco. And that is just really the last decade, and the entire region seems worse for it all.

Now, consider all the money the US has spent on the military and influence in the region when looking over these results. It is no wonder that Russia is baiting us into spending even more on our military simply because they know how ideologically divided, tired of war, and broke from it all we truly are. Well some of us, we have plenty on the right taking the bait suggesting spending even more than we already do simply because the Russians are giving us a taste of what we gave them 30-40 years ago.

Somewhere some historian paying attention would be laughing if it were not so sad what little we have learned from then to now, with damn near bipartisan stupidity.

Stupidity indeed. Putin and the rest of the world have seen the spread pf ISIS since the pull out of Iraq. Too few people realize thew implications of a the fact most of Al-Qaeda/Taliban were found in Pakistan, a government the US arms while they harbor terrorists by deliberate inaction. Putin has known US affairs since the cold war..

One of Putin's jobs was to coordinate efforts with the Stasi to track down and recruit foreigners in Dresden, usually those who were enrolled at the Dresden University of Technology, in the hopes of sending them undercover in the United States.
Vladimir Putin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He began his career as a 'false cover operative' in East Germany when Barrack Obama was beginning his career as a community organizer.

MMC · Mar 14, 2015

Montecresto said:
Food chain!!!! Such predatory language, but it's been obvious all along. And no, of course US hegemony isn't troubling to service personel.

Well until they can prove they can play like Charles Barclay and become civilized.....they got no room to mouth off.

But I notice you don't say much about others predatory language.....Only the US, eh Monte.

Fearandloathing · Mar 14, 2015

MMC said:
Yeah DS. I picked up some of that too.

The New Wild West.....

The Arctic, long considered an almost worthless backwater, is primed to become one of the most important regions in the world as its ice melts over the next few decades. Unlike every other maritime area in the world, there is no overarching legal treaty governing the Arctic. Instead, the Arctic Council, made up of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the U.S., oversees and coordinates policy.

But the Arctic Council has no regulatory power. The countries only use the Council to communicate on policy and research and each member state is free to pursue its own policies within their declared Arctic boundaries.

According to a presentation by the Council of Foreign Relations, the Arctic is of primary strategic significance to the five bordering Arctic Ocean states — the U.S. (red), Canada (orange), Russia (grey), Norway (blue), and Denmark (green).....snip~

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/militaries-know-arctic-melting-heres-130246417.html

According to this.....the US is lagging behind.

Note that the overwhelming land mass and shoe line belong to Canada and Greenland. About four times all the others combined I would say

Montecresto · Mar 14, 2015

MMC said:
Well until they can prove they can play like Charles Barclay and become civilized.....they got no room to mouth off.

But I notice you don't say much about others predatory language.....Only the US, eh Monte.

How many times must I answer the same question??

American · Mar 14, 2015

Jetboogieman said:
Obama has proposed I believe 595 billion for defence spending...

Russia spends between 70-80 billion.... Are they really the threat you think they are?

Russia has 10-18 foreign bases in the world.

You guys have over 500...

Yup, they sure are.

solletica · Mar 14, 2015

donsutherland1 said:
From CNN:

U.S. admiral raises alarm over Russian military threat - CNN.com

It should be noted that this is but one geopolitical development albeit by one of the world's major powers. With various other countries increasing their military strength, it makes little sense for the U.S. to be on fiscal path that could reduce U.S. military power, including but not limited to combat manpower, in relative and perhaps even absolute terms. In the 21st century world, power matters, just as it has in earlier periods. The notion that hard power can be supplanted by rules or international institutions is little more than a hollow rationalization that makes little or no constructive national security contribution.

The Russian offensive military capability is mostly old metal junk and lumbering monolithic planes with only half-working engines.

The only thing stellar military thing Russia has fully deployed are its air defense capabilities, which is slightly ahead of US technology in that area.

solletica · Mar 14, 2015

Montecresto said:
Right, Russia's the instigator, escalator and trouble maker, and we're just sitting over here minding our own business while Russia's doing provocative fly bys.

Um, there's nothing provocative about flying metal junk.

Montecresto · Mar 14, 2015

solletica said:
Um, there's nothing provocative about flying metal junk.

Um, I'm paraphrasing the government and handwringing posters here! I'm not the one concerned about Russia. Presently, the US is waging economic war on Russia.

solletica · Mar 14, 2015

Montecresto said:
Um, I'm paraphrasing the government and handwringing posters here! I'm not the one concerned about Russia. Presently, the US is waging economic war on Russia.

Sorry, my mistake

Jetboogieman · Mar 14, 2015

American said:
Yup, they sure are.

Despite Russia's latest escapades I'd like to remind you it's no longer 1980.

Russia's "power" is absolutely in no way comparable to the U.S. in any way, economically, militarily or politically as it was as the Soviet Union, I notice there's a trend among Cold War era fellas like yourself to severely overestimate Russia's power.

Morality Games · Mar 14, 2015

... the United States is intentionally shrinking the amount of money that it spends on its military hardware to redirect to our global financial empire, our first line of attack and defense. That's why we are insisting that our allies start militarising.

Grant · Mar 14, 2015

solletica said:
The Russian offensive military capability is mostly old metal junk and lumbering monolithic planes with only half-working engines.

The only thing stellar military thing Russia has fully deployed are its air defense capabilities, which is slightly ahead of US technology in that area.

Yes, but the USA has more flexibility. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE

Grant · Mar 14, 2015

Jetboogieman said:
Despite Russia's latest escapades I'd like to remind you it's no longer 1980.

Russia's "power" is absolutely in no way comparable to the U.S. in any way, economically, militarily or politically as it was as the Soviet Union, I notice there's a trend among Cold War era fellas like yourself to severely overestimate Russia's power.

Russia has stronger leadership. That is the difference.

U.S. admiral raises alarm over Russian military threat

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...

Montecresto

MMC

humbolt

MMC

Montecresto

Montecresto

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon

polgara

joG

MMC

Montecresto

Fearandloathing

How long is now?

MMC

Fearandloathing

How long is now?

Montecresto

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

solletica

solletica

Montecresto

solletica

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon

Morality Games

Grant

Grant

U.S. admiral raises alarm over Russian military threat

A sinister place...

Somewhere in Babylon

How long is now?

How long is now?

Trump Grump Whisperer

Somewhere in Babylon

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency