The joint desire of Medvedev and Putin to provoke the US should be obvious. The latest piece of evidence: Russia's joint naval exercises with Venezuela.

Of course, Russia has a right, as a sovereign nation, to act provocatively, if it wishes. But so do other countries. So I am increasingly coming to the opinion that the Black Sea would be an excellent place for the US to conduct naval exercises, in conjunction with Ukraine.

Perhaps that would be a more effective response than some perfunctory statement of displeasure by the State Department.

If that would be an example of ratcheting up the tensions, then so be it. Provocation should be met with counter-provocation, to make a nation's serious displeasure obvious--not with appeasement or pleas for better behavior.

So your solution is to escalate the dick waving contest? Macho response.

__________________

There's nothing "macho" about it. More like assertive.

Do you really suppose that appeasement ever worked as a solution to international tensions? Ever?

Why is it, precisely, that aggressor nations are given a pass, whereas all others are expected to practice "restraint"?

The fact that another nation wants to conduct naval actions doesn't mean you need to. International me-tooism designed to dick wave. That's all it is.

__________________

Should we let them just continue their games? Just let them do their thing? This will only get worse as we approach January 20th.

__________________
___________________

A picture is worth a thousand words.

Wish Barack H. Obama good luck on 1/20/2009 (202) 456-1414
Inauguration Day Events

The vulgar metaphor aside, one is tempted to inquire: What, exactly, is the joint Russia-Venezuela naval exercise "designed" to do? Why is is that this exercise is not unnecessarily provocative, whereas a US-Ukrainian exercise would be unnecessarily provacative?

Is it because of the "me-tooism," to borrow your phraseology? If so, would it have been okay for the US and Ukraine to have conducted such a joint exercise, if Russia had not done so with Venezuela first?

Or do you simply apply a different standard (some might say arbitrarily) to the US than you do to Russia and other anti-Western nations?

Russia's actions are designed probably for the same reason other countries conduct similar operations: practice, maintenance. Or do you think that the world's militarizes sit around in barracks and docks all day and do nothing? It keeps them updated and active.

The United States has conducted routine naval actions. I just don't see a reason to go run out and copy what the Russians are doing so you can "me-too!" You're blowing it way out of proportion. Russia isn't going to do anything. And in fact, the desire to place ABMS missiles near them was itself provocative, and the US did that first.

__________________

Now let me get this straight: Hugo Chavez is a strident enemy of the US; Russia has decided to conduct joint naval exercises with the country he presides over--in the Western hemisphere; so the most reasonable interpretation is that this maneuver was done merely for "practice [and] maintenance," to keep the Russian military "updated and active"--not to provoke the US.

Is that about right?

With a country whose leader goes out of his way to demonize Russia? When?

I quite agree that Russia isn't about to initiate military action against the US. But some things would be worse than that. Much worse, in fact.

For instance, Russia's being able to intimidate the US--or even to believe that it had done so.

How do you figure?

(1) The theory of Mutual Assured Destruction, even in the days of the Cold War, was just as MAD as its acronym suggested. Nowadays, it is even more ludicrous. No serious person could really believe that the US harbors evil intentions toward Russia.

(2) The missiles that are scheduled to be placed in Poland (if President-elect Obama, after he takes office, does not follow another course) are in no way a threat to Russia. To claim otherwise is to spin for the Kremlin, not to engage in serious analysis.

The anti-ballistic missile shield certainly is a threat to Russia, as it mitigates partially against their ICBM arsenal. It forces them to lob far far more of them because strikes are not assured. The more ABM sites there are in Europe, the more Russia would have to send to saturate. It would turn Europe in a missile sponge.

MAD essentially worked. If one has an advantage and can negate or force you to build far, far more of your arsenal, then that negates the balance.

What about the United States and it's tendency to use its power to intimidate others, including old Russia? The Russians aren't really the bad guys, and the US isn't "the good guy," you know. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore. You are aware of that, right? Or are you thinking this is still the Cold War against the Ruskies? It's time to let it go. It's dead Jim. It's dead.

Russia's just doing that, as well as dickwaving, as I originally said. Russia is getting a bit more powerful and it wants to flex some pseudomuscle on the world stage. It's all pomp, just like what the US does. There's little to get all worked up about. It wouldn't be in Russia's interests for the United States to actually go under. Nor would it be good for anyone else. Frankly, I think it's better for the world in general if the US loses power and that power is distributed among many other first world nations. The US has dominated things for way too long and Russia took it up the arse during the 90s. It's just a rebound in response to US/NATO macho bombastic behaviour.

Chavez really is a joke. So is a "naval action" with them.

The US played cheer leader for Georgia, even though Russia was the real victim of Georgian policy. This game has been going on for quite a while.

__________________

LOL! Those were my thoughts, too but I couldn't figure out a tactful way to phrase it. That is exactly what it is.

__________________


"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."