Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Editorial
See other Editorial Articles

Title: Questions Abound on Incoming US Defense Secretary's Attitudes Toward Russia
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Feb 1, 2015
Author: staff
Post Date: 2015-02-01 23:32:39 by Tatarewicz
Keywords: None
Views: 117
Comments: 11

Senate confirmation hearings are set to begin for Ashton Carter, President Obama's pick for Secretary of Defense. Sputnik ponders what a Carter DOD might mean for the future of Russia-US relations.

MOSCOW, February 1 (Sputnik) — Senate confirmation hearings are set to be begin next week for Ashton Carter, President Barack Obama's pick to replace outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. In addition to dealing with a wide variety of global challenges, from Ebola to the Islamic State and Afghanistan to China's growing military might, the big question in Moscow concerns what Carter's nomination will mean for relations with Russia.

Specifically, Carter will be instrumental in determining whether the US decides to expand its military assistance to Ukraine, a conflict zone blamed on Moscow by Washington and Brussels. Carter, with his vast experience in dealing with post-Cold War Russia during the Clinton era, once touted a policy of "preventative defense," a concept arguing that cooperation, rather than confrontation, would allow the United States to meet the security challenges it faces in the world.

During President Bill Clinton's first term, Carter served as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Strategic Affairs, where he was instrumental in formulating Secretary of Defense William Perry's "preventative defense" attitude toward Russia. His role included the forging of defense and intelligence partnerships with Russia and other nuclear-armed states of the former Soviet Union, including Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. This included an initiative, known as the Nunn-Lugar program, for the US to provide financial and logistical assistance to these countries in exchange for the safe-guarding and destruction of nuclear weapons.

Carter played a crucial role in convincing Ukraine's leadership to get rid of its nuclear arsenal. He also recognized 1990s-era Russia's wounded pride in a time of social and economic crisis and geopolitical retreat internationally. He proposed a shared early warning system with Russia, nuclear de-targeting, and worked to assure Russian soldiers a place in the Bosnian peacekeeping force. In Secretary Perry's time, countries of the former Eastern Bloc were encouraged to join NATO's Partnership for Peace initiative, a compromise to NATO membership that ensured a friendly relationship with Russia and assuaged the latter's fears of encroachment by the Western military bloc.

In 1999, Carter and Perry co-wrote a book entitled 'Preventative Defense: A New Security Strategy for America,' which, based on policies the officials had implemented while in office, noted the need to help Russia establish a "self-respecting place…in the post-cold war world." Fearing the further degradation and descent into chaos of Yeltsin-era Russia, the book noted that the biggest fear to be faced was a Russia that "might descend into chaos, isolation and aggression," referred to as "Weimer Russia."

In 2015, the challenge of Russia to be faced by Mr. Carter is very different. Russia today is a country which has found its place in the world, which has not been allowed to slip into economic and social paralysis, and which has partners and allies around the world, among them the other members of the BRICS countries. NATO's continued push to the East has left Moscow disillusioned regarding the prospects for a close partnership with that organization. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which Moscow considers to be the result at least in part of Washington's meddling, is another issue leading to growing distrust. These new realities are something Carter will have to deal with. The jury is still out on whether he will recall his "preventative defense" idea of the 1990s, or be forced to adopt the more aggressive line the Obama administration has taken against Russia.

Read more: sputniknews.com/analysis/...629120.html#ixzz3QYeL8Cbp

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Tatarewicz, Lod, Jethro Tull, X-15, Phant2000 (#0)

Russia today is a country which has found its place in the world, which has not been allowed to slip into economic and social paralysis, and which has partners and allies around the world, among them the other members of the BRICS countries. NATO's continued push to the East has left Moscow disillusioned regarding the prospects for a close partnership with that organization.

"NATO's continued push to the East has left Moscow disillusioned regarding the prospects for a close partnership with that organization."

Partnership???????

Ye Gods is the author mad or just insane, maybe stupid, surely naive.

No one has ever had a "partnership" with Russia.

Has the world forgotten that it was Russia that turned Hitler loose on the West in WWII? Did nothing while Hitler ravaged all of Western Europe, supplied Hitler with food and material on his conquest, then when Hitler turned East, Russia was on its knees begging for help, pleading for the world to save Mother Russia.

Who was it that trained the mighty German army that took Europe?

Patton was right.

Cynicom  posted on  2015-02-02   2:05:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: Cynicom (#1) (Edited)

Hitler didn't ravage western Europe. The Brits and later Americans did that while attacking western Europe held by the Germans. The Battle of Britain was in retaliation for Lancaster raids over Germany.

Deasy  posted on  2015-02-02   2:19:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Cynicom (#1)

No one has ever had a "partnership" with Russia.

Err...wrong... a certain hallowed US President was smitten with Stalin and the USSR, if you may recall.

scrapper2  posted on  2015-02-02   3:49:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: Deasy (#2)

Hitler didn't ravage western Europe.

Deasy, there can be no discussion of anything, with comments such as that. My time is too limited to waste.

Cynicom  posted on  2015-02-02   5:04:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: scrapper2 (#3)

Err...wrong... a certain hallowed US President was smitten with Stalin and the USSR, if you may recall.

Errr...wrong. I was around back then.

There was never a partnership, rather a useful idiot for each other. Reading Churchills six volumes of WWII would quickly dispel any such notion.

Over and over, repeated endless times Churchill makes it quite clear, other than fighting a common enemy, there was no relationship of any kind.

FDR had Russian agents with him at every conference, no there was never any partnership, even FDR was not that stupid.

In fact if one reads history, a few days before Hitler invaded Russia, FDR cabled Stalin that invasion was coming. Stalin at once passed that cable to Hitler, both had a good laugh.

Stalin was the odd man out and he knew it.

Cynicom  posted on  2015-02-02   5:15:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: scrapper2 (#3)

... a certain hallowed US President was smitten with Stalin and the USSR, if you may recall.

Pray, tell ... where did you ever read/see/hear that? Having lived during those times, I am shocked to read such a statement. It is true that FDR was smitten ... but NOT with Stalin and/or the USSR.

Phant2000  posted on  2015-02-02   8:05:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Phant2000 (#6)

Let's not forget the twosome who were educated in Russia. The Clintons.

"Call Me Ishmael" -Ishmael, A character from the book "Moby Dick" 1851. "Call Me Fishmeal" -Osama Bin Laden, A character created by the CIA, and the world's Hide And Seek Champion 2001-2011. -Tommythemadartist

TommyTheMadArtist  posted on  2015-02-02   8:43:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Cynicom (#1)

No one has ever had a "partnership" with Russia.

I guess the Russians built the International Space Station by themselves and simply rent space on it for US astronauts on occasion, eh?


"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen

FormerLurker  posted on  2015-02-02   10:10:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Cynicom, *antifa* (#4) (Edited)

Deasy, there can be no discussion of anything, with comments such as:
Hitler didn't ravage western Europe.

So went the Jewish-dominated thinking of the day. Jews want the Goyim always to go against our nature, and nature itself if need be. Germany was strong enough to take back what it wanted, and it wanted German-speaking territories. The only force capable of stopping Germany was the Soviet red army, which ultimately did with American materiel and financing. I'm familiar with the notion that the Soviets were strong enough to overrun Germany with a preemptive strike. In that case, the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement makes perfect sense. Even the Japanese were stunned and angered by that move.

What the Jewish media and the Jewish-controlled governments said at the time of the re-militarization of the Rhineland in 1936 and the Austrian Anschluss and the annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938, went against a force of nature: ethnic hegemony. Germany was mighty enough to carry out its goals unopposed. This was none of America's nor Great Britain's business, yet calls for German blood were rampant. All during this time, FDR was promising neutrality in lie after lie. The very notion of appeasement, much used today, entails vilifying a force of nature. The world did not care about Germany reuniting with Germans in central Europe! No second world war was worth opposing that.

Danzig was another, similar case. Reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig

Who cared if the Germans wanted increased access to the Baltic sea via a traditionally German port, which also gave them a gateway to the Baltics, namely Lithuania. Power is power. Hitler had it, so he used it.

Jewish influence usually involves getting others involved in the fight. There was massive opposition to the fascists of Great Britain by the communists and Jews in the media and government. Churchill was in the back pocket of world Jewry, as David Irving has well-documented. Churchill's mother was a Jew, for starters. Churchill's goal was war from the beginning. And so Hitler's move into Poland in September 1939 secured the gutless French and British declarations of war. If the UK had not made a hasty treaty with Poland, history would be very different today.

Without America's entry via Lend-Lease, Germany would have been a bastion against communism in Europe, and if the UK had stayed out of the war, the Soviet union would have ceased to exist by 1942. As it stands, the world must cope with Zionist Israel, communist-industrialist China, and a wounded Russian bear with fuel to burn and a defender's stance on its side.

And so we inhabit a world infested and manipulated by an even stronger World Jewry, thanks to our crushing of Hitler's natural order. Without the actions of its American host, the parasite would have long ceased to exist. Nature would have worked its way. Now the host falters, it stumbles. But on and on it goes, doing the bidding of its leeches.

Deasy  posted on  2015-02-02   10:47:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Phant2000 (#6)

Pray, tell ... where did you ever read/see/hear that? Having lived during those times, I am shocked to read such a statement. It is true that FDR was smitten ... but NOT with Stalin and/or the USSR.

You're kidding me, right?

Churchill despised Stalin and he was very concerned about how FDR seemed to hold Stalin in awe.

FDR's cabinet was infested with Communist sympathizers because FDR was one as well.

Maybe living "during those times"has not allowed you to acquire an overview perspective of FDR's communistic inclinations.

scrapper2  posted on  2015-02-04   0:36:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: scrapper2 (#10)

Venona decodings prove that FDR was surrounded by communists, as far as I recall.

Deasy  posted on  2015-02-04   0:53:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest