28-Mar-14 World View -- Pentagon: Possible Russian invasion

[John]

28-Mar-14 World View -- Pentagon concerned that Russia is about to invade Ukraine


Obama to meet Saudi King Abdullah among significant policy differences

** 28-Mar-14 World View -- Pentagon concerned that Russia is about to invade Ukraine
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e140328



Contents:
Obama to meet Saudi King Abdullah among significant policy differences
Pentagon concerned that Russia is about to invade Ukraine


Keys:
Generational Dynamics, Saudi Arabia, Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud,
Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Morsi,
Syria, Iran, Qatar,
Russia, Ukraine, Philip Breedlove, Moldova, Transdniestria

[NoOneImportant]

The loss of the Ukraine is a fait accompli, the best the Ukrainians may hope for is to bloody the Russians, as the Finns did immediately prior to WWII, or establish an ongoing resistance. The real question for the future is what is NATO doing? Or perhaps even more importantly, what is NATO not doing? The absence of any preparatory action on NATO's part simply invites the next aggressive move on Russia's part. Almost as important as NATO's actions are perhaps the actions of China while the world is distracted by Putin/Russia in the west?

The Obama visit to Saudi Arabia is a telling event, whereas Obama should be visiting Kiev in the Ukraine if he desires peace, he is instead visiting the already alienated Saudis - Mr., international, Day-Late, and a Dollar-Short, OJT diplomat - perhaps he can show the Saudi king his Nobel Peace Prize. The Saudis are so alienated by the US that they, and the Pakistanis released a flurry of press releases in the last half of January 2014 regarding their - Saudi - intent to procure both Al-Khelid http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... t-2000.htm main battle tank, and JF-17 fighter aircraft.

Whether this purchase comes to pass is yet to be seen, as the Saudis have a significant investment in, high performance fighters, and recently - mid February, 2014 - inked a 5.5 billion deal for 72 of Eurofighter's dual engined, low radar cross section, fly-by-wire Typhoon aircraft - http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bae-syste ... ector.html. While the Pakistani hardware is less than state-of-the-art in both cases, the considered purchase if executed, indicates a willingness on the Saudi's part to create a long term supply relationship between the two countries, as both the tank, and the aircraft (the JF-17 is 1/2 - 1/3 the cost of an F-16) require extensive logistical support to remain viable. For every billion in acquisition, additional billions are necessary for training, and weapons system maintenance.

Essentially, even considering the Pakistani equipment, illustrates the depth of the Saudi discontent with Washington, and at its most basic level it conveys that the Saudis do not trust the US/Obama, and that said they certainly trust none of Obama's minions. Further it may be interpreted to mean that the US standing, in the Saudi mind, has degenerated to the point that the US can't even solicit a visit from the Saudi head of state - in that context Obama appears in Riyadh, hat in hand, apparently believing that he can schmooze reality away. Bad developments all.

From a GD perspective the Saudi/Pakistani arms negotiations brings the Saudis into a much closer military relationship with the Sunni Pakistanis, and their corresponding ally the PLA of Red China - while ostensibly the Saudi/Pakistani arms negotiations are about tanks and airplanes, the real Saudi interest lies in countering Shite Iran's emerging nuclear capability, and that is what Saudi Arabia really wants to purchase from Pakistan - ready made nukes. While Pakistani nuclear weapons may be currently beyond Saudi reach, a single Iranian nuclear test might alter that restraint on the part of the Pakistanis. And the Saudis meet with a President who thinks that diplomacy is the equivalent of "foreign campaigning," just smiling and lying.

[Anon]

And, of course, the Bush policies of attacking two Muslim majority countries had no adverse effects on our relations with anyone. Iraq doesn't have bombs going off in the capital nearly every day, Afghanistan is peaceful and the people of Pakistan wave when they see the freedom drones flying overhead. LOL.

The world WILL undergo this change, and attempting to lay blame on a politician of any stripe for being unable to sweep back the tide is ridiculous.

There is absolutely NOTHING I'm aware of in GD that says some miracle political act will cause there to be no crisis. When has this ever happened? Where did Howe or Strauss ever address such a thing as possible?

[NoOneImportant]

Right, five years in and it's all Bush's fault. Bush has more than enough to be responsible for, but the international mess isn't one of them. Want to indict Bush, and Paulson for the TARP mess, and the financial mess I'll help you, but make no mistake were going to get Dodd, and Frank also. But Obama is five plus years in; he's on his second term, what did he think he was running for Class President? Oh, that's right Obama is responsible for nothing, wanna see his Nobel Prize? Who did he think he was talking to when he told Medeved: "... I'll have more flexibility after the election..." Did he have any understanding of the burden of cruelty levied upon the Russian, and Chinese people by their leaders in the 20th century. If these people will do what they did to their own people, what did he expect them to do to "outsiders once unrestrained by raw power?" Permit me to help you, the answer is that he didn't have a clue, he had no life experience to prepare him for a direct confrontation with unmitigated evil. Nether Afghanistan, nor Iraq were anywhere close to the mess that now exists. Obama's solution to war is quite simple: surrender. Yep, surrender, and we can all pay nice - you can terminate any war that way.

Strength, not weakness deters aggression - a lesson that is lost on Obama. The populace has to believe for that strength to be maintained - that is GD. And it isn't cheap, and you don't get it by squandering the better part of a trillion dollars to political buddies who agree to kick back hundreds of millions in political contributions. Get off the: "... it's Bush's fault...", we had a space shuttle under Bush, we had a pacified Iraq under Bush, we had a Taliban on the run in Afghanistan, under Bush we had a world that may not have loved us, but chose to fear us, and frankly if you can't be loved, then feared is next best; we had a Federal Bureaucracy, while not under control it was a far cry from the intrusive mess we now live with, and the list can go on, and on, and on. However America gets what it requested, and it requested Obama, so why should you be upset by my posts? You won... or did you?

Should you desire to go back to ancient history perhaps we should consider the stellar record of Jimmy Carter - another peerless leader; the last "leader" to give us anything close to what we are now experiencing.

[Evan]

Part of GD is the problematic selection of capable leaders leading up to the crisis era since political disfunction and lack of cooperation are part of the crisis syndrome. USA is no exception and actually proves the rule. Two of USA's most incompetent foreign policy presidents are being defended in the above posts when the reality is that they are a product of a system incapable of choosing strong leadership during this time. Both refered presidents have muddled the foreign and domestic sandbox leaving inevitable unsustainability and further chaos a certainty. But guaranteed the aftermath will be a crucible for finding truly strong and competent leadership. Will we like what we get is anther question. Clearing away chaos and an unsustainable status quo always requires severe and painful policies that we would be horrified by 10 years ago but will be forced to accept 10 years from now. But they dying generations will be rolling in their graves (or be prepared to do so soon enough).