I think the Iraq strategy looked farther ahead and was very indirect, yet preventative. It now seems to have resulted in Sunnis blowing up Iranian officers, whereas 8 years ago we expected bombs in the US from a unified Islamic front. It also produced a situation where the US military is operating freely in a place where terrorists are coming to them to fight with rifles, rather than the US trying to hunt invisible cells in North America. Interesting results. The strategy risks dangerous de-stabilization of other regions, but successfully chose the battle ground, got the enemy to meet us there, and produced striking divisions among the enemy. The enemy are blowing up mosques over there rather than subway stations over here. Shows the rest of the Moslem world what “heroes” these guys are after all.

The message to Moscow is that, if you cross the wire, Armageddon happens. Is that the message Moscow is sending now? We don’t even have any wirecutters deployed. (only exaggerating a little.)

During the Cold War, the Russians were the best enemy we’ve ever had, and we, theirs. We both knew the rules, and played by them. Both of us knew we couldn’t win the big war, so we both made damn sure we never had one.

We would go nuclear early, rather than late.

Not true. The effects of using tactical nuclear weapons on lowering the threshold for a strategic nuclear exchanged was wargamed hundreds of times. The outcome: 100% of the time the use of tactical nukes led to escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange. The longest time for this to occur was 4 hours from the first use of tactical nukes (which ever side first used the tactical nukes, and whether the first use was in Europe or a peripheral theatre).

The true implicit threat of the French nuclear arsenal is that any attack on France would be met with a nuclear response, and so would trigger WW III.

There is no reason to conclude that the leaders of the USSR did not reach the same conclusions. Accordingly, all concerned avoided approaching the threshold for use of nuclear weapons after they realized how close they had come to blundering into doing so during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Any lowering of the restraints on first use of nuclear weapons is a major increase in the danger level. Unless you assume that the Russians are suicidal or recklessly stupid, there is likely another reason for the statement. Russian political and military leaders have very seldom made rash statements. Rather, the third and fourth level effects of provocative statements have been well thought out. Their apparent assessment of the strength of the US’s leadership appears warranted.

Actually, they’ve been admitting for years they are unable to defend their own country’s borders against conventionally-armed neighbors. They would have to go straight to nukes in the case of almost any conceivable war.

This was pretty much NATO’s position from the 60s to the fall of the USSR. There was no way for NATO, with their politically acceptable troop levels, to counter Moscow’s rain of divisions. We would go nuclear early, rather than late.

So, yes, I agree with Oren. Russia’s inability to fill all its tanks has been known for a long time. As long as they are thinking defensively, I’m not so worried. We have no offensive intentions. Indeed, we do not have offensive capabilities at the scale required.

Nick

But they haven’t used nuclear weapons in Chechnya or other border country disputes.

Oren: Moscow has all but admitted that their atrophied conventional forces are unable to carry out a mission of force projection at a faraway small country.

Actually, they’ve been admitting for years they are unable to defend their own country’s borders against conventionally-armed neighbors. They would have to go straight to nukes in the case of almost any conceivable war.

It appears that you do not understand the history and function of Pravda.

What Bush doctrine? Pres. Obama has escalated the Afghan war by ordering new preemptive strikes.

It is grammatically impossible to strike preemptively in a war that’s been going on for 8 years.

How do you have a “preventative” strike on someone who has already “aggressed?” A strike on an “aggressor” would have to be retaliatory, not preventive. Therefore, “preventive” strikes would be on someone the striker anticipates to act aggressively, making the preventive striker the actual aggressor, like the US striking Iraq in 2003.

But that quote comes from a Russian government official, making it no more surprising if it were from an American government official.

What was controversial about Bush was the apparent embrace of “preventive war“. This, as I understand it, meant that the threat from the other country didn’t have to be imminent, it could merely be potential. AFAIK, no other country in the world accepts that doctrine.

Assuming I’ve understood this correctly, there’s nothing controversial in Russia’s position except the reference to nuclear weapons.

This is fantastic news.

And it is due to his low-key, diligent, respectful, polite and engaged attitude that he has deservedly been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, not necessarily for what he has done but for what he promises to do. The first sign was the declaration that the concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay would be decommissioned, the second was the abandoning of the idiotic Missile Defence Shield (as if North Korea would fire a missile westwards over Asia, Europe and the Atlantic, when a salvo eastwards would blitz the West Coast). ”

A quote from http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/109803-1/

It appears the Russians love Obama (they are less than fond of Mrs. Clinton apparently)……..

I guess Vladmir Putin didn’t get the memo.