Posted on 03/03/2003 6:29:57 AM PST by advocate10
Yeah but the plutonium can get out sooner and easier.
Plutonium is tricky stuff. Very likely to sputter dirty rather than nuclear chain reaction. In 1945 we tested our plutonium device at Trinity site before dropping one on Nagasaki. Postwar we had one go dirty on us at Bikini and ground zero there had to be paved over and fenced off.
Ø There have already been quiet talks between Washington and Moscow over Chechnya. There will be a change in US policy towards Chechnya, which will be the price of Russian co-operation.
Ø The Russian administration will be 'very happy' with the new paradigm.
Ø They do not care excessively about Iraq: they will settle for an increased market share in Oil.
A few months ago this analysis would have appeared correct. Now I am not so sure. Straddling the fence between the US/UK axis and the France/Germany axis, it appears that Russia is shifting fairly decisively to the Franco/German side. Why?
The Russians know that the Franco/German axis will never be capable of building up their military to a sufficient level to mount any serious threat against Russia. The combination of overly generous social democratic welfare states and long-term demograph decline assures that "Europe" will never be more than a lightweight counterweight to the US -- unless Russia's resources and military are weighed into the balance. Russia realizes that the Franco/German-centered "Europe" will need Russia far more than the US ever will. Thus, the Russians are moving into a position where they can exercise considerable long-term leverage on "Europe" to advance Russia's own interests.
Russia views an expansive NATO as a threat only as long as the US is a member of NATO. Break up NATO, expel the US from the continent, and replace it with France's vision of a "Europe-only" military alliance, and this would be no threat to the Russia at all. Indeed, there would be no obstacle and considerable advantages to both sides for Russia to join such an alliance. Having a continued US presence along the periphery -- UK, Iceland, Spain -- would not be particularly worrisome to the Russians, and in fact might actually be an advantage in keeping the fickle French shoved into Russia's arms.
Russia is still smarting from the loss of its empire. Long-term, it would like to re-assert hegemony over Eastern Europe. As long as the US is in NATO, this will be difficult to do. However, the French and especially the Germans are also interested in asserting economic hegemony in E. Europe - something that Russia will be unable to do for a long time, and in any case it is not economic influence that Russia is interested in, but rather political and military influence. Thus, the Russians may be coming around to seeing the Germans and the French as potential partners rather than competitors in bring E. Europe back into their orbit. With E. Europe sandwiched between the Franco/German axis on one side and Russia on the other, and with NATO in shambles and the US out, E. Europe will be in no position to mount a long-term resistance against the Franco/Russo/German hegemony.
The Russians do care about economics, though, and they need help. The US has been stingy, and the simple economic fact is that - due to their proximity - "Europe" is in a position to be a better long-term economic partner than is the US. Europe has the markets for Russian resources, and the technology and capital to help the Russian economy develop.
While Russia has its Chechnya problem, and thus shares with the US a strategic interest in combatting radical Islam, Russia also has a long-term strategic interest in reasserting hegemony over Central Asia, and in attempting to gain hegemony over Iran and Turkey (especially if they see the handwriting on the wall and realize that India will probably end up in the US corner). Because more flies are caught with honey than with vinegar, it might not really be in Russia's interests to be seen as a highly visible partner in a US "crusade" against global Islamic extremism. Instead, Russia's interests are in keeping the Chechnya situation bottled up and viewed as purely an internal security affair.
Very long-term, Russia's greatest security threat is China. It is known that China would like to eventually absorb Siberia to provide lebensraum, resources, and brides. Russia may have realized that with its declining population, sick economy, and aging military, China can afford to just patiently wait until the time is right. The Russians have probably guessed that the US is unlikely to commit to fighting a world war and losing uncounted millions of casualties just to keep Siberia out of Chinese hands. Nor are the French and Germans. Thus, their best bet might be to cut a deal with the Chinese now, while they are about as strong as they are ever going to be relative to the Chinese. The Chinese, of course, are delighted to see the US booted out of NATO and a Franco/Russo/German axis emerge as a counterweight to the US. The Chinese know that there is no way that this axis will ever have the capability or willpower to be a real threat against China. They might put up resistance to a Chinese invasion of Siberia, but such an invasion may not be necessary. China can get all the trade they want with the Franco/Russo/German axis. Lebensraum can wait for a few more centuries if necessary. Note, however, that because the Chinese have some strategic interests that conflict with the European axis, this leaves open the possibility that the US could "play the China card" once more.
Conclusion
A Franco/Russo/German axis is forming.
NATO is dead. A new continental European military alliance will eventually develop instead, minus the US, and possibly minus the UK, Spain, Iceland, and a few other countries, but plus Russia.
This arising European alliance is unlikely to be a full counterweight to the US. However, with the inclusion of Russia, it will nevertheless be sufficiently powerful to be a serious concern. This alliance will become one of our principal adversaries.
China will not be part of this new European alliance, but will be on friendly terms with it.
Ø Iran will choose to close down internal debate as it steps up its security levels.
Ø Long-term, it knows it is in danger: the US-Iran issue will be a serious issue for the future.
Ø There may well be considerable internal change further down the line.
Russia has a long-term strategic interest in replacing US hegemony in Turkey, Pakistan, and Afghanistan with their own, and extending their own hegemony over Iran. During the bad old atheistic Communist days, this was impossible, but current events are opening up new possibilities for them. We have just seen a potential split opening up between the US and Turkey. As the posted analysis indicates, the US and Pakistan cannot really remain "friends", and the US will certainly eventually have to move against Pakistan. If the Iraq war does happen and the US establishes a long-term presence there (as the article indicates), then this will inflame the whole region, and in particular will make the Iranians feel very threatened. Russia could be waiting for them with open arms. Especially if Russia casts a veto and sides with the Franco/German axis, then Russia will be viewed in a more favorable light. Russia's continuing conflict with Chechnya is a barrier to better relations with Iran, Pakistan, and -- to a lesser extent -- Turkey. On the other hand, establishing a band of cooperative friends from Turkey through Pakistan would go far toward Russia's goal of shutting off the spigot to the Chechen rebels. Iran is the key country in this regard -- if the Russians could cut a deal with the Iranians (say, Russia gives Chechnya some local autonomy and backs off, in return for Iran turning off the spigot to the Chechen rebels), then this could both go far toward solving Russia's Chechnya problem and be the breakthrough toward establishing Russian hegemony over the region.
The Iraqi perception/assumption: Saddam Hussein believes that he will win. This is based on the premise that the US does not want to suffer high casualties, as evidenced in the 1990s by Somalia, Beirut, and the1991 war. - I have been reading Roosevelt's Secret War and this is exactly the same mistake that Hitler made.
France is not posturing for commercial reason, as some commentators are suggesting. --Of course France's reasons are not purely commercial, but the commercial dealings with Iraq had a political as well as economic basis, to strengthen France and weaken the US.
The only value obtained by refining the spent rods is to create a nuke because you need purity to sustain a chain reaction.
True enough. It's amazing how many still tend to think of war in terms of the strategy, tactics and worldview of World War II. Today, it is anything but. Martin Van Creveld's works are highly recommended, if somewhat dry.
Ø France is not posturing for commercial reason, as some commentators are suggesting.
Ø On the contrary, they have made a serious strategic miscalculation, and are now staring at an'abyss' in which they have alienated the US, and have caused considerable resentment within Europe for their current stance.
Ø The German-French response to the US has as its overall purpose the creation of a European counterweight to US power.
They are indeed pursuing the European counterweight strategy, but this is no miscalculation. The intent of the French for a long time has been to eventually force the breakup of NATO and departure of the US from continental Europe. This was impossible as long as the Christian Democrats were in power in Germany. But with Schroder, and especially Joshka Fischer, now in office, combined with the present crisis and the very controversial and unpopular position on the part of the US, the French have seen an exceptional strategic opportunity, and have decided that now is the time to force the break.
This is so important to the French that they are quite prepared to see substantial numbers of defections among their EU/NATO partners, including Britain and Spain (both of whom have traditionally been French enemies rather than friends, and thus not really viewed all that fondly by Paris).
The real roll of the dice here is that the French and Germans are hoping to bring Russia into their alliance. Doing so will bring them several important benefits:
The Russians still have substantial military assets - enough so that the Franco/Russo/German axis becomes a significant (though still not equal) competitor with the US.
Russia offers substantial oil, gas, mineral, and other resource supplies for the EU, while the EU offers technology and development capital for Russia.
Gaining Russia as an axis partner and giving the US the boot from continental Europe puts the squeeze on the E. European countries. As Chirac said, this will be "a good opprotunity for them to shut up."
Conclusion:
This is no miscalculation. France and Germany know full well what they are doing, and this is a very serious, high-stakes game.
Game Over for the terrorists.
BUMP
Rather than relying on their interpretations, just look at their data. Any single person can do as well as or better than a committee when it comes to predictions.
OK, now that THAT part is wrong, what next?
Absolutely. In addition, you're right about Korea. DPRK is going to push as far as they can.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.