iCitizenForum by Colonial Williamsburg

Preventing MAD only leads to nuclear utilization theory-that is any concept of Ballistic missile defense is inherently dangerous to the rational actor model. Rational actors will find themselves in times of crisis hedging their bets because of the deployment of this type of technology. It is why MIRVing was so dangerous and why Star Wars was so dangerous. It takes the concept of nuclear war and instead of an absolute zero-sum game gives it statistical possibility, no matter how small that one can survive. That is why any type of anti-missile defense destroys the rational actor model It does more to destroy a balance then protect against the irrational actor imbalance.

overextension and war. Its bad enough it was extended to Poland to invite Russia would have led to such splintering during the breakup of Slavia that without question the two sides would rip the alliance to shreds. Move the game up a few years and you have Chechnya Major major policy mistake would be to extend NATO into Russia a bipolycentric state that was undergoing massive geopolitical/cultural/economic/ military change. It would have also gone against Washingtons own baselines. ‘Beware the foreign entanglement’ John Lewis Gaddis wrote an excellent book that examined the developments of US-Soviet relations and the cold war and the thaw after’ The Long Peace, by John Lewis Gaddis’

DC

I agree. I have an opportunity as a half blood russian living in lithuania to know what russians think about the operation in Georgia, and what westerners think about it. I think Saakashvily have done a wrong deed. Because I think what is important here is to respect the privacy of Russia. I dont think Putin or Medvedev are not democrats or they dont want to make a market economy there in Russia. The point of not democratic goverment in Russia is only a subjective point of western politics or media. At the stage in 1998 there were no options or discussions what should be done. You know there can be discussion when you have a choice which way to go not knowing which is the best. But at that time for EVERYBODY it became evident that Russia under Jetcin was going the WRONG way. So if you think that Russian goverment wants to have a control over everything this is no truth. The have broken in to parts a govermental company a provider of electricity in to many small companies which were privatized then. The point here is not to sell very cheap very big companies as it was under Jeltsin (remember Yukos, Abromovic, why they are billionaires - because they purchased the companies for the price which was thousands times less that the real marked price companies had) Under Putin the capitalization of those companies grew hundreds -thousands times, isnt it a good indicator. Then when the company had their real price, then is a proper time to sell it. But when the company is taken very cheap, and then from nowhere that person becomes thousands time wealthier, this is not right especially when it comes to energy resources. This is what happened in Russia, anyone may blame Putin has a strict not democratic hand.. This is not bad when it is productive. If you want democracy, then most probably there would be a lot of corruption. US and most of countries, I believe went through it. They had strict leaders who made rules more equal for everybody. And if Russia became more influential politically doesnt it shows that it becomes stronger, not necessary millitary, but economicall. Instead of huge ammount of mony to be deployed in European and US banks during Yeltsin, now they come back to Russian economy, they are biulding new schools, hospitals and more. And for example if westerners may see Russia as an enemy.. any tension is economically costy, you may deploy your fleet in the Black Sea, but it is costy, because, then Russia will deploy their bombers in Venezuela, not because they want to bomb US, it would be a contraction, a message, Then US jet fighters would have to convoy russian bombers all the time they become airborne. Too much of expenditures. And is enyone about to fight a WAR, nobody, even a small conflicts are very costy, big wars are not to WIN ANYMORE, they are too costy to win, and nobody wants to fight anymore. The only solution here is to respect; people of Russia become very conscious about their position in the world, and they are very cooperative. Nobody spoke there about occupation og Georgia, only Saakashvilly spoke about that, he used world media to show himself as hero, but he first gave up political solution to a problem, hi stroke first, he involved everyone in to his unfair crusade. Even political and democratic opposition in Russia say that Russia should have responded. Anyway such conflicts shoul involve negotiation with all parties, as well as other conflicts should be negotiated, which was not done in Yougoslavia (which was and remains a failure of western policy), US dont speak to IRAN, since it is an axis of evil, they wait when Castros dies in Cuba, to “liberate” them then. There are many conflicts where US fails because, they dont really try to find the sollution which would satisfy or at least will harm nobody, in their forign policies they distiguish between loved ones and not.. this is not fair not speaking-democratic. Thus they dont find sollution. Nobody should be left aside, and nobody should be forced to a sollution.. As general Petraneus told that there will be no victory in Iraq (means that US will leave gaining almost nothing but having killed there more than million of Irakees). Terrorists are in minority, but they fight because they have different attitude, which is not necessary wrong, but since nobody wants to listen to them they fight for their attitudes.Regards