Kremlin sends nuclear cruiser to Caribbean
I love the US state department comment..
Russia is planning to deploy an armed nuclear-powered warship on America's doorstep for the first time since the Cold War.
In a move that evokes memories of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, Moscow is dispatching a number of ships to the Caribbean for joint naval manoeuvres with Venezuela.
Russian officials denied the mission was linked to a stand-off in the Black Sea, where the U.S. has sent warships to deliver aid to the former Soviet nation of Georgia.
Russia has criticised the U.S for the deployment of a command ship and two other naval vessels to Georgia's southern border in a show of support for President Mikheil Saakashvili over the conflict with Russia.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev asked on Saturday how Washington would feel 'if we now dispatched humanitarian assistance to the Caribbean... using our navy'.
But the Kremlin says the Caribbean exercise has been planned for a year.
'We are talking about a planned event not linked with current political circumstances and not in any way connected to events in Georgia,' Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko told a news briefing yesterday.
The exercises 'will in no way be directed against the interests of a third country', he added.
However, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, an outspoken critic of U.S foreign policy, was blunt about the possibility of U.S. concern.
'Go ahead and squeal, Yankees,' Chavez said in a national broadcast in which he announced the exercises.
The Venezuelan leader, a major arms client of Moscow, has repeatedly warned that the U.S. Navy poses a threat to Venezuela. He says he needs Russian weaponry to dissuade 'the North American empire' from invading his country.
Admiral Eduard Baltin, former commander of Russia's Black Sea Fleet, said the Caribbean exercise meant 'Russia is returning to the stage in its power and international relations which it, regrettably, lost at the end of last century'.
In response, a U.S. State Department spokesman poked fun at Russia's navy. He said that if Russia intended to send ships to the Caribbean he was glad 'they found a few ships that can make it that far'.
The Russian mission will include the nuclear-powered battle cruiser Peter the Great, one of the world's largest combat warships, equipped with 20 cruise missiles that can be fitted with nuclear warheads.
'On paper it's an immensely powerful ship,' he said.
'We are not really sure if this is a show of force or if it poses a viable operational capability at this stage,' Jon Rosamund, the editor of Jane's Navy International, said. 'The Russian navy is keen to be seen on the world stage.'
It works in a domestic democracy and it's probably a good way to go internationally.
A global 'balance of power', if you will, definitely provides checks. However, it seems even with the US alone at the forefront that this is the case. We can see this with the latest events in Georgia and Iran's nuclear ambitions. There are regional checks and balances and veto power in the UNSC.
America has never truly 'gone it alone'. In all cases, it has presented its case to its allies and the UN (and gotten approval). It is a matter of who actually can/will 'pony up' and get the job done. There is also the matter of leadership. As is constantly tested with NATO operations, singularity in command goes a long way to improve performance in military operations, but sharing that command presents the real challenge.
It seemed to work well in Iraq, giving the Brits command over Basra and the US the bulk of the rest. If memory serves me correct, Britain had a deep influence in that region at the start of the last century.
Of the two, China seems to have the best chance, but I fear they are already facing a downfall (at least in environmental standards) similar to what the Soviet Union faced. The shear destruction to fuel such rapid growth reaches a tipping point and China may rapidly reaches that threshold. I think there economy has been overheated for some time and may be ready to implode. But, I have been wrong on that time line for over five years now.
At the moment there is no other. In the future, the two Super powers may be India and China..
With Russia and USA , at least we have the old clash of ideologoies..
And as Americans we are thankful for that relationship. Britain has always stood apart from the rest of the Western continentals in her support for US (that dynamic gets challenged with the new NATO members now and again).
I hope the support continues for Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan for that matter.
I have to agree that the outgoing administration has had more than its fair share of bungles and deserves to have its feet put to the fire (like all politicians do). More often than not what I find; is like sports fans, those on the clubs that cannot compete with a league leader tend to have added animosity. Only in this case we are talking about the betterment of the world. If we are Imperialists, then we are pretty benign in comparison.
I find Niall Ferguson's argument in Colossus worth noting.
So which should be the other superpower? Russia again?
Britain is not anti- Western.. We are the only ones to stand shoulder to shoulder with the Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan..
Don't you agree that it is better to have 2 superpowers, rather than just the one?
The addiction to Soviet ways seem to not only afflict the Ruskies but those lackeys that were on the take. The only country to back Russia's bid to wrest the breakaway regions of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia was Nicaragua (you guessed it, Mr. Daniel Ortega is back on the take).
Let's see if the Russians help out Cuba after the tragic effects of Hurricane Ike.
Oil will fall, and all of those nations that are anti-Western (yes, that include the UK, britexpat) will have a hangover from their false high (namely Russia and Venezuelan strong man, Castro -- Oops, Chavez).
1st commenter - How many times has America fought against Europe (0), and Russia, too many to count. . . .
Lost our way? Where's Iron Maggie when you need her? Are you ready to give back the Malvinas, Belize, N. Ireland, et al. Mr. expat? I mean, c'mon now.
Withnail - I hear you man, but we as Americans need to wake up and realize just what it takes to 'protect our way of life'.
I think that's a wish that will never come true.. The Europeans can't seem to agree on anything..
Ragnarock: I would also raher the Americans, then the Russians, but i think that we need at least two super powers for balance. In the last ten years America seems to have lost its way, because it had no-one to question its actions..
i'm no fan of american foreign policy but in the current world, better them running the world than russia or china.
i agree ragna - hopefully oil will continue to fall, and the current situation will expediate Europe finding alternative sources of natural gas & oil so they are not so dependent on Russia. They're too unstable, and could pose a real threat if they continue to rake in the $$$.
___________________________________________
"Even a stopped clock gives the right time twice a day." Withnail & I
While I support their right to these exercises, i'm affraid that EVERYONE on the planet knows that it's just for show....their fleet, like much of their conventional armed forces is an aging relic, and pose little threat in today's world of high tech military combat....Russia's only remaining threat is its nuclear capabilities....which one hopes it will never use anyways...
Stay safe all.
Perfection does not exist. The question therefore, is: what level of imperfection are we willing to settle for?
America's spread of weapons in Europe MUST be challenged