rickyp wrote:No one has clamored for any kind of intervention into Chechnya despite the warfare there.... Why not?
No one clamored for any kind of reaction against Saudi Arabia when its armored forces rolled into Bahrain 2 years ago to crush the threat of democratic revolution there.... Why not? Because Saudi Arabia is a global power economically through its oil, if only a regional military power....

There are HUGE differences: Chechnya is part of Russia. It was a civil war, not an invasion. Saudi Arabia was invited by the Bahraini royals to help with the social unrest. In neither case was an sovereign nation invaded without permission.

geojanes wrote:I think some who lived during the time of the Cold War find comfort in knowing our enemies. The world was simpler then. Our enemies are no longer clear. The elevation of Russia to anything more than a large nation with a regional interest (and lots of ICBMs) is, maybe for some, a yearning for certainty.

Who denies Russia has economic trouble? What do countries with economic troubles do? Some borrow their way to oblivion; others take military action to cater to nationalist sentiment and reduce domestic political pressure.

I think some who support Obama find comfort in ignoring what is actually happening in the world. It's simpler that way. Just pretend that Obama has things under control--ignore Benghazi, Syria, Egypt, Iran, the lies he's told about "Al Qaida (being) on the run," etc. It's easy to see why: blind confidence in Obama meets your yearning for certainty.

Doctor Fate wrote: It's easy to see why: blind confidence in Obama meets your yearning for certainty.

Oh, my goodness, and what did I write that suggested blind confidence in Obama?

You asked about the geopolitical position of Russia in 2014 and I answered it. Your response didn't support anything except that Russia is a regional power. Russia not only has economic problems, it's entire economy is only slightly bigger than California's and smaller than Brazil's. There's only so much power such an economy can wield, I think. Do you not agree?

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote: It's easy to see why: blind confidence in Obama meets your yearning for certainty.

Oh, my goodness, and what did I write that suggested blind confidence in Obama?

You asked about the geopolitical position of Russia in 2014 and I answered it. Your response didn't support anything except that Russia is a regional power. Russia not only has economic problems, it's entire economy is only slightly bigger than California's and smaller than Brazil's. There's only so much power such an economy can wield, I think. Do you not agree?

Bull.

Does Brazil threaten US interests anywhere?

Meanwhile, the "Brazil-like, regional power" has caused trouble for us in Central America, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe.

That's blind something.

So we can only define the relative strength of a nation's 'power' based on whether it annoys the USA or not?

Seems a pretty parochial view of the world. But actually it would be interesting to see a Brazil or other Latin American nation able to challenge the old fashioned US view of 'sphere of influence' extending to the wnd of the Southern Cone.

rickyp wrote:IK

China is a global economic power, and a regional military power - exacerbated by its small nuclear arsenal. Russia is a regional economic power and a global military power because it has a large nuclear power arsenal .

That's the point. In economy terms is a regional economic power, but in military terms, a global power. This is the key of the inheritance of the cold war that I mentioned previously and Russia has in his pocket. This is the reason of why Russia is much more dangerous than another regional power. China is the opposition to Russia. A "weak" military power (1.3 billion of population, the weakness of China is very relative), but an emergent (and possibly hegemonic) economic power.

Clearly Russia is condemned to be an regional power in Economic terms, but I think could keep her status of Global Military Power in the future; and this is happens because I think Russia can't resolve her structural problems in the economy. But China will be global in both aspects; is "weak" in military terms, but is very strong in economic matters, and, I think is a general rule, Economic power will be transformed irremediably in military power, with time.

Of course, we need to keep in mind the economic and political problems of China. Even when China overcome to US in economic size (2030, possibly), an important part of his population will be kept under the poverty line, and I think this is an important problem to solve and can affect the status of China in the internacional system.

Well, everybody can check the US history. US was a regional power during the second half of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th. You can define what is a regional power, if you take a look of the US history. I think US had in these time some similarities with China. A great economic power with a relative military power. Of course take with extreme caution this (a little delirious) comparison.

Russia instead, is something similar of the Empire of the Czars: huge territorial size, with a numerous population (today, this can be argued) and being a great military power, and of course, an expansive nature and a very jelous attitude towards her sphere of influence. May be we need to read again the book of George Kennan "The Source of the Soviet Conduct". Could be very accurate for understand the attitudes of Russia.

danivon wrote:. But actually it would be interesting to see a Brazil or other Latin American nation able to challenge the old fashioned US view of 'sphere of influence' extending to the wnd of the Southern Cone.

Only Brazil can think with some viability in these plan. Mexico is too close to US (and very dependant of the US economy, more than another latin american countries). My country can't defy to anyone for long long, time and has not size for do something in these way. But I think if something like a defiance would happen (I think the latin american countries are "banana republic look-alike", but not stupid ones) it will be collective. Besides Brazil always was a traditional ally of the US, is not an antagonistic country of the US primacy in the region, despite some tension in the relationship. But Brazil knows that has not enough power for transform south america in "his garden" for these reason Brasil thinks in regional organisations. Primus Inter Pares, not a dominator.

Regards.-

danivon wrote:So we can only define the relative strength of a nation's 'power' based on whether it annoys the USA or not?

Seems a pretty parochial view of the world. But actually it would be interesting to see a Brazil or other Latin American nation able to challenge the old fashioned US view of 'sphere of influence' extending to the wnd of the Southern Cone.

Actually, jackass, I defined Russia in terms of their meddling across the globe.

You're need to be General Annoyance (older brother of Captain Obvious) while contributing nothing is noted.

What you seem to advocate, a multi-polar world, will lead to less stability, not more. Have a nice day.

[gets teacher's pen out...]

Doctor Fate wrote:
Bull. - unnecessary rudeness

Does Brazil threaten US interests anywhere? - comparison based on impact on US interests

Meanwhile, the "Brazil-like, regional power" has caused trouble for us in Central America, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe. - comparison based on impact on 'us' (which usually from you means America)

That's blind something.- unnecessary non-sequitur

Doctor Fate wrote:Actually, jackass, I defined Russia in terms of their meddling across the globe. - unnecessary rudeness. Incorrect assertion as above shows you clearly defining Russia in terms of meddling in 'US interests' across the globe

You're need to be General Annoyance (older brother of Captain Obvious) while contributing nothing is noted. - poor spelling, unnecessary rudeness by name-calling

What you seem to advocate, a multi-polar world, will lead to less stability, not more. Have a nice day. - Assumption not in evidence. I do not 'advocate' it. I see it as an interesting prospect, and I think it likely.

Sorry, IK, but we do have a resident here who does like to employ name-calling and dissembling to bully his point across. Do not take it personally if he does it to you, he does it to anyone who does not agree with his world view.

Anyway...

I.K wrote:Only Brazil can think with some viability in these plan. Mexico is too close to US (and very dependant of the US economy, more than another latin american countries). My country can't defy to anyone for long long, time and has not size for do something in these way. But I think if something like a defiance would happen (I think the latin american countries are "banana republic look-alike", but not stupid ones) it will be collective. Besides Brazil always was a traditional ally of the US, is not an antagonistic country of the US primacy in the region, despite some tension in the relationship. But Brazil knows that has not enough power for transform south america in "his garden" for these reason Brasil thinks in regional organisations. Primus Inter Pares, not a dominator.

Regards.-

I don't mean that Brazil would become a hostile competitor to the US, but the point is that since the Monroe Doctrine, the USA has treated Central and South America as it's "back yard" and while that was never really enforced (they could not stop the Cuban Revolution, or the Chavez one), there has been a lot of meddling - involvement in Operation Condor, invasions of places like Panama and Grenada, funding and support for 'freedom fighters'/'terrorists' etc. So it has not been as benign in the eyes of the 'clients' south of the Rio Grande as Americans would like. Even benign paternalism has its limits. So as the relative power - economically - of Latin nations, and Brazil is a prime example, improves, and particularly as much of the region has moved away from military backed dictatorship, US influence on the area is likely to wane.

How a country like Brazil acts, how the other regional actors deal with a local power, and how the USA reacts to an evolving reality will determine how things go, but there would be natural tensions there, even just social and economic as well as political.

By the way, which country are you writing from? I'm a UK citizen.

danivon wrote:Sorry, IK, but we do have a resident here who does like to employ name-calling and dissembling to bully his point across. Do not take it personally if he does it to you, he does it to anyone who does not agree with his world view.

[Gets real life pen out]I can apologize for myself, if need be. However, to someone as consistently arrogant, condescending, full of contradictions as you, no apology is needed. You have called me a "troll" and yet the very post I responded to from you was as trollish as anything that has ever existed on these pages. You added nothing but a little drive-by snark. Then again, that summarizes 98% of your posts.

You consistently seek to bully everyone who dares disagree with you. We all tend to do that, but you do it out of habit. I'm sure it makes you feel big and . . . good for you.[/puts real life pen away]

Yeah, I "misspelled" something ("you're" instead of "your"). Actually, I didn't double-check what my iPad had done. Lo siento. That's cause for "a comment?" Should I examine EVERY one of your posts for a single error? I think the results might surprise you.

Oh, is that too international for you? I apologize for my misspelled word.

geo

There are HUGE differences: Chechnya is part of Russia. It was a civil war, not an invasion. Saudi Arabia was invited by the Bahraini royals to help with the social unrest. In neither case was an sovereign nation invaded without permission.

Yes but consider that ....
Ukraine WAS effectively part of the Soviet till 1991, and Crimea only a part of the Ukraine Soviet Republic since 1954. The democratically elected leader of the Ukraine and a large portion of the Crimean populace asked for Russian military intervention... And a large section of the Eastern Ukraine populace would welcome Russian intervention.
In the Crimea the West seems to resist the democratic aspirations of the local populace. But in Bahrain, there is no support for democratic aspirations. And no criticism of the intervention of a foreign power into the region.
The reaction of the West to either the Bahraini or Chechnyan situations represented realistic views of what could be accomplished without damaging important economic and political ties.. The same will transpire in Ukraine. (My point in bringing up Chechnya and Bahrain as comparisons.)

danivon wrote:So we can only define the relative strength of a nation's 'power' based on whether it annoys the USA or not?

Seems a pretty parochial view of the world. But actually it would be interesting to see a Brazil or other Latin American nation able to challenge the old fashioned US view of 'sphere of influence' extending to the wnd of the Southern Cone.

TEACHER ALERT!

Gee whiz, prof! Could you have meant "end?"

Doctor Fate wrote:Meanwhile, the "Brazil-like, regional power" has caused trouble for us in Central America, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe.

That's blind something.

Despite the attitude, I don't think we disagree too much: I think you're right that Russia would like to be a global power, and Russia appears to have learned that diplomacy can be a very valuable, extremely cost effective tool. But geopolitically Russia does not have nearly an economy that can support the power of the US or China. In areas of their region, they can be very powerful, but I'm sorry, Central America? The only influence they wield in the New World is with countries that have turned their back on the US (Cuba, Venezuela) and who seek friends elsewhere. I think IK has described it best. Read his posts again and say where he got it wrong.

I don't mean that Brazil would become a hostile competitor to the US, but the point is that since the Monroe Doctrine, the USA has treated Central and South America as it's "back yard" and while that was never really enforced (they could not stop the Cuban Revolution, or the Chavez one), there has been a lot of meddling - involvement in Operation Condor, invasions of places like Panama and Grenada, funding and support for 'freedom fighters'/'terrorists' etc. So it has not been as benign in the eyes of the 'clients' south of the Rio Grande as Americans would like. Even benign paternalism has its limits. So as the relative power - economically - of Latin nations, and Brazil is a prime example, improves, and particularly as much of the region has moved away from military backed dictatorship, US influence on the area is likely to wane.

How a country like Brazil acts, how the other regional actors deal with a local power, and how the USA reacts to an evolving reality will determine how things go, but there would be natural tensions there, even just social and economic as well as political.

By the way, which country are you writing from? I'm a UK citizen.

No, Indeed I understood your point. Just I'm highlighting the true nature of the Brazilian - US relationships. From Rio Branco Brazil is a traditional ally of US, to very difference of my country (Argentina). And Indeed, every intervention and some sinister plans that you mentioned (The Condor plan had the Headquarters in my country and Chile) was made because US considered to Latin America the Backyard or as we say here "El Patio Trasero".

But US was success because some people here collaborated with him. And I think is true, the US influence in the region became weak, specially because the regional initiatives given strength to the region despite the internal differences. But I'm afraid, because I don't think that the region can keep some independence in the future. I think China will challenge the US supremacy, at least in some parts of latin america (Southern Cone, especially). May be Russia must be counted as candidate, now that she wants a global protagonism, but I think is a shoe that was not made for Russia. Multipolar System, multipolar problems.

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Meanwhile, the "Brazil-like, regional power" has caused trouble for us in Central America, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe.

That's blind something.

Despite the attitude, I don't think we disagree too much: I think you're right that Russia would like to be a global power, and Russia appears to have learned that diplomacy can be a very valuable, extremely cost effective tool. But geopolitically Russia does not have nearly an economy that can support the power of the US or China. In areas of their region, they can be very powerful, but I'm sorry, Central America? The only influence they wield in the New World is with countries that have turned their back on the US (Cuba, Venezuela) and who seek friends elsewhere. I think IK has described it best. Read his posts again and say where he got it wrong.

I don't really think he's far off. However, "regional power" is not ONLY what Russia is. Compare them with anyone other than the US and I think they come off rather well--militarily. And, again, look at the havoc they're causing in the Middle East. How about the Syrian promise to get rid of its chemical weapons . . . how's that going? Obama painted himself into a corner and . . . Putin engineered a trap that gave Obama a "way out" by letting Assad keep the weapons.

And, yes, they only have influence with Central American countries that despise the US. Let's see . . . that's most of them.

The way the President painted Russia was as if they are "weak" and can only reach Ukraine. That's just rubbish.