Sunday, September 20, 2009

Putin Gets All of Eastern Europe and The U.S. Gets a Lousy Washing Machine

I was reading an article from The New York Times and this jumped out at me:

Although the White House denied that its decision was made to curry favor with the Kremlin, it took some satisfaction in comments by Russian leaders suggesting more flexibility. Obama advisers pointed to a few specific areas where they have won concessions from other countries. Russia, for example, has agreed to a framework for nuclear arms cuts and gave permission for American troops to fly to Afghanistan through its airspace.

(emphasis added)

Then I read an article on RFE/RL that had the following:

BISHKEK -- A Kyrgyz parliament delegation led by the deputy speaker, Kubanychbek Isabekov, has visited the NATO Transit Center at Manas Airport near Bishkek, and discussed new transit agreements to be signed soon, RFE/RL's Kyrgyz Service reports.

The delegation met with the new head of the center, Blaine Holt, and discussed further cooperation between the facility and the Kyrgyz government.

The center, formerly known as Manas Air Base, serves as a transit point for NATO's non-weapon supplies to its troops in Afghanistan.

Isabekov told RFE/RL that he is satisfied with the current activities of the transit center, adding that its operations are crucial for international efforts to stabilize the volatile situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

This got me to thinking a supply point for non-weapon supplies to its troops in Afghanistan.

A picture is worth a thousand words and I didn't have the patience to write that many words.

Then seeing the washing machines, this got me to thinking; how many troops have moved through this base or this country of Kyrgyzstan?

So I went searching on google and came across this (unknown to me) writer who seems to have a beef with us being in Afghanistan.

Yet far from acknowledging that the war, America’s longest since the debacle in Vietnam and NATO’s first ground war and first conflict in Asia, has been a signal failure, U.S. and NATO leaders are clamoring for more troops in addition to the 100,000 already on the ground in Afghanistan and are preparing the public in the fifty nations contributing to that number for a war that will last decades. And still without the guarantee of a successful resolution.

The writer tells me that there are already 100,000 U.S. and NATO troops on the ground in Afghanistan?

In the case of Kyrgyzstan alone, there were estimates at the beginning of this year that as many as 200,000 U.S. and NATO troops have transited through the Manas air base en route to Afghanistan.

And 200,000 troops have transited through Manas Air Base at the beginning of this year? That seems like a lot. If there were that many, how come we are losing the War?

It became obvious what the previous writer's agenda was when I read in the USA Today this.

The latest troop commitment gives Gen. David McKiernan, the top U.S. commander there, roughly the amount of troops he said he needed late last year. McKiernan asked for double the 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. President Bush committed 6,000 troops, and Obama's commitment of 21,000 brings the total number of troops to 59,000.

And this.

Even with the new pledges, the 39 other nations combined will contribute about 30,000troops — about 4,500 fewer than the United States will have in Afghanistan.

Now I have to ask, it doesn't seem like there has been a lot of troop transports going in and out of Manas Air base. And given what I know from my time being stationed overseas, you can see a whole-hell-of-a-lot of American goods being sold illegally off-base.

And another thing I know is; from reading the USA Today, there hasn't been 200,000 troops that have moved through the country of Kyrgyzstan and it seems that there are quite a few washing machines being sent over to Afghanistan and not enough troops.

Which brings me to my point on Obama's and Putin's horse trading business that I pointed to here.

On another point, on July 2nd, the New York Times ran an article that put a lot of spin on the efforts of the the countries that broke away from Russia.

One example is the U.S. base in Kyrgyzstan:

Kyrgyzstan’s reversal on Manas is a case study in canny horse trading. Russian officials, including Mr. Medvedev, have said they blessed the decision, and that may be true, but President Kurmanbek S. Bakiyev is the one who walked away with what he wanted.

Moscow wanted the base, a key transit hub for the United States’ war in Afghanistan, shut down; Kyrgyzstan wanted more money. In February, Moscow seemed to have achieved a master stroke — at a news conference announcing the pledge of $2.15 billion in Russian aid, Mr. Bakiyev said the United States would have to leave Manas in six months.

The horse trading that took place between Obama and Russia has been pointed out on this website. It started at the G20 summit and what was the end result? The United States gets to move no military hardware, only supplies such as food and support equipment. And the movement of the supplies will be monitored by the Russians.

We pay more for the use of the base and the monitoring of the goods opens the door for theft and black market of the goods.

Russia got what it wanted.

The important question in all of this will be, who wins? Russia or the United States?


First to the horse trading between Obama and Medvedev. Obama gets to send some supplies through Russia to Afghanistan while we leave Russia to do their thing in Georgia.

President Obama great move, just make sure our damn stuff gets there on time and all the items are there.

Here is another Obama gets whacked.

Other heads of state found in President Obama a guy who could take "No" for an answer Thursday at the world economic summit, and that's what they liked best.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev raved about "my new comrade," and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh reinforced Obama's rock star status by asking for Obama's autograph - he said it was for his daughter!

This came after Obama backed off in the face of French and German resistance on his push for developed nations to embrace big spending plans similar to the $800 billion program adopted by the U.S.

Let's see what is going on in the world of Gazprom....


Meanwhile the Israelis are selling spy drones to Russia in hope that Russia will not sell anti-aircraft missile system to Iran.

Russia admitted that it signed a deal, two years ago, to sell Iran a billion dollars worth of S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems. Russia has shipped some components, and trained some Iranian troops, but has not completed delivery. That's because Russia has been negotiating with the U.S., Israel and European nations, to obtain a bribe of sufficient size to make it worthwhile to lose the sale to Iran. This has not pleased the Iranians, but there's not much they can do about it.

Any bets on if Russia stops selling the anti-aircraft components to Iran in a round about way?

The Israelis have a legitimate concern on Iran. Obama will not do anything about it.

And here:

Save the accolades of Obama being a great speaker for the dust bin.

Our great horse trader, president Barack Obama has taught us a lesson on horse trading with Russia.

Give your horse, give your saddle and give your gun and leave with nothing...

That's what happened in Russia.

Mr. ZERO gave us ZERO. And he left Europe holding the bag.

U.S. puts missile defense on hold - Russian MP

Meanwhile, Russia continues to play near the U.K.'s airspace causing the Brits to get upset.

And here:

I talked about the horse trading that was taking place between Putin's Medvedev and Obama at the G20. And it is horse trading that Governor Palin should pay attention to.

Obama's way of conducting foreign policy is to go along with Russia. Not operate from a point of strength.

So what did Obama sell to Russia to keep the base open? What price is the United States going to pay?

For starters,

Obama is doing nothing on Georgia. And Russia needs Georgia to run pipelines. Guess who wins there. Putin.

On the missile defense system. Obama is talking about partnering up with Russia on a missile defense system. This is what Russia wants. Putin wins.

On Iran, Russia takes the position of enabler with the current regime in Iran. That is what Russia wants. Putin wins.

Putin's Medvedev and the U.S. talk about arms reduction when Russia through its proxy countries like Iran, use their (Iran's) build up as a means to hold an upper hand over the United States. You see, Iran can achieve parity in a quicker manner when the United States reduces its arms. The United States loses, Putin wins and Obama leaves the United States vulnerable.

Of course the MSM won't talk about it. They will just point to the holding of hands between Putin's Medvedev and Obama with regard to talks on nuclear arms reduction between the U.S. and Russia and the partnering of a missile defense system against Iran.

How did all of that horse trading work-out between Putin and Obama?

Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal

Obama has rejected the Pentagon's first draft of the "nuclear posture review" as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials.

Those options include:

• Reconfiguring the US nuclear force to allow for an arsenal measured in hundreds rather than thousands of deployed strategic warheads.

• Redrafting nuclear doctrine to narrow the range of conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons.

• Exploring ways of guaranteeing the future reliability of nuclear weapons without testing or producing a new generation of warheads.

The review is due to be completed by the end of this year, and European officials say the outcome is not yet clear. But one official said: "Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president's weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role."

The move comes as Obama prepares to take the rare step of chairing a watershed session of the UN security council on Thursday. It is aimed at winning consensus on a new grand bargain: exchanging more radical disarmament by nuclear powers in return for wider global efforts to prevent further proliferation.

Wouldn't you know it, Russia gets Eastern Europe and we (the U.S.) get a lousy washing machine.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for doing your homework. It is facsinating how little we learn through the media. I may not agree with your conclusions at all times, but you are thinking and for that I am grateful.