Yep. Basically a Spy vs Spy scenario. I think all of us are describing a Cold War scenario. Ironically our enemies (potential enemies anyway) are using oil to fund their campaign against us, oil that we are buying. I just wonder what it will take to cut our enemy off from the source of these funds and go and get some damn alternative fuels??
I swear... the Devil has already come and he's got a EXXON MOBIL sticker on his forehead.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Yep. Basically a Spy vs Spy scenario. I think all of us are describing a Cold War scenario. Ironically our enemies (potential enemies anyway) are using oil to fund their campaign against us, oil that we are buying.

Same game, different tactics this turn around.

But it's the same game nonetheless.

Originally Posted by Sukio

What of the ISAF adventure series?

ISAF, KFOR,SFOR.
All started as UN missions and was then handed over to NATO.

The only thing that changed in Kosovo where the color beret used and the cut down in OP,s.

//KJ.

Why, how does that benefit the Russian Federation if they are not going to have a need for the slight preoccupation of the U.S. military. Unless they are going to launch a large scale military operation then having that done will basically do nothing but spend U.S. tax dollars. And, unless Russia is going to use that as a springboard to being economically Superior (though slight) , then, what purpose would that serve?

By the way, the KGB was disbanded with the Soviet Union wasn't it?

Originally Posted by Sukio

Why, how does that benefit the Russian Federation if they are not going to have a need for the slight preoccupation of the U.S. military. Unless they are going to launch a large scale military operation then having that done will basically do nothing but spend U.S. tax dollars. And, unless Russia is going to use that as a springboard to being economically Superior (though slight) , then, what purpose would that serve?

By the way, the KGB was disbanded with the Soviet Union wasn't it?

KGB turned into FSB..

The Russians wouldn´t want to get the US to commit if they started trouble somewhere in the world.
How do you accomplish that?
By convincing the US that the conflict is on a very small scale and that the cost/gain ratio is heavily against them.

Reread all my posts back to back as I have done with yours.
Then post clear questions, when addressing me please indicate so in your post.
This is a very easy precaution against misunderstandings.

//KJ.

Sukio, big countries that fall have a habit of not wanting to stay down.
You think the Chinese are a rising power? They're a power coming back. The Russians are the same too. The desire to be a world super power is there.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Sukio, big countries that fall have a habit of not wanting to stay down.
You think the Chinese are a rising power? They're a power coming back. The Russians are the same too. The desire to be a world super power is there.

Not all big powers rise up again. Great Britain is a good example. Although a wealthy, technologically advanced state with one of the most powerful economies in the world, Britain will probably never rise to the heights of the British Empire again. Thus, there is no guarantee that Russia could rise again to former heights even if they made it their primary goal. The problem I have with the Russians now is that their economy and infrastructure still does not nearly match their immense natural resources, although they are definitely exploiting their mineral wealth far more than they used to. This has been their bugbear since the Industrial Revolution kicked off. However, it is this natural wealth that is keeping them in the game, so to speak.

The Russians definitely want to sit at the big table; I guess it can be argued that they already do having joined the G8. However, the reason behind the expansionist policies of the Soviet Union no longer exist, that is, to export Communism to all of Europe. I think what the Russians are after is just to project influence over what they term is their sphere of influence. A good example is to ensure that the Ukraine is kept well aligned with Russia and not with the West. As for trying to expand into Western Europe or the like forget it.

The bottom line is that the reasons why the Cold War remained 'cold' still remain. Whatever happens in the next few years will amount to sabre rattling and no more. Terrorism is still the greatest threat for the foreseeable future and this potentially affects Russia just as much as the US or any other Western nation. Any future regional or pan-regional conflict will be over economics or religion or both, rather than ideology. If you still think both Gulf Wars were fought just to liberate a small, autocratic regime or to topple a rogue Dictator then think again.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Not all big powers rise up again. Great Britain is a good example.

But they all try.
Here's the list:
China
Japan
Russia

Great Britain no longer has the means to be a world super power. It doesn't have the great naval empire that brought home cheap raw materials from abroad at robbery prices. The three other countries however, have the means and they are pursuing it with vigor. The prestige and wounded pride of a glorious past are central themes to their bid to return to super power status.

Don't forget... India

Russia still has two things driving her regardless of the political flavour in chrage.

1) A warm water port
2) Borders free of a real or perceived threat

As long as these two items are not secured she will not sit pretty and be content.