Russia, China Host Ahmadinejad at Anti-U.S. Security Summit

Russia, China Host Ahmadinejad at Anti-U.S. Security Summit

www.bloomberg.com

Aug. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Russia and China today host Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a summit of a Central Asian security club designed to counter U.S. influence in the region.

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization invited Iran to become an observer in 2005, sparking concern in the U.S., and Ahmadinejad called for closer ties to the group when he attended last year's summit in Shanghai. Kyrgyzstan is hosting the one-day annual meeting in its capital, Bishkek.

(visit the link for the full news article)

And not a word on the mainstream news??? This is a strong signal, sign of possible alliance.

www.bloomberg.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Here it is on the bbc.

Summit begins in Kyrgyz capital

There it is, in the mainstream news.

I believe that most things that happen in the world happen on purpose. The people we presume to be our enemies are just going along with a pre-conceived plan for a one world government.

I've heard more than a few people say that the Cold War was just an illusion for the people in order for those in power to make a ridiculous amount of money. This is probably no different. Both sides make out in the end.

Peace

Originally posted by DenyAllKnowledge
Here it is on the bbc.
Summit begins in Kyrgyz capital
There it is, in the mainstream news.

Right you are. And BBC article seems to be much more objective. After reading it, Bloomberg title seems way too aggressive.

But when you sum it up together, it surely is a sign showing us that some sort of pact is being formed to counter US supremacy politics in the Eurasia. No doubt of that.

There is nothing that spells gloom and doom better than Russia aligning itself with China and Iran.

George must have really ticked his buddy Vladimir off bad. This is a definite sign of things to come thanks to GW's horrendous foreign policy over the past 7 years.

Is this the beginning of something much worse?

I watched this today on Al jazeera english TV. You should go to jump tv and watch the free stream. The only non biased news broadcaster who tells it how it is. This is a massive alliance purely to combat the American influence. Today Iran's president attacked America's polices and so did Putin.


www.jumptv.com...

Originally posted by Don Wahn
George must have really ticked his buddy Vladimir off bad. This is a definite sign of things to come thanks to GW's horrendous foreign policy over the past 7 years.

what bush didnt give one of those cool jackets to the russian president?
damn that cheap Bush


on topic
great, what better way to counter the threat of the US then making their own little club

This is not the first time such a summit has been held.

Iran to Join Other Nations in Alliance Against The West.

What I find increadibly ironic is that people like myself have been talking about this for years and showing this is exactly what countries like Russia, China, and Iran among others want to do, yet you still get people trying to blame the present U.S. administration for this....

These countries have been working in unison for a very long time to attack the west, and specifically the U.S. in all fronts, economically, politically and in the end militarilly.

Originally posted by Muaddib
These countries have been working in unison for a very long time to attack the west, and specifically the U.S. in all fronts, economically, politically and in the end militarilly.

"...for a very long time..."? Military cooperation between China and Russia (among others) only started 11 years ago, with the creation of the Shanghai Five. To put it in terms of "attacking" isn't really fair; it seems that the SCO has evolved in response to American and/or Western influence in the region. And when that influence diminishes or disappears, it seems only natural that the SCO will collapse due to Russia and China's national egos.

Originally posted by Duby78
But when you sum it up together, it surely is a sign showing us that some sort of pact is being formed to counter US supremacy politics in the Eurasia. No doubt of that.

What, exactly, is wrong with that?

This is Asia - at least where I am now. I can`t see for the life of me why America should dictate - or even play a minute role - in what goes on here. Americans certainly would not accept China occupying Mexico with their military, or Russia setting up missiles in Cuba (whoops! been there, done that. funny how no one ever remembers the US missiles in Turkey that started it all though). Why should the nations of this region NOT form a pact to remove American "supremacy politics" (as you so eloquently put it) from the region?

Russia's military is overrated, China's military is overrated, Iran is contained on all sides (except Iraq) by Sunni nations...I'm not worried about 'em.

Originally posted by Luap

"...for a very long time..."? Military cooperation between China and Russia (among others) only started 11 years ago, with the creation of the Shanghai Five. To put it in terms of "attacking" isn't really fair; it seems that the SCO has evolved in response to American and/or Western influence in the region. And when that influence diminishes or disappears, it seems only natural that the SCO will collapse due to Russia and China's national egos.

11 years is longer than the time the current U.S. administration has been in office, but then we also have the accounts of Russian military defectors and Chinese military defectors who have been talking about exactly this sort of plan being in the works for decades.

Originally posted by vox2442

What, exactly, is wrong with that?

From stance of a neutral observer, I say - there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, is seems quite natural. Like it or not, US is playing global supremacy game, and some other major players are taking step to counter it. If US has right to defend its interests, so do others.

Muaddib, I agree, and I'm very aware that this 'silent alliance' is active for years now. I'm pointing it out now, because things are getting obvious even to people who haven't been extensively monitoring the situation throughout longer period.

And speaking about this 11 years - I don't know about that. Russia's current strategy was formed in times when Putin became president. During Yeltsin's regime, Russia seemed asleep, confused and lost, and it seemed it will sink deeper into crisis and will lose its might and influence completely. But, things are changing. These days Bear is wide awake and well, and eager to reclaim its position.

The strategy of US seems quite obvious. After the fall of USSR, US had become world's sole superpower. The goal is to make sure no country comes to par with it, to secure natural resources and spread its influence as far as possible, worldwide. To became the Master. That's what Bush senior thought when he mentioned 'new world order (IMO, of course). Thing turned bad when current US president Bush junior started (it seems) rushing the plan.

I haven't been following China's geopolitical moves until the year of 2001. Just seemed that it is content with its position, and will stay that way. But man, I was so WRONG! So, I must admit that I don't think I completely understand what would be China's long term strategy, except for some crude facts, that are much obvious to everyone. I know that they had military cooperation with Russia for quite some time... But if you give a little thought, take a look at the chart, China and Russia could also become bitter opponents... but only if they archive their combined goal - to push American influence as far away as possible.

We should also turn our eyes to the emerging superpower - India. Both US and Russia are flirting with it, and drag it into its camp. I think, India will either play along with Russia/China, or as a sole player. I don't think it will side with the US. But only time can tell.

And what about Europe? Europe, as union, seems confused to me, seems like it can't find its bearings. Too many inner conflicts and contradictions to act as a single entity. And, if you exclude the rhetorics, a slight rift has formed between the US an EU. I'm somewhat confused about this situation (tho i live in Europe), but I'm trying to make sense of it all.

If one has something to add, to correct my etc. , please do I would really appreciate it!



[edit on 17-8-2007 by Duby78]

Originally posted by Muaddib
11 years is longer than the time the current U.S. administration has been in office, but then we also have the accounts of Russian military defectors and Chinese military defectors who have been talking about exactly this sort of plan being in the works for decades.

Still, 11 years IMO is not "a very long time." Also, I was under the impression that Russia and China split during the Cold War and were suspicious of each other for quite a while. Perhaps defectors talked about a plan, but it doesn't seem that any progress in a military alliance was made until recently. I think the prime motivation of current Sino-Russian relations is US unipolarity, which is diminishing IMO.

Originally posted by Duby78
And speaking about this 11 years - I don't know about that. Russia's current strategy was formed in times when Putin became president. During Yeltsin's regime, Russia seemed asleep, confused and lost, and it seemed it will sink deeper into crisis and will lose its might and influence completely. But, things are changing. These days Bear is wide awake and well, and eager to reclaim its position.

Well, it was 1996 that Russia, China, and three others signed the Treaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regions, forming the Shanghai Five. I don't think it was a very assertive treaty, but it did eventually lead to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization a few years later in 2001.

Originally posted by Duby78
The strategy of US seems quite obvious. After the fall of USSR, US had become world's sole superpower. The goal is to make sure no country comes to par with it, to secure natural resources and spread its influence as far as possible, worldwide. To became the Master. That's what Bush senior thought when he mentioned 'new world order (IMO, of course). Thing turned bad when current US president Bush junior started (it seems) rushing the plan.

I've seen some blame put on Clinton for not capitalizing on the US's role as sole superpower. Then there is blame for Bush not capitalizing on post-9/11 sympathy. Who's to say, though? I think a fall from the top is inevitable at some point in a nation's life.

Originally posted by Duby78
I haven't been following China's geopolitical moves until the year of 2001. Just seemed that it is content with its position, and will stay that way. But man, I was so WRONG! So, I must admit that I don't think I completely understand what would be China's long term strategy, except for some crude facts, that are much obvious to everyone. I know that they had military cooperation with Russia for quite some time... But if you give a little thought, take a look at the chart, China and Russia could also become bitter opponents... but only if they archive their combined goal - to push American influence as far away as possible.

China's foriegn policy is interesting. I don't know much about it at all, really, except that it doesn't seem bent on exporting anything like international Communism or global freedom or getting involved in any sticky foreign entanglements. Perhaps that is changing, though, as China is positioning itself to become a superpower.

Originally posted by Duby78
We should also turn our eyes to the emerging superpower - India. Both US and Russia are flirting with it, and drag it into its camp. I think, India will either play along with Russia/China, or as a sole player. I don't think it will side with the US. But only time can tell.

And what about Europe? Europe, as union, seems confused to me, seems like it can't find its bearings. Too many inner conflicts and contradictions to act as a single entity. And, if you exclude the rhetorics, a slight rift has formed between the US an EU. I'm somewhat confused about this situation (tho i live in Europe), but I'm trying to make sense of it all.

If one has something to add, to correct my etc. , please do I would really appreciate it!

[edit on 17-8-2007 by Duby78]

India seems to be in the same boat as China right now; don't commit to anything and just see to one's rise to power. India does have observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, like Iran, but I think China and Russia would be much more eager to have India join than Iran. I'm curious about the EU as well. Will it remain unified and become even more so, or could it fall apart? If it becomes even unified in a sort of continent-state, what sort of foriegn policy would it adopt? I'm sure there are think tanks out there somewhere throwing out ideas that sound great, but we'll really have to wait and see what happens, IMO.

There is already a small war going on anyway with the US & people are dieing as you breath air. If ANOTHER country wants to form an alliance with others to fight against us, let them fight, cant stop them anyway. Whoop - Just means the US is going to have to bring out the more serious weapons. Sad. Enjoy your freedom now before you have to fight for it. I bet Iran will be the first to go! No offense.

I think the SCO is just a way to tell the US that they are not the only ones with geopolitical influence. It's purpose may not be to actually wage war between nation-states, but rather to simply cut down American ambitions in the region. Once American ambitions are gone, then Russian and Chinese ambitions will take over the geopolitics of Asia.

Really, if these countries wanted to take on America, there are easier ways of doing it. The US has shown that it has quite a mastery of conventional warfare in the Gulf; it has also shown that it is a terrible nation builder and that it is vulnerable to unconventional forces. Like we did the Soviets in Afghanistan, and like Osama is doing to us now, "bleeding into bankruptcy" is an easy way to diminish a country's power rather than direct confrontation.

Originally posted by Luap
I think the SCO is just a way to tell the US that they are not the only ones with geopolitical influence. It's purpose may not be to actually wage war between nation-states, but rather to simply cut down American ambitions in the region. Once American ambitions are gone, then Russian and Chinese ambitions will take over the geopolitics of Asia.

Really, if these countries wanted to take on America, there are easier ways of doing it. The US has shown that it has quite a mastery of conventional warfare in the Gulf; it has also shown that it is a terrible nation builder and that it is vulnerable to unconventional forces. Like we did the Soviets in Afghanistan, and like Osama is doing to us now, "bleeding into bankruptcy" is an easy way to diminish a country's power rather than direct confrontation.

Thanks for your input - much appreciated! You've got pretty sharp strategic insight, I would say. Now, that "bleeding into bankruptcy" option is quite interesting. If this would happen, this would be really ironical - US would collapse due to causes USSR collapsed some 20 years ago.

Originally posted by Duby78

Thanks for your input - much appreciated! You've got pretty sharp strategic insight, I would say. Now, that "bleeding into bankruptcy" option is quite interesting. If this would happen, this would be really ironical - US would collapse due to causes USSR collapsed some 20 years ago.

No problem; really, my "insight" is all I have to get a future job with.

The "bleeding into bankruptcy" option isn't just "quite interesting," it is being employed against the United States as we speak ala the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Al Qa'ida (among other groups) doesn't necessarily want to see the destruction of the US government and the death of every American; they want the United States to be humbled and hurt to a point that we can't interfere in their regional politics. The ultimate irony is that the skills we taught Afghanis against the Soviets have been exported to global terrorist groups that are now targeting the US.