Obama Enters the Great Game, page 1

I have made a few threads relating to the current crisis's in the Russian and Ukrainian Providence's, it has gotten little attention, but the paper trail I was following, basically from other types of open media releases, has brought me t this "Big Picture" of these events being of more importance than the financial swaggering of the government with their "bail Out" situation.
We have all been hearing about the situation between these rival countries, and now there has been some what of a "Confirmation" of my being skeptical over these events "Not Involving" more of the US interests. I even had one poster from that area that had basically said that these acts were all pretty much "Normal" and the effects of what was happening were common amongst these governments of topic.
"Wrong, it tilts the table to a very unstable and very volatile situation, if thing's get out of control."

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama will be sworn in on Tuesday as president of the United States. Candidate Obama said much about what he would do as president; now we will see what President Obama actually does. The most important issue Obama will face will be the economy, something he did not anticipate through most of his campaign. The first hundred days of his presidency thus will revolve around getting a stimulus package passed. But Obama also is now in the great game of global competition — and in that game, presidents rarely get to set the agenda.

There are truly going to be some heart felt and mind boggling decision's in front of the president, but these issues will allow the US financial crisis to be the list of thing's to do at a #2 rather than #1 thing on the current events that have transpired since Obama was running for the White house seat, and these are Obama’s Two Unavoidable Crises.

Both routes involve countries of importance to Russia where Moscow has influence, regardless of whether those countries are friendly to it. This would give Russia ample opportunity to scuttle any such supply line at multiple points for reasons wholly unrelated to Afghanistan.

If the West were to opt for the first route, the Russians almost certainly would pressure Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan not to cooperate, and Turkey would find itself in a position it doesn’t want to be in — namely, caught between the United States and Russia. The diplomatic complexities of developing these routes not only involve the individual countries included, they also inevitably lead to the question of U.S.-Russian relations.

I kind of figured that these tensions would have figured out on their own, between the countries political delegates, but it is far from the fact, it will be a road where the choice of the relationship of the US and Russia could possibly be changed on a global and publicly viewed stage.

The Germans already have made clear their opposition to expanding NATO to Ukraine and Georgia. Given their dependency on the Russians, the Germans are not going to be supporting the United States if Washington decides to challenge Russia over the supply route issue. In fact, the Germans — and many of the Europeans — are in no position to challenge Russia on anything, least of all on Afghanistan. Overall, the Europeans see themselves as having limited interests in the Afghan war, and many already are planning to reduce or withdraw troops for budgetary reasons.

It is therefore very difficult to see Obama recruiting the Europeans in any useful manner for a confrontation with Russia over access for American supplies to Afghanistan. Yet this is an issue he will have to address immediately.

These tension's will be evident, but for us to have troops already deployed in these areas of topical discussion, "What else can the US do to keep them armed, fueled and fed?" I feel it would come too allowing the situation to an agreement with the Russians, and thus would be a submissive act to "The Price of Russian Cooperation".

Another demand the Russians probably will make — because they have in the past — is that the United States guarantee eventual withdrawal from any bases in Central Asia in return for Russian support for using those bases for the current Afghan campaign. (At present, the United States runs air logistics operations out of Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan.) The Russians do not want to see Central Asia become a U.S. sphere of influence as the result of an American military presence.

Other demands might relate to the proposed U.S. ballistic missile defense installations in the Czech Republic and Poland.

So, are we going to "Have" to bow to these new dilemma's, or are we going to totally "Withdraw" from these areas with our troops?
There are very disturbing scenarios, either way, it seems as if the US has been put on a teetering board for decision's, either it is truly over came by total denial of these governments attempting to De-westernize the areas of topic, or there will be political ramifications of bending towards a ultimate "Submission" to the countries of lesser than "Respectful" intentions for the US and our government?

Whatever Obama is planning to do, he will have to deal with this problem fast, before Afghanistan becomes a crisis. And there are no good solutions. But unlike with the Israelis and Palestinians, Obama can’t solve this by sending a special envoy who appears to be doing something. He will have to make a very tough decision. Between the economy and this crisis, we will find out what kind of president Obama is.

And we will find out very soon.