It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia allows transit of US military supplies

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Russia allows transit of US military supplies


news.aol.com

The Russian decision to let U.S. supplies cross its territory opened another route to those through Pakistan now threatened by militant attacks, but U.S. officials were still left scrambling for alternatives to Manas.

Russia wants to open discussions on thorny policy issues that Washington and Moscow have clashed on in recent years — NATO enlargement, missile defense in Europe, a new strategic arms control treaty.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Now that Kyrgyzstan is out of the picture for the Americans in Afghanistan, Russia is using the opportunity to step up. Needless to say this move was likely planned by Russia in advance and has much to do with the Obama administration coming to power in Washington.

This move by Russia is meant primarily to show that it is willing to cooperate with the US so long as US and NATO respect Russia's interests as well. This may finally be the end to the rapidly cooling relations between the two countries. Now the ball is in Obama's court, and it is his decision whether to take up this offer.


Transport to Afghanistan through Russia has been under consideration several times before. It is even more ideal than supplying the conflict zone through the air bases in Kyrgystan and other small Central Asian republics. The main benefit of the Russian route, is that it is over-land and there is high-capacity rail transport network available. This could allow the US and its allies to get supplies to Afghanistan much cheaper than by air. It would also be very safe compared to Pakistan.

The proposed route also passes through Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, and agreements with those countries are being negotiatiated.



Hopefully this open a new chapter in US-Russia relations. Of course Russia will want some compromises, especially regarding the expansion of NATO and the pointless yet destabilizing ABM shield in Eastern Europe. Obama knows that US's two wars coupled with the deeply troubled economy does not bode well. This is not about ego and sabre rattling, but about common sense.

news.aol.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
The above article should also be noted in the context of other news coming from Russia today. This is getting to be pretty interesting, and I would be surprised if the two announcements are not interelated.

U.S. missile defense aimed at Russian nuclear deterrent - Ivanov






MUNICH, February 6 (RIA Novosti) - The prospective U.S. missile defense shield in Central Europe targets Russia's nuclear deterrent, Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said Friday.

Speaking at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy, he also said Russia is proposing including a ban on the placement of strategic offensive weapons outside national borders in a new Russia-U.S. arms reduction agreement.

Ivanov said Russia would not deploy Iskander missile systems in the Kaliningrad Region if the United States gave up its missile shield plans.

President Dmitry Medvedev "from the very start said clearly" that if "there are no interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic ... there will be no Iskanders in Kaliningrad," he said.

Moscow has strongly opposed U.S. plans to deploy 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic by 2013 as a threat to its security and nuclear deterrent. Washington says the defenses are needed to deter possible strikes from "rogue states" such as Iran.


en.rian.ru...



This could also be related to an earlier unofficial proposal by Obama to once again start reducing the nuclear arsenal of the US if countries like Russia do so as well. This may be Russia's unofficial reply that it is willing to make new unilateral agreement to help thaw the relations.

Could we see Obama hold a meeting with Russia in the couple months? I think that would definitely be major progress, and could help improve global economic stabilization as well.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 



Russia was defeated in their war against Afghanistan.

What to they hope to gain if we are successful?

I hope that somebody in the Pentagon knows the story of the turtle and the snake.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn
Russia was defeated in their war against Afghanistan.


Russia wasn't defeated in Afghanistan - the Soviet Union was. What does present day Russia and its capitalist government have to do with that?



Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn
What to they hope to gain if we are successful?


First, read the first article. Russia in interested in stability and end to extremism in Afghanistan, because instability and conflict there could easily spread to Central Asian republics like Kazakhstan and then on to Russia.



Russia may also be showing Washington that its positions aren't immovable — particularly where Afghanistan is concerned. Russia fears Afghanistan is collapsing into anarchy, leading to instability or Islamic radicals migrating northward through Central Asia.


news.aol.com...


Second, Russia is hoping that this will lead to more cooperation and agreements with the US and NATO. Particularly Russia want the ABM shield idea abandoned for the fear that it will start a new arms race.




Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn
I hope that somebody in the Pentagon knows the story of the turtle and the snake.


I hope somebody in the Pentagon remembers the Gorbachev era and how an end was put to the Cold War - not through sabre rattling, threats, proxy wars, and arm race, but through treaties and unilateral agreements (START treaty, SALT treaty, etc.).

Pentagon is in a tough situation, particularly in regard to Afghanistan. This is not time to make more enemies, but to build alliances and to finish what the Bush administration recklessly started.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 



Thank you.

I understand where you are coming from.

Forgive me; I sometimes have a bit of trouble getting people to understand what I say. I either post way too much information or not enough.

A balance will develop with time.

I hope.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by maloy
 


I speculate that the ultimate goal is to corner Communist China.

Good job, Henry Kissinger the evil!



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join