• Prophetic article from 08 about RU,NATO & Middle east.
    4 replies, posted
[url]http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/medvedev_doctrine_and_american_strategy[/url] It was written after the Russia-Georgia war in 2008 [B]The medvedev doctrine:[/B] [QUOTE][B]I.[/B] First, Russia recognizes the primacy of the fundamental principles of international law, which define the relations between civilized peoples. We will build our relations with other countries within the framework of these principles and this concept of international law. [B]II.[/B] Second, the world should be multipolar. A single-pole world is unacceptable. Domination is something we cannot allow. We cannot accept a world order in which one country makes all the decisions, even as serious and influential a country as the United States of America. Such a world is unstable and threatened by conflict. [B]III.[/B] Third, Russia does not want confrontation with any other country. Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop friendly relations with Europe, the United States, and other countries, as much as is possible. [B]IV.[/B] Fourth, protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country. Our foreign policy decisions will be based on this need. We will also protect the interests of our business community abroad. It should be clear to all that we will respond to any aggressive acts committed against us. [B]V.[/B] Finally, fifth, as is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests. These regions are home to countries with which we share special historical relations and are bound together as friends and good neighbors. We will pay particular attention to our work in these regions and build friendly ties with these countries, our close neighbors. Medvedev concluded, "These are the principles I will follow in carrying out our foreign policy. As for the future, it depends not only on us but also on our friends and partners in the international community. They have a choice." [/QUOTE] [B]VS.[/B] [QUOTE] The United States now has to make a fundamental strategic decision. If it remains committed to its current strategy, it cannot respond to the Russians. If it does not respond to the Russians for five or 10 years, the world will look very much like it did from 1945 to 1992. There will be another Cold War at the very least, with a peer power much poorer than the United States but prepared to devote huge amounts of money to national defense. There are four broad U.S. options: [B]I.[/B] Attempt to make a settlement with Iran that would guarantee the neutral stability of Iraq and permit the rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces there. Iran is the key here. The Iranians might also mistrust a re-emergent Russia, and while Tehran might be tempted to work with the Russians against the Americans, Iran might consider an arrangement with the United States -- particularly if the United States refocuses its attentions elsewhere. On the upside, this would free the U.S. from Iraq. On the downside, the Iranians might not want --or honor -- such a deal. [B]II.[/B] Enter into negotiations with the Russians, granting them the sphere of influence they want in the former Soviet Union in return for guarantees not to project Russian power into Europe proper. The Russians will be busy consolidating their position for years, giving the U.S. time to re-energize NATO. On the upside, this would free the United States to continue its war in the Islamic world. On the downside, it would create a framework for the re-emergence of a powerful Russian empire that would be as difficult to contain as the Soviet Union. [B]III.[/B] Refuse to engage the Russians and leave the problem to the Europeans. On the upside, this would allow the United States to continue war in the Islamic world and force the Europeans to act. On the downside, the Europeans are too divided, dependent on Russia and dispirited to resist the Russians. This strategy could speed up Russia's re-emergence. [B]IV.[/B] Rapidly disengage from Iraq, leaving a residual force there and in Afghanistan. The upside is that this creates a reserve force to reinforce the Baltics and Ukraine that might restrain Russia in the former Soviet Union. The downside is that it would create chaos in the Islamic world, threatening regimes that have sided with the United States and potentially reviving effective intercontinental terrorism. The trade-off is between a hegemonic threat from Eurasia and instability and a terror threat from the Islamic world. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;44513442]It seems accurate in some points but it doesn't mean it should be labeled Prophetic[/QUOTE] No, then what word would you have used instead of prophetic? Seems pretty much on the spot, considering quite some stuff happened since then that's been following this line of thought. Arab spring(engulfing the whole of north africa), Syrian war, Ukraine,still in the making; so far a change of leadership in Kiev and a change of borders in Crimea brought about with participation of: civil protests,millitary personnel and the berkut special police forces. Don't forget the strives still going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, wich also have implications for Iran,Pakistan, the arabian peninsula and much more
[QUOTE=godfatherk;44513505]No, then what word would you have used instead of prophetic?[/QUOTE] "Someone guessed what would happen and was right"
Who glanced on the thread title and thought it was related to Naruto for a second?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.