Liedership by the Panderer in Chief

[Palm]

And the other part of that STP is that when the issue you pointed out about funding cuts was made yesterday it was almost in passing. Why's that? Because the answer was subsequently given that when asked the administration stated that there was adequate staffing in place based on the administration's assessment of the situation. Had they really listened to those present in Libya, as Tree says, additional forces could have been provided. Instead they wanted to rely on Libyan police and military whom they were working with. Seems as though Iraq and Afghanistan should serve as examples of how much we can trust these people. They will turn on us in an instant. It's no secret; they hate us. Why is this such a surprise? They don't forget who took out Bin Laden. Recently these groups had people carrying signs and yelling, "Obama, we are all Osamas". In othe words, "Come and get us, we all hate America as much as Osama Bin Laden". We are fools to think, act or react otherwise. Yes there were protests elsewhere, but just as Libya was planned, so were the rest. That film may hav added fuel, but Al Quaida is sending a message, "We are reorganizing, and we are going back into Iraq now that you are gone."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world...q/1623297/

And just a few hours ago in Yemen:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-5753...sy-killed/

They use the excuse of the film, but that's smoke. They know Obama has made his choice and I believe Russia is part of the reason for that. Since Russia just recently joined the World Trade Organization, they are forcing our hand. Hillary was in Russia about the same time as oneill and PNG. The US wants Russia to be a buffer with China. You know Russia has been trying to get the US to back off in the ME. We all play nice and Russia will sin some trade agreements. You might say someone's balls are being tightly squeezed by Putin. No coincidence he's back in power.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/1...GJ20121011

[admin]

["Had they really listened to those present in Libya, as Tree says, additional forces could have been provided."]

Yes, with hindsight, that's true, but how many other embassies or parties that eat out of that same budget asked for stuff? What I'm saying is that if you cut a budget, the trade-offs will be that much sharper and stuff will happen.

It's a little akin to the Japanese just-in-time manufacturing supply chains. They keep on removing inventory (which is costly waste) until something goes wrong. Then they know the weak point and they try to fix it, and start all over again.

Security depends on manpower and machinery, there is little scope for efficiency improvements unless you cut salaries (perhaps those allowances to visit Venezuelan brothels, haha) or machinery.

["They use the excuse of the film, but that's smoke."]
Well, perhaps, I don't know about that. But there was a film, and there were many violent protests in many different countries. It's a little difficult when you get stormed by angry and violent people with weapons to ask them whether they're just protesters or happen to belong to any terrorist organization.

I don't know about placating Russia, but I do know that the US can't dictate much stuff in the ME. Too many moving parts, and free and fair elections have a habit of turning power to people we might vehemently disagree with (or result in countries disintegrating all together), which is why they supported the Mubaraks and the Sauds for too long, but these were/are disagreeable people as well, they only served our interests better. There are no simple solutions here.

[Palm]

I wrote this before tonight's debate. Biden did not defend the budget cuts or requests for additional security well at all. Point was made that there was a known Al Qaeda cell operating in Libya and staff had legitimate concern. Ryan made the point that Embassy in France (I believe) has a Marine guard; Bhengazi had none. That request for additional security should have been granted; budget cuts would not affect that situation. Your first assumption from a position of strength is to assume the worst; especially on the anniversary of 9/11. You make them prove otherwise.

On Russia; again the point was made that Russia is not our friend and Putin is asserting from a position of strength. He basically shut Hillary down on her visit. In the UN he voted against our Iran and Syria initiatives and we had to water them down. Russia is growing strong again based on their resource assets. We've seen what they are doing just in NG/LNG.

[admin]

Al Queda-esque people are all over the place. Yes, with hindsight, Bengazi was the weakest link but when you cut budgets, weakest links will be exposed (that was the essence of my "Japanese supply line" argument). It's easier to point them out after the fact, but quite a bit more difficult to predict them in advance..

Russia and strength in the same sentence? We've been there before, when it was the Soviet Union, until it imploded under it's own weight. I don't see Russia as strong at all. It's weak and paranoid. More than anything, it's afraid of its own population, like the Chinese.

It's a handful of oligarchs in resources without much value added and dreams of former glory that were mostly illusions anyway.

We had arguments about Soros funding anti-fracking and I always thought there was no evidence in support of that claim. But if you mention Gazprom, well..

[ArtM72]

"Sometimes the answer isn't wasting more money it is identifying threats and preparing accordingly."

Whether or not "leftists" always say spending more money is the solution to problems (Tree, 28, "As always with leftists, you say the answer is more money" somehow an already over the top defense budget increase over the past 12 years hasn't been enough for "righties" (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=FDEFX ) and Romney wants to increase it further! (http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issu...l-defense/)

Losing 4 Americans in Libya this past month is a trajedy. Curiously somehow that is being heralded as the central focus of American foreign policy when just how many Americans lives were lost in the Iraq war, or for that matter in Aghanistan this past month? 52 this year up till 9/30. And Ryan sits there in the debate last night having no idea what circumstances would allow or prevent the US from pulling out of A'stan in 2014.

And we have yet to have an Al Queda attack on American soil during Obama's presidency as promised by Republicans four years ago.

Here's my public apology to what I said about you calling "everyone in the State Department and Administration a liar". I’ll quote you, because evidently you forgot what you wrote:

Tree, current thread, post #21: “In fact, Obama and his Administration to a man and woman, lied for the cause and blamed it on a stupid video and covered it up.”

And if you didn’t hear, the Inspector General found no malfeasance of any kind by Attorney General Holder in Fast and Furious. It was a local operation started as “Operation Wide Receiver” during the Bush Administration and continued, again locally, as F&F without the knowledge of Holder. Here’s a link to the full report, the conclusions of which must not have been covered by Fox or Newsmax: http://documents.latimes.com/fast-and-furious-oig-report/.  Funny how a story can simply disappear, isn't it?

[Tree]

"Sometimes the answer isn't wasting more money it is identifying threats and preparing accordingly."

Whether or not "leftists" always say spending more money is the solution to problems (Tree, 28, "As always with leftists, you say the answer is more money" somehow an already over the top defense budget increase over the past 12 years hasn't been enough for "righties" (http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?s[1][id]=FDEFX ) and Romney wants to increase it further! (http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issu...l-defense/)

Losing 4 Americans in Libya this past month is a trajedy. Curiously somehow that is being heralded as the central focus of American foreign policy when just how many Americans lives were lost in the Iraq war, or for that matter in Aghanistan this past month? 52 this year up till 9/30. And Ryan sits there in the debate last night having no idea what circumstances would allow or prevent the US from pulling out of A'stan in 2014.

And we have yet to have an Al Queda attack on American soil during Obama's presidency as promised by Republicans four years ago.

Here's my public apology to what I said about you calling "everyone in the State Department and Administration a liar". I’ll quote you, because evidently you forgot what you wrote:

Tree, current thread, post #21: “In fact, Obama and his Administration to a man and woman, lied for the cause and blamed it on a stupid video and covered it up.”

And if you didn’t hear, the Inspector General found no malfeasance of any kind by Attorney General Holder in Fast and Furious. It was a local operation started as “Operation Wide Receiver” during the Bush Administration and continued, again locally, as F&F without the knowledge of Holder. Here’s a link to the full report, the conclusions of which must not have been covered by Fox or Newsmax: http://documents.latimes.com/fast-and-furious-oig-report/.  Funny how a story can simply disappear, isn't it?

Since facts are friendly Art, let me post again, exactly what I posted:

What is not debatable, is an American Embassy and that is American soil, was attacked on 9/11, 4 Americans murdered, requests for beefed security were denied and there has been no appropriate American response to exact justice. In fact, Obama and his Administration to a man and woman, lied for the cause and blamed it on a stupid video and covered it up. How stupid does he think the US electorate is?

Let me re-post what you posted:

..."Here's my public apology to what I said about you calling "everyone in the State Department and Administration a liar". I’ll quote you, because evidently you forgot what you wrote: Tree, current thread, post #21: “In fact, Obama and his Administration to a man and woman, lied for the cause and blamed it on a stupid video and covered it up.”..

Gee Art, thanks for the apology.  As Palm said, you made the point for me.  I highlighted in your post what I never said.  See the difference?

FYI, your buddy Biden threw the Intelligence Community under the bus in one of his obnoxious displays last night.

Here's another Art, this is Biden Quality!  You just posted this above.

...:And we have yet to have an Al Queda attack on American soil during Obama's presidency as promised by Republicans four years ago."...

What I posted which you took objection:

..."an American Embassy and that is American soil, was attacked on 9/11"...

Gee Art, No mention of Al Queda is there?  Apparently you have no clue that American Embassies are on American soil regardless of where they are world wide.  You are likely right though and Al Queda is behind it.

Please take your own advice.... stay off the SHU political board or take my advice. ... Do a little DD, get some facts, stop the crap, name calling and make your point accurately.  You miss the point.  The attack was not a protest gone bad, the world knew that by videos and weaponry used the same night.  Obama Administration denied what we saw, told us different for a few weeks and now have been forced to come around and are now looking for scapegoats.  As I said earlier, if this was the Bush administration ineptness and coverup, you would be outraged with me.

EDIT:

Your other objection:

(Tree, 28, "As always with leftists, you say the answer is more money"

I suggest you read your initial reponse, STP's initial response to this post, and listen to Biden's response last night - All summed up in that an unprotected Embassy was attacked and 4 Americans were murdered and that was a result of Republicans blocking State Dept. requests for security funding.  That is Malarkey or 'Stuff' as Biden would say if he was polite.

What is not debatable, is an American Embassy and that is American soil, was attacked on 9/11, 4 Americans murdered, requests for beefed security were denied and there has been no appropriate American response to exact justice. In fact, Obama and his Administration to a man and woman, lied for the cause and blamed it on a stupid video and covered it up. How stupid does he think the US electorate is?

..."Here's my public apology to what I said about you calling "everyone in the State Department and Administration a liar". I’ll quote you, because evidently you forgot what you wrote:

Tree, current thread, post #21: “In fact, Obama and his Administration to a man and woman, lied for the cause and blamed it on a stupid video and covered it up.”..

..."an American Embassy and that is American soil, was attacked on 9/11"...

[Palm]

STP, Russia certainly imploded, but it is anything but "weak and paranoid". Putin took things back over because he sees the opportunities in front of him. Russia cannot be considered weak when it has the 2nd largest military in the world and its beefing it up:

"REUTERS- August 12, 2012

Russia's military will get 1,600 new warplanes and helicopters by 2020, President Vladimir Putin said on Saturday, as part of efforts to strengthen the country's armed forces. Putin has worked hard to restore pride in the Cold War-era superpower's military since his first election in 2000, reports Reuters. The planned addition of 600 military planes and 1,000 helicopters is part of a 23 trillion rouble ($720 billion) programme to re-equip a military still weakened by spending cuts prompted by the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. "We are talking primarily about providing our forces with state-of-the-art modern technology," Putin said at an air show on the eve of the 100th anniversary of the country's air force. Putin, who began a new six-year presidential term in May, said that in addition to the new planes and helicopters, existing military aircraft would be "modernised". In his address at the air show in Zhukovsky, outside Moscow, Putin thanked air force officers, veterans and industry workers he said "helped our aviation endure the very difficult times of the 1990s and early 2000s". A former Soviet KGB officer who has often used warnings of external threats to rally, Putin said during his presidential campaign that Russia needed a stronger military to protect it from foreign attempts to stoke conflicts around its borders"

"The Hindu- October 11, 2012

The leaders of Russia and Iraq have agreed to develop large-scale cooperation in defence, energy and investment. "We have resumed military-technical cooperation,"; Russia's President Vladimir Putin announced after meeting Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in his country residence on Wednesday. Ahead of the meeting the Russian government said it had recently signed arms deals with Iraq worth over $4.2 billion dollars, which makes Iraq Russia’s second largest defence customer after India. The contracts were signed during visits to Russia by Iraq’s acting defence chief in April, July and August. According to defence sources, Russia would supply 36 Mi-28NE attack helicopters and 48 Pantsir-S1 mobile air defence systems of the same type that Syria used to shoot down a Turkish jet in June. The sources said talks were under way to sell Iraq MiG-29M/M2 interceptor jets, as well as armoured vehicles and other weapons. Massive as the arms contracts are, they may be dwarfed by civilian deals the Iraqi leader discussed in Moscow. At their meeting on Tuesday, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and Mr. Maliki agreed to draw up joint projects in hydrocarbons, power generation, trade, investment and construction. Russian companies have already gained a foothold in Iraq’s oil and gas and infrastructure projects. Mr. Putin said Russia and Iraq “share close or identical views on many very acute international issues”. Mr. Maliki for his part revealed that the two countries agreed to continue to oppose foreign interference in the Syrian crisis. The agreements reached during Mr. Maliki’s second visit to Russia in three years signal Moscow’s big-time return to Iraq almost a decade after the United States invasion that overthrew Russia-backed Saddam Hussein. Turkey warned Atul Aneja reports from Dubai: Amid a visit to Russia, Mr. Maliki has warned Turkey not to blow-up its differences with Syria and drag NATO into the conflict. The veiled support for the Syrian government came soon after Baghdad revived its military ties with Moscow. Mr. Maliki, a close ally of Iran, asserted that Syria was not threatening Turkey, which should not seek NATO’s intervention. “Turkey is being presumptuous, you could say, as if it were taking responsibility for solving the Syrian conflict instead of the Syrian people and wants to impose its own solution. For this reason the international community needs to stop Turkey from intervening,” he said. Border tensions Iraq and Russia have aired their discomfort with Turkey at a time when tensions seemed to be escalating close to the Syrian border. The Turkish government has strengthened its military presence by deploying 25 F-16 fighter jets at its Diyarbakir base, only 100 km from Syria. The United States has also sent a 150-member task force to Jordan as part of contingency plan in case Syria loses control over its chemical weapons. According to the New York Times , the team would be deployed at a base, which is only 56 km from the Syrian border"

"MOSCOW, September 24, 2012

Russia's Defense Ministry has abandoned plans to set up a unified command structure for the country’s nuclear triad, the newspaper Izvestia reported on Monday. As a result, each major branch of the Armed Forces – the Strategic Missile Forces (SMF), the Air Force and the Navy - will retain control over its own triad component, Izvestia said, citing an unidentified source in the ministry. In the absence of any official statement from the ministry, the paper suggested that the decision might result from an unresolved internal struggle for leadership within the new structure. The creation of a unified strategic nuclear command has been one option under consideration by the Russian military since late 1990’s. The idea’s proponents, including former SMF commander Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin, argue it would streamline both the development and the deployment of Russia’s nuclear triad. The plan envisioned the direct subordination of the command to the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces. According to the latest official figures, Russia has 494 deployed launchers for land, sea and air-based missiles armed with 1,492 warheads. Russia’s Defense Ministry plans to acquire at least eight Borey class strategic nuclear submarines, thoroughly upgrade its fleet of Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-95 Bear strategic bombers, and equip its Strategic Missile Forces with formidable Yars ballistic missile systems."

On Serbian relations: http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2012/09/russia-and-serbia

Economically; good recent article that shows Russia is currently growing at a nice pace compared to all of the EU and the US. Like this guy says, Russia's government is returning to great strength under Putin and the opposition is "weak and fragmented". IMHO that trend will continue and Russia is already a nation to fear for many reasons. Putin is anything but a wuss:

"Russia's Economy is Still Growing Faster than Every EU Country I've been pretty persistent in arguing that Russia's government, corrupt and authoritarian as it may be, is going to last for awhile. This is not because it is a shining example of efficiency and democratic accountability, but because its overall economic and fiscal outlook is, at the moment, surprisingly robust. It’s aso because the top-level elite are, at least for the moment, united in their desire to stay in power. Midway through 2012, the Russian economy is growing at a reasonable pace, foreign debt is almost non-existent, the budget is, for the moment, roughly in balance, and the opposition is still fragmented and leaderless. This would seem to be a uniquely poor recipe for a successful revolutionary upheaval. Basically, everything hinges on the trajectory of the Russian economy, and it really doesn’t seem to be doing poorly at the moment. This is particularly true when you compare Russia’s decent performance with the consistently awful performance of the EU and the Eurozone, both of which appear to be in outright recession. I understand that Russia is vulnerable to a collapse in oil prices. Really, I do. But while I’ve seen many predictions that the price of oil will collapse at some point in the future, I’ve also seen quite a few stories like this one from Reuters: Oil steadied near three-month highs on Thursday, supported by worries over possible disruptions to supply from the Middle East and a steep fall in U.S. oil inventories. Global crude oil benchmark Brent has risen more than a third in less than two months on escalating worries about a conflict over Iran’s nuclear programme and as investors hope for more stimulus measures from central banks that would boost commodities. Now the same article notes that “the fundamentals” don’t really justify oil at $116. But I’ve been hearing about how the “fundamentals” of the oil market favor a price somewhere in the $80 range for over a year now. And while I can intellectually grasp the argument that the price of oil is “artificially” high due to tensions in the Middle East, how likely does it seem that those tensions will dissipate anytime soon? I’m not a Middle East expert, but isn’t it at least possible that sustained tensions with Iran will continue for at least another year, and possibly even lead to outright war (which, of course, would send the price of oil rocketing into the stratosphere)? Doesn’t continued tension in the region seem much likelier than a swift resolution of a seemingly intractable problem between a number of countries that, to all appearances, genuinely despise one another? I understand that if the Iran standoff is resolved and that if this leads to a significant reduction in the price of oil then Russia would be in trouble, I just think that, on balance, it’s far likelier that things will continue on essentially the same track. The people predicting immediate upheaval in Russia, people like David Satter, whose latest article I reviewed a little more than a week ago, also spent quite a lot of time talking about Russia’s supposedly weak economic performance. In this understanding, Russia is an economic basket case that has never performed particularly well and which is ill-suited for today’s modern and competitive world. While the precise details differ, the essence of the argument is that the demonstration effect of rapid growth in other countries will make the Kremlin appear weak and incapable in the eyes of the Russian populace, roughly what happened during the 1980′s at the tail end of a long period of economic stagnation. This is a very plausible argument, but to what extent is it actually true? Well as I noted back in May, Russia was actually on pace to outgrow every EU country in 2012. When we look at new data from Eurostat and from Russia, we find that this is absolutely still the case: •Russia: 2012 second quarter growth 4%, 2012 projection 3.4%* •Poland: 2012 second quarter growth unavailable, 2012 projection 2.7% •Lithuania: 2012 second quarter growth 2.7%, 2012 projection 2.4% •Latvia: 2012 second quarter growth 4.3%, 2012 projection 2.2% •Slovakia: 2012 second quarter growth 2.9%, 2012 projection 1.8% •Estonia: 2012 second quarter growth 2.5%, 2012 projection 1.6% •Romania: 2012 second quarter growth 1.7%, 2012 projection 1.4% •Bulgaria: 2012 second quarter growth 0.5%, 2012 projection 0.5%. •Czech Republic: 2012 second quarter growth -1.2%, 0% •Hungary: 2012 second quarter growth -1%, 2012 projection -0.3% As you can easily see, Russia is a positive outlier: its economy is growing more quickly than all of the new EU members. There might have been a time that you could argue that Russia was a laggard, that its dismal economic performance was a testament to its corrupt and inefficient institutions and that, if it only followed the example of countries further to its West, that it would be able to unlock the secret of sustained capitalist growth. However, in 2012, Russia is performing better than its much more democratic and liberal brethren in the EU. This reflects the near-total failure of the European Central Bank and other European institutions far more than it does any particularly excellent decisions on the part of the Russians, but the EU and its attendant institutional and legal baggage were supposed to help countries achieve economic growth, not bind them in a straightjacket of austerity and recession. Looking at the above figures, why would anyone expect there to be a sustained wave of pro-Western enthusiasm, so that Russia can be more like Hungary and the Czech Republic? Indeed, under the pressure of prolonged economic misery and desperation, democracy is arguably eroding within the EU itself. All of the above would suggest to me that Russia’s current political system won’t run out of gas anytime soon and that it will be able to broadly maintain the status quo through selective repression and co-optation. It won’t be pretty, there will almost certainly be additional distasteful farces like the Pussy Riot trial as the Kremlin continues its age-old hunt for useful enemies, but in the short term the Kremlin’s position looks quite secure."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2012/08/16/russias-economy-is-still-growing-faster-than-every-eu-country/</p>

[admin]

I agree that Russia is nasty (the regime, that is) and I agree that there is growth (it isn't such a tall order to outgrow the EU, at this juncture). I also agree that they have a big army (but not a particularly good one).

But the growth is very skewed towards resource extraction, which is capital intensive stuff with little value added. The also have by far the largest border to defend even after the retreat of rather epic proportions since the late 1980s, when it turned out that the Soviet threat wasn't all it was talked up to be.

The economy looks strong, but that's what people thought in 1997 as well. This type of extractive oligarchy is susceptible to shocks, there is insufficient "genetic variety" to absorb these.

It's a pity, because there are at least some fundamentals for Russia to create a more viable, diverse economy. The education system is pretty good and in an age of knowledge capitalism that is particularly useful if given hands and feet.

They don't really have many friends and the type of power they have is more suitable to mid past-century warfare than anything likely to happen in the 21th century. They're even afraid of their own population, which is shrinking rather fast and has a remarkably low average life expectancy (to some considerable extent due to alcohol)

A threat, yes. If you live in Georgia or Central Asia, or perhaps even Latvia or Estonia. But if you live in the US, Russia is a nuisance, little more.

I sometimes pithy my own politicians for the petty squabble and endless coalition politics. However, at least nobody in the Netherlands has the ambition to restore the country to 17th century glory, which is rather reassuring. I think the state's main role should be to enable its citizens (all of them), not to cling to some macho form of 'national glory' and start throwing weight around in the world, but I'm drifting off-topic here..

Russia doesn't half as much scare me as it disgusts me, to be honest.

[ArtM72]

Tree - I watched the Lara Logan speech, at least up to the end of the clip. I couldn't find her conclusion on the web although I only spent a couple of minutes looking for it. All the sources seemed to end at 19:23.

Logan's message was far, far more nuanced than the final two minutes would suggest. If anything, the full 19:23 could be summarized in my mind by the following.

Our way of life is under attack. Clearly a perpetual occupation of A’stan is not the answer, no matter how many troops are committed for however long. Only fools believe military victory over Al Qaeda is possible. Over the past 11 years our military has only seen abject failure, killing "only the slow ones" (~14:00). The military can only provide an expensive delaying tactic until a real solution to this problem can be found.

My thoughts now. Leaving people alone in their chosen way of life might be a good start. Go in, get Bin Laden and get out may have worked a whole lot better than carrying on a 12 year war against an organization only linked together by ideas.

The President as well as the Vice President have made it very clear we will pursue and find and punish those who killed the four people in our embassy, just as Logan stated she believed was necessary. Only fools think that job will be easy and able to be done immediately. It appears the people who taught George Bush foreign policy and now teaching Romney and Ryan are the same ones now pushing that notion.

Are we trying to prove what we beleive or are we seeking the truth? All need to open their eyes.

[Palm]

"Nasty" regime is an understatement I think as well as describing them as a "nuisance" for the US.  Here's Russia's game IMO.  As you agree resource extraction is a key to their economy, both to feed their own needs and to sell to hungry trade partners like China, SK, Japan and others in Europe and Asia.  Especially for energy, what is crucial for this extraction to be profitable?  Correct; high oil prices.  Too bad they don't have more influence over oil prices (and thus NG prices which are pegged to oil).  Ahhhhh, but they do and they do it every day when they strengthen relations with the ME.  The US has stupidly asked for Russia to be a 'buffer" with China.  Russia says "Sure we will.", then walks away and does the opposite. I sincerely believe Putin laughs at the US attempts to form trade relations, especially since Russia is now a part of the WTO.  You think they joined WTO to help and/or trade with the US.  Fat chance.  It allows them to make the deals they really WANT with other nations for energy, construction, etc etc.  They don't need (or probably want) US trade to do what they want.  So instead they make BIG deals with Iran, Irag, Syria, Serbia, etc for energy, arms, construction (building nuclear plants with Iran, the just new agreement with Iraq for helping them develop their energy assets), etc.  Where is the US in all of this? On the outside looking in and desparate.

Hillary (who I think has done a very good job for the most part) came away empty from her meetings with Putin when discussing trade and military issues; Russia basically spit in the face of the US.  Nuisance?  Much more than that.  So with all of this Russia stirs up unrest in the ME; stoking the flames of nuclear threats, unrest and talk of anti-Israel.  Russia earlier this year warned that an Israeli/US attack on Iran would be considered an attack on Russia because:

"General Leonid Ivashov, president of the Academy of Geopolitical Science, wrote that “a war against Iran would be a war against Russia” and he called for a “political-diplomatic alliance” with China and India. Operations were being undertaken throughout the Middle East in order to destabilise the region and proceed against China, Russia and Europe. The war against Iran, Ivashov wrote, would “end up at our borders, destabilise the situation in the North Caucasus and weaken our position in the Caspian region.”

Of central concern for Moscow are the consequences for the South Caucasus in the event of a war against Iran. Armenia is the only ally of the Kremlin in the region and has close economic links with Iran, while neighbouring Georgia and Azerbaijan maintain military and economic ties with the United States and Israel.

The Kremlin fears above all that Azerbaijan could participate in a military alliance alongside Israel and the United States against Iran. Azerbaijan borders Iran, Russia, Armenia and the Caspian Sea, and since the mid-1990s has been an important military and economic ally of the US in the South Caucasus, housing several American military bases.

Relations between Iran and Azerbaijan are already very tense. Tehran has repeatedly accused Baku of participating in terrorist attacks and acts of sabotage, most probably in collaboration with the Israeli and American intelligence agencies. In recent years, Azerbaijan has doubled its military spending and in February completed a weapons deal with Israel worth US$1.6 billion involving the supply of drones and missile defence systems."

This rhetoric allows Russia to help keep things stirred up in the ME and thus oil prices will stay high; $80+/barrel.  That's crucial to Russia's future and with that they stoke their economy many ways and provide the might for their military.  Sue they talk a strong game, but I guarantee that the US sees them as anything but a nuisance:

"Russia: between the US and China

July 24th, 2012

Author: Artyom Lukin, Far Eastern Federal University

As the geopolitical competition between China and the US intensifies, other actors must decide how they will position themselves in this power struggle. Of these, Russia is arguably one of the most crucial ‘swing states’ in the contemporary global arena.

Russia and China have been close ‘strategic partners’ since the late 1990s, but there is speculation that Russia will eventually abandon China and choose to align itself — or even ally with — the US-led west. As Russia increasingly feels the threat from a rising China, it will have no choice but to move closer to the US and the EU.

Even inside Russia, some foreign policy hands hold the view that Moscow needs to enter into some form of strategic alignment with Washington and Brussels, pointing to the challenges of a rising China as a major reason for such a move. This line of strategic thinking is logical from the balance-of-power perspective, which expects states to form coalitions against potential hegemons. This seems to be a sensible strategy for Russia, which shares a 4209-kilometre border with China and is thus much more exposed to China-related geopolitical risks than any Western state.

Both Russia’s governing elites and its citizens are wary of China. In the past two centuries Russia has been more advanced than China, and this encouraged the Russians to think of China somewhat condescendingly. But that traditional perception is now being reassessed. Russian leaders strongly believe that in the international arena, capabilities rather than intentions are what really matter. It follows that some form of entente with the US — the leader of the Western community — would insure Russia against the threat of a growing China. But the problem with this reasoning is that Russia sees the US as a bigger and more immediate threat than China. There are four main reasons for this.

First, Russia believes the West seeks to transform Russia in its own image so that Russia would lose its core identity. It views US and EU efforts to export democracy and liberal values as aggressive moves designed to undermine the ideational and institutional foundations of Russia’s statehood. In contrast, Moscow highly appreciates China’s principle of non-interference and its tolerance of diverse models of political and socio-economic development.

Second, Moscow is worried about the West’s penetration of Russia’s ‘near abroad’ — the territory of the former Soviet Union. The tensions peaked under George W. Bush, culminating in a brief war between Russia and Georgia, a US ally. And while Washington has somewhat reduced its involvement in the post-Soviet space under the Obama administration, the Kremlin nevertheless remains deeply suspicious of US intentions in Russia’s backyard. Meanwhile, China is also increasing its engagement with the former Soviet republics, especially in Central Asia, but is careful not to provoke Russian ire. China’s links to post-Soviet states are mainly economic and have not challenged Russia’s residual political hegemony. To be sure, Russia is not particularly happy about China’s growing economic leverage over the Central Asian republics, but it is willing to put up with it as long as China respects Russia’s strategic interests in the area.

Third, the US military strategy is a more serious concern to Russia than China’s. In particular, NATO’s missile defence program is causing grave apprehension in Moscow. The national strategic establishment strongly believes that, once completed, the US missile shield will neutralise Russia’s nuclear deterrent. Meanwhile, Russia regards China’s current military posture as less of a security risk because China’s defence modernisation and deployments are principally aimed at the Taiwan Strait, South China Sea and the Western Pacific.

Finally, foreign policy rhetoric and diplomatic style seem to shape Moscow’s perceptions of potential threats. The US freely talks about its status as the sole superpower and its determination to lead the world, and this causes much irritation in Russia. By contrast, China endorses the idea of a multipolar world, wholly backed by Moscow.

Russia now finds itself sandwiched between the Occident and the Orient. Russian leadership is well aware that China, with its growing strategic capabilities, may pose a serious geopolitical risk in the future. But Russia so far perceives this danger as mostly hypothetical and distant compared to the clear and direct challenges the US and its Western allies currently present.

If the US really wants to have Russia on its side in the unfolding competition with China, the US must abandon the promotion of liberal democracy in the post-Soviet space, recognise Russia’s hegemony in this region and scrap its missile defence plans in Europe. But it is unlikely that the US will agree to these conditions in the foreseeable future, so rather than tilting toward the US, Russia will most likely continue to pursue its quasi-alliance with China.

Artyom Lukin is Associate Professor and Deputy Director at the School of Regional and International Studies, Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok.:

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2012/07/24/russia-between-the-us-and-china-2/

I agree with the last paragraph.  Russia will most likely align with China in all of this, not The US and the West.  Russia does not think a whole lot of Obama or think he will stand behind his words because Obama will be forced to cut budgets and a big piece will have to come from defense.  Biden can say that the military can shrink and they have asked to be more "lean", but this will only encourage Russia to show more strength.  I think in a very short period of time we will see that Russia is back under Putin