Russia: Iran sanctions wont work

[brewerboy]

Russian FM: Iran sanctions threats won't work - Yahoo! News

MOSCOW – Russia publicly pushed back Tuesday against U.S. efforts to threaten tough new sanctions if Iran fails to prove its nuclear program is peaceful, dealing an apparent setback to President Barack Obama's hopes for Moscow's backing for fresh penalties against Tehran.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow believed such threats were "counterproductive" and that only negotiations should be pursued now. Just last month, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had said that sanctions are rarely productive but "in some cases they are inevitable," a statement the U.S. hailed as a shift of opinion in Moscow....

Is Russia playing politics for its own sake, or do they know something we dont?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Gee, is Russia primarily concerned for itself? Of course; and so is the United States, China, the UK, etc. etc.

Consider, what works best, spanking or postive reinforcements?

 

[Xenophon]

Sanctions never work for anything.

This is a surprise?

The only way to stop iran is by force, you will never do it by talks or sanctions.

So either accept they are getting nukes or destroy the abilty to do it, those are the true options.

 

[Shorebreak]

Nothing new here. This has been Russia's stance on Iran for over a decade. Read this through to the end and you'll have some understanding. Bear with me and take a couple of minutes - you'll appreciate it no matter how you identify yourself in the political realm.

If you read "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives - 1998" (Click this statement for the pdf copy), written by Obama's most senior foreign policy advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, you'll see that our policy/strategy in Central Asia is specifically aimed at eliminating Russia as a global player.

First, follow my link above and go to page 34 (it doesn't show page number 34 but you can easily find page number 33 - page 34 is an inverted picture of the world). You'll see that Brzezinski has highlighted Europe as the geopolitical center of the world.

Keep in mind that Brzezinski is the man whom Obama chose as his most senior foreign policy advisor. FYI, Brzezinski was the Dean of Russian Studies at Columbia when Obama was there studying political science, where Obama wrote his thesis on Soviet Disarmament. That's in case you're one of those who wonders how Obama was promoted throughout his life until he was finally President of the US, with no significant accomplishments along the way. Someone recognized something useful in him.

Moving back to the book, scroll down to the next two pages and look at how Brzezinski has framed Eurasia as dwarfing the remaining continents in terms of area, population, and gross national product. Eurasia is the prize, and the focus of the policy recommendations in the book.

As you read further into the book, Brzezinski identifies what he calls "central players" and "key pivots". In a nutshell, he is devising methodologies to influence and manipulate regional players.

As you get down to page 84, you see the following statement:

"Somewhere between 2005 and 2010, Ukraine, especially if in the meantime the country has made significant progress in its domestic reforms and has succeeded in becoming more evidently identified as a Central European country, should become ready for serious negotiations with both the EU and NATO."

This is followed by a diagram showing France, German, Poland, and the Ukraine as the "critical core of Europe's security". As you're reading the book, you can see that the constant them is to prevent Russia from re-emerging as a global power. The diagram on page 94 shows how Russia's sphere of control and influence shrank up until 1998 when the book was written. The drawing on page 108 then goes on to show how few Russian military bases remain in former territories.

That brings us to this paragraph on page 118:

"For America, Russia is much too weak to be a partner but still too strong to be simply its patient. It is more likely to become a problem, unless America fosters a setting that helps to convince the Russians that the best choice for their country is an increasingly organic connection with a transatlantic Europe. Although a long-term Russo-Chinese and Russo-Iranian strategic alliance is not likely, it is obviously important for America to avoid policies that could distract Russia from making the needed geopolitical choice. To the extent possible, American relations with China and Iran should, therefore, be formulated with their impact on Russian geopolitical calculations also kept in mind. Perpetuating illusions regarding grand geostrategic options can only delay the historic choice that Russia must make in order to bring to an end its deep malaise."

Again, keep in mind that the author is now our most senior foreign policy advisor.

Page 124 shows a diagram of Central Asia, with description that explains the importance of controling the region. The entire Middle East is located within a "zone of instablity" (including Pakistan) with a recommend geopolitical thrust through Afghanistan, Iran, Georgia, and China into the region. Since the print date of the book, we have secured control through Afghanistan and we are working on Pakistan, we're in the midst of securing control through Georgia, and we've secured iraq, which is the gateway of the thrust through Iran. With those in mind, Brzezinski says the following:

"The Eurasian Balkans, astride the inevitably emerging transportation network meant to link more directly Eurasia's richest and most industrious western and eastern extremities, are also geopolitically significant. Moreover, they are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely, Russia, Turkey, and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold."

This is followed by maps and details showing natural resources in the region. There is also significant detail around the importance of oil and gas pipelines that are planned for the region. It also explains policy goals with regards to China, and using Chinese ambitions as a means to keep Russian growth in check:

"In any case, in some areas of Eurasia, a Greater China may exercise a geopolitical influence that is compatible with America's grand geostrategic interests in a stable but politically pluralistic Eurasia. For example, China's growing interest in Central Asia inevitably constrains Russia's freedom of action in seeking to achieve any form of political reintegration of the region under Moscow's control. In this connection and as related to the Persian Gulf, China's growing need for energy dictates a common interest with America in maintaining free access to and political stability in the oil-producing regions."

The following explains why we have a policy that undermines US jobs and that supports a communist regime:

"A regionally preeminent China should become America's Far Eastern anchor in the more traditional domain of power politics, helping thereby to foster a Eurasian balance of power, with Greater China in Eurasia's East matching in that respect the role of an enlarging Europe in Eurasia's West."

In other words, based upon the rest of the writings, our relationship with China is part of a geostrategic effort to isolate Russia.

Here is part of the 1998 conclusion:

"THE TIME HAS COME for the United States to formulate and prosecute an integrated, comprehensive, and long-term geostrategy for all of Eurasia. This need arises out of the interaction between two fundamental realities: America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy."

On page 199, Brzezinski says the following:

"It is unlikely that democratic America will wish to be permanently engaged in the difficult, absorbing, and costly task of managing Eurasia by constant manipulation and maneuver, backed by American military resources, in order to prevent regional domination by any one power."

In 1998, Brzezinski is talking about engaging his plan of controlling Central Asia with US military force. On the last page, after lamenting that there is no direct external threat at the time of writing, Obama's most senior foreign policy advisor says the following:

"In brief, the U.S. policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change while evolving into the geopolitical core of shared responsibility for peaceful global management."

The ultimate goal of Obama's mentor is for a single, managed global system. The external threat presented itsael in 2001, three years after the book was published, and our military presence in Central Asia began to take hold.

We're still at the beginning of this thing. And Russia knows it. That's why they are opposed to Iran sanctions.

 

[Elutherian]

Sanctions is a form of economic warfare on the people of a country. All we're going to do is starve the individuals there who have some sanity, while their leaders take whats left of the resources.

Trade does wonders for spreading freedom... take a look at East Asia as an example.

 

[manu1959]

Russian FM: Iran sanctions threats won't work - Yahoo! News

MOSCOW – Russia publicly pushed back Tuesday against U.S. efforts to threaten tough new sanctions if Iran fails to prove its nuclear program is peaceful, dealing an apparent setback to President Barack Obama's hopes for Moscow's backing for fresh penalties against Tehran.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow believed such threats were "counterproductive" and that only negotiations should be pursued now. Just last month, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had said that sanctions are rarely productive but "in some cases they are inevitable," a statement the U.S. hailed as a shift of opinion in Moscow....

Is Russia playing politics for its own sake, or do they know something we dont?

well they are helping them build the reactors....they both hate one of the wackier factions of muslims....they by their oil form them and are using iran to manipulate the us.....can you say proxy state cold war....