Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09 View Post
Bill M---based on your questions that is something that is often overlooked in all of this.

We will be voting for a new President in 2016, Putin will easily get reelected and he is then in power until 2024.

So what would a US Russian strategy look like under this WH and would it then be carried forward in a solid fashion or would Putin rightly assume it would not be and he could then force the US into a new strategy to his liking.

Secondly ---any US strategy on Russia must be multifaceted as the current Russian foreign policy is developed and implemented by playing the four legs of a stool approach.

There are four key players in the Russian FP game that we somehow tend to ignore; 1) Russian military and their industrial complexes, 2) the Russian security services, 3) the oligarchs, and 4) Russian criminal gangs ie Russian mafia.

Layered over this is then the Russian Orthodox church.

Russian foreign policy and doctrine can be modified in any way using any combination of these players---we the US have our own players but we cannot seem to develop the adaptiveness that Putin has been showing in recent months.
New administrations in the White House generally result in strategy changes, if not the ends, then the ways and means.

Who are the major players (official and unofficial) in U.S. foreign policy? Federal government, State governments, Industry (to include the defense industry), NGOs, media, etc. All have an impact. The difference perhaps is unlike the Russians we're possibly not as synched in leveraging all these different players to achieve strategic ends. We do use them all and each has incredible capability and influence, so if we first understand what the Russians are doing and why, determine if any of these "really" threatens our national interests, if it does then get serious about addressing it.

The ability to execute these operations on countries that border their nation is impressive, but not overly impressive. We have been astrategic for the past 10 years, so we're impressed with a nation that can actually think strategically (at least in the area of military and paramilitary arts). We have the capability to execute a global strategy globally, they don't, but we won't, etc., so their is some self-imposed strategic asymmetry here.