Obama to go hat in hand to the Russians to beg forgiveness.

[Sheilbh]

Campaign promises.  He doesn't seem to realize he isn't running for President anymore, but is supposed to actually... you know... *be* President at this juncture.

And he is trying a different tack with the Russians, our past policies were not exactly a smashing success we should be falling over ourselves to emulate.  Might as well try something different and see how it turns out I guess.

Well I think it's because Russia's potentially more troublesome than they've been for a while.  The fall in the price of oil reduces their ability to cause trouble, perhaps, but it seems that it could equally spur them on (to distract from a dreadful economic situation, throw a bit of weight around and so on). 

At the moment they're weaker than they've been for at least 5 years.  That strikes me as a relatively good time to start talking.  It's not, after all, as if there aren't any shared interests.

This is making the same error that Obama is making - assuming that the result of "past policies" are completely based on what the US has done.

I think he's assuming it's partially based on US/Western actions, partially on Russia's domestic situation and partially on Russia's relatively strong economic position (strong in comparison with the preceding 10 years).  All of those could change right now.

[Berkut]

You could be right about that one.  I frankly do not see what difference it will make unless we start making real concessions but I do not see that happening.  So I am rather apathetic.  But anyway why not say nice things to the Russians?  He is traveling around distributing warm fuzzies anyway, might as well pass out some warm fuzzies to Moscow.

Because Moscow will take his warm fuzzies, scrunch them into a ball, then shove them right up our ass.

They know how to play the international politics game to their advantage, and they have already shafted the US and will continue to do so at every opportunity (see their desire to sell S-300 SAMs to Iran, shutting down US airbases supporting Afghanistan).

Warm fuzzies are ammunition. Don't give them any. They are not our friends, they don't want to be our friends. In fact, even if they did want to be our friends, their own domestic political situation would not allow it -they *require* an external enemy, and we are it.

The idea that all the warm fuzzies in the world will change this is naive - it is the opposite, warm fuzzies will make it worse.

[Sheilbh]

But I got burned by hoping for the best with The Shrubbery, and assuming eh cannot possibly be as naive a he is letting on. I am hesitant to go down that road again.

I don't think, diplomatically, Obama's been that naive so far.  It seems to me his foreign policy is largely a continuation of Bush term 2 when there was a far more realist and pragmatic tone.  If anything the realism's increased.

[Razgovory]

And he is trying a different tack with the Russians, our past policies were not exactly a smashing success we should be falling over ourselves to emulate.  Might as well try something different and see how it turns out I guess.

I'm afraid that Russia as it is right now is incompatible with US, so good relations will not be possible no matter what.  That said, I don't think Obama is being super-naive either, he has a long history of proving to be more ruthless and calculating than he lets on.

I hope you are right.

But I got burned by hoping for the best with The Shrubbery, and assuming eh cannot possibly be as naive a he is letting on. I am hesitant to go down that road again.

Then why the fuck did you vote for him?

[Berkut]

That's the way it came across to me.

Well she is fucking spot on.  We are absolutely co-reponsible for how fucked up the border area is and anybody who says otherwise is an idiot or a liar or both.  Do you think differently and why?  We have been ignoring the border forever and I have no idea why.  Bush was supposed to work on the actually giving a shit about Mexico part in DC but he got distracted by the, IMO, far smaller problem of our Middle Eastern issues.

We are responsible for creating the climate in which the drug lords are possible - that doesn't make them inevitable. We are a necessary, but not sufficient condition.

[Valmy]

Because Moscow will take his warm fuzzies, scrunch them into a ball, then shove them right up our ass.

Or rather it will make no difference what-so-ever in US-Russian relations.  If there is any positive outcome at all it will be how the exchange plays out to other observers.

[Berkut]

Then why the fuck did you vote for him?

Sarah Palin.

And I knew then that this was going to be the big negative to that vote - an inexperienced, naive, and out of his depth Obama would likely take a couple years before he realizes that that warm fuzzy feeling is Putin fucking him in the ass.

[Valmy]

We are responsible for creating the climate in which the drug lords are possible - that doesn't make them inevitable. We are a necessary, but not sufficient condition.

I did not say we were totally responsible.  But we need to get really serious about what is going on over there.  It is almost like Mexico is the sideshow and what goes on on the other side of the world is in our back yard judging by how much attention this issue gets.

[Berkut]

We are responsible for creating the climate in which the drug lords are possible - that doesn't make them inevitable. We are a necessary, but not sufficient condition.

I did not say we were totally responsible.  But we need to get really serious about what is going on over there.  It is almost like Mexico is the sideshow and what goes on on the other side of the world is in our back yard judging by how much attention this issue gets.

That I can agree with.

We spend billions per month trying to reduce violence in Iraq, but we ahve a situation right enxt door that is in some ways just as bad (of not worse) and arguably much more our own problem that we appear to be doing very little about.

On the other hand, I don't know how much Mexico would allow us to do, or how much we could actually do about it, at least realistically (no, we aren't going to legalize crack).

[Berkut]

But I got burned by hoping for the best with The Shrubbery, and assuming eh cannot possibly be as naive a he is letting on. I am hesitant to go down that road again.

I don't think, diplomatically, Obama's been that naive so far.  It seems to me his foreign policy is largely a continuation of Bush term 2 when there was a far more realist and pragmatic tone.  If anything the realism's increased.

The idea that the major problem between the US and Russia can be solved by a simple "reset" of relations is incredibly naive. It presumes that the primary problem is nothing more than the previous US assholes and their inept handling of the poor Russians.

That is hardly realistic.

And the idea that the proper approach to the Russians is one of supplication - this entire tone of "Hey, we are sorry you don't like us, what can we do to make you think we are cool again?" is incredibly naive.

[Valmy]

And the idea that the proper approach to the Russians is one of supplication - this entire tone of "Hey, we are sorry you don't like us, what can we do to make you think we are cool again?" is incredibly naive.

It certainly appears that way on the surface.  I just do not see what harm it could do at this point.

[Razgovory]

One thing Dems are awfully good at is apologizing to foreigners 

Yeah, like when apologized to the Chinese for them ramming one of their jets into one of our planes.

[Berkut]

And the idea that the proper approach to the Russians is one of supplication - this entire tone of "Hey, we are sorry you don't like us, what can we do to make you think we are cool again?" is incredibly naive.

It certainly appears that way on the surface.  I just do not see what harm it could do at this point.

Isn't it obvious?

The harm it does is that they respond with "Why yes, we want improved relations as well. Please to be pulling your missile defense system out of Poland, quit talking about more NATO countries, and have a chat with the Ukraine about gas, kthxbye!" and then we look like the assholes when we refuse to "compromise" on this reasonable issues.

After all, we said we were interested in improving relations, right?

[MadImmortalMan]

Note to the President: Russia is region code 5.

[Sheilbh]

The idea that the major problem between the US and Russia can be solved by a simple "reset" of relations is incredibly naive. It presumes that the primary problem is nothing more than the previous US assholes and their inept handling of the poor Russians.

The primary problem was a number of circumstances, including the previous US assholes, that existed 12 months ago and no longer do.  Reset's a nice bit of PR, but is there an opportunity for changing the tone if not the nature of US-Russia relations?  I think so.

And the idea that the proper approach to the Russians is one of supplication - this entire tone of "Hey, we are sorry you don't like us, what can we do to make you think we are cool again?" is incredibly naive.

Well I'm not sure what you mean.  You highlight two things to begin with: getting rid of missile defence and expanding NATO. 

From what I understand the Bush Administration's always said missile defence was about Iran not Russia.  The Russians don't like it because they think that's nonsense (and it would probably bounce them into spending ridiculous amounts of money to develop a similar programme for very little reason).  What the Obama admin's done is simply take the Bush line to its next logical step.  If it's about Iran and the Russians, the only major country helping Iran, can stop the Iranians getting a nuke then why shouldn't the US dump missile defence?  Is it worth it, in the long run?  And is it some unverifiable deal based on hot air?  I think it's potentially worth it and I think it's a deal that involves at least as much of a Russian concession as an American one.  I don't see much supplication.

On NATO I'm not sure what you mean, Obama, last week, said countries that wish to join NATO will still be able to and that 'reinvigorated' ties with Russia won't stop that.  Personally I think that's balls for two reasons. 

The first is that I think the remaining eligible states won't be good for NATO.  They'll either fall into the camp of useless, givens.  That is states the West can already be assumed to be willing to fight with that would only be included in NATO to poke Russia in the eye.  Sweden, Austria or, God forbid, Finland, for example.  The other states either aren't ready (Ukraine), willing (Belarus) or worth it (Georgia).  The core of NATO is a self-defence alliance, not a global policeman or a great force for humanitarian good.  Unless we're willing to send all our force into fellow NATO members' territories to defend them from aggression then they shouldn't be in the alliance.  I think a lot of people know that.

The second reason is that the French have suddenly become important and full NATO members again.  They are fiercely against any further expansion (indeed they think Russia should have a veto over any further expansion).  The French position is simply that last one.  NATO, in their view, doesn't exist for missions like Afghanistan or Kosovo, it doesn't exist to deliver aid, it's a mutual defence organisation and they don't think there are any nations who would add much, or be worth defending left.  Given that to join NATO you have to meet criteria that any member state has a right to propose (and it must be accepted) I think further expansion is unlikely unless it's agreed to by the Kremlin and Elysee.

So, in Europe (and they have to be European states to be accepted), who else do we really want to join?  We're expanding in the Balkans, with the exception of Serbia and the Russians are fine with that.  The only countries left are Scandinavia, Austria, Switzerland, Moldavia, Belarus, Ukraine, Cyprus, Ireland and, arguably, Georgia and the Caucasus states.

Even promision not to expand NATO, which hasn't happened, seems to me an easy and low-cost promise to make.  The heavy lifting's been done between 1990 and 2004.