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

[derspiess]

Ahh yes, being friendly with them was "patronizing". So even when we are friendly with them, it turns out that justifies their hostility.

It's only patronizing if it comes from a Republican, silly. 

If bush had only presented the Russians a misspelled "reset" button...

[Razgovory]

You say it is undeserved, then proceed to argue on a point by point basis that Obama should in fact go to Russia, hat in hand, and beg them to help us and agree to concede on pretty much every single point, all on the basis that all these issues that have come up "don't help" because of course Georgia and such was all the fault of the US, and Russia, presumably, was just some kind of victim.

Good to know that in these tough financial times straw is still pretty cheap. 

The US should not promote democracy and rule of law in Georgia? Oh no, can't have that, the Russians won't like it! And golly, we have to keep the Russians happy, that is ever so much more important than freedom and democracy!

A Democratic Georgia and Russia are not antithetical; what is antithetical with Russia is a Georgia with Balkan delusions of grandeur and power far beyond its natural station that thinks it can shell and invade a non-Georgian enclave protected by the third largest Army in the world and get away with it.  Supporting democracy is one thing; delusions another entirely. 

I guess that straw was so straw like after all, since you just confirmed that in fact you felt Russia was in the right in invading Georgia.

Not much point in arguing with someone who just swallows Russian pravda in whole and spits it back out like that.

Yeah, Georgia was getting ready to subjugate the Balkans and suppress those poor Russians. In Georgia. Why, Russia had no choice but to roll over them.

I suppose I can live with the "delusion" that supporting democracy is worthwhile on its own merits, not matter how willign the Russians are to stamp it out.

You really don't understand what he's talking about do you.

[Berkut]

Yeah, actually we do.  If Russia provides Iran with anti-aircraft missiles and radar defense systems, even if we use top-rung aircraft for an insertion we'd take casualties, and Israel would just not be able to do it.  Not that I think bombing Iran makes sense unless we know they possess bombs and are fueling the or something.

This is exactly what I mean.

Yeah, it would be unfortunate if Russia did those things, and you are right - it may me we take some losses if we had to go in.

But that does NOT mean we *need* Russia. It just means that they can make things marginally more difficult for us - but that is only as important as we chose to make it. It isn't enough to justify us kissing their ass and letting them make whatever demands they like for their cooperation. And if, in fact, stopping Iran IS more important to them then tossing wrenches into US plans, they should not be selling S-300s to Iran no matter what we do or don't do in Poland or Georgia.

The only reason they would sell them systems like that is if they decide that poking the US in the eye is in fact more important than containing Iran. Therefore, I am right, and you are wrong - clearly they feel that a nuclear Iran is a price they are willing to pay.

So they are pushing us on issues that make it clear that styming the US is the goal in and of itself. We should not pretend that that is not the case and there is some middle ground that we can deal on. There isn't, by definition. They want a relationship based on hostility, we tried to create one based on trust, they rejected it.

Going back at them with more protestations of "Lets be friends!" after they spent the last ten years making it clear they don't want to be friends is foolish.

[grumbler]

I guess that straw was so straw like after all, since you just confirmed that in fact you felt Russia was in the right in invading Georgia.

Not much point in arguing with someone who just swallows Russian pravda in whole and spits it back out like that.

Yeah, Georgia was getting ready to subjugate the Balkans and suppress those poor Russians. In Georgia. Why, Russia had no choice but to roll over them.

I suppose I can live with the "delusion" that supporting democracy is worthwhile on its own merits, not matter how willign the Russians are to stamp it out.

I dunno why you cannot simply debate against the arguments that he does make, Berkut.  This post is 100% straw.

[Berkut]

See, if Russia is going to come along and say "Hey, play the game our way or we are going to sell advanced air defence systems to Iran", why isn't our response "Cool, we can play that game as well - for every S-300 you sell Iran, we are going to give a couple Patriot batteries to the Ukraine. Or Georgia. And since we don't want you attacking them, perhaps some Abrams might not be a bad idea as well."

Of course, that would be aggressive and confrontational, and only Russia is allowed to do things like that, right?

When they threaten to sell advanced weapons to our enemies with the intent to use them against US pilots, why, that is a fine reason to kiss their ass and meet their demands.

[Berkut]

I guess that straw was so straw like after all, since you just confirmed that in fact you felt Russia was in the right in invading Georgia.

Not much point in arguing with someone who just swallows Russian pravda in whole and spits it back out like that.

Yeah, Georgia was getting ready to subjugate the Balkans and suppress those poor Russians. In Georgia. Why, Russia had no choice but to roll over them.

I suppose I can live with the "delusion" that supporting democracy is worthwhile on its own merits, not matter how willign the Russians are to stamp it out.

I dunno why you cannot simply debate against the arguments that he does make, Berkut.  This post is 100% straw.

Argument by assertion is no argument at all. Even from you.

But lets sit around and argue about who is arguing, that is so languish.

[Queequeg]

I guess that straw was so straw like after all, since you just confirmed that in fact you felt Russia was in the right in invading Georgia.

No war in the history of the Caucasus would have ever fit Augustine's definition of a Just War.  Both were wrong.  I don't need to look at foreign policy in Manichean terms, and frankly anyone that does has no business meddling in foreign affairs; this was one of the biggest problems Bush had. 

Not much point in arguing with someone who just swallows Russian pravda in whole and spits it back out like that.

The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html
The Economist http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12780804
This is thick headed even for you, Berk.

Yeah, Georgia was getting ready to subjugate the Balkans and suppress those poor Russians. In Georgia. Why, Russia had no choice but to roll over them.

Ossetians and Abkhazians have as much relation to Georgians as I do to the Lebanese.  Its Stalin's fault that the Abkhaz republic was subsumed into the Georgian SSR, and that Ossetia was split was another dumb Soviet policy.  Anyone who talks of 'national sovereignty' in the Caucasus is usually full of it, as there are hundreds of nations and all the states are insane.   

And Georgia didn't roll over them.  You think they couldn't have taken Tblisi?  I remember you predicting that they would, actually. 

By Balkan I meant in terms of the magnitude of their national delusions.  Saakashvili would not be out of place in the Macedonian Government, aruging that the "Macedonians are God's Original People" and building 17 meter tall statues of Alexander the Great.  He is insane if he thinks that Georgia can be actively hostile to its largest, most powerful neighbor.  He is Russia's Castro; how do you think we would have tolerated a Cuban invasion of Puerto Rico?

[BuddhaRhubarb]

I guess that straw was so straw like after all, since you just confirmed that in fact you felt Russia was in the right in invading Georgia.

Not much point in arguing with someone who just swallows Russian pravda in whole and spits it back out like that.

Yeah, Georgia was getting ready to subjugate the Balkans and suppress those poor Russians. In Georgia. Why, Russia had no choice but to roll over them.

I suppose I can live with the "delusion" that supporting democracy is worthwhile on its own merits, not matter how willign the Russians are to stamp it out.

I dunno why you cannot simply debate against the arguments that he does make, Berkut.  This post is 100% straw.

Argument by assertion is no argument at all. Even from you.

But lets sit around and argue about who is arguing, that is so languish.

well hey you guys need to break that cherry at the "new" Languish. I'm waiting for the 1st evolution thread

[The Minsky Moment]

I think that the Russians are concerned about the possibility that an Islamic revolutionary state just a short jaunt down the Caspian is developing nuclear weapons.  Iranian missile technology is isn't where developed to the point they could get anywhere near the US, but they could reach Russian soil no problem.

If so they haven't shown a lot of proof of this concern to date.

There hasn't really been anything for them to do.  They can't do anything acting alone and have bigger fish to fry in any case.  The US policy for the last decade toward Iran has alternated betweeen sticking one's head in the sand and pretending the problem will go away if you just give out enough nasty State Dept human rights reviews, and various half-assed efforts at coordinating a sanctions regime.  Not hard to understand why the Russians have been in no rush to get out in front.

[grumbler]

Argument by assertion is no argument at all. Even from you.

Agreed. I am not arguing with you.  I am simply pointing out a fact:  every statement you are b"countering" in your post is a statement you yourself have made up.  None of them respond to Queequeg's actual arguments.

But lets sit around and argue about who is arguing, that is so Berkut.

Fixed

[The Minsky Moment]

Serious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?

Sometimes it makes sense to look at the big picture first, before getting down in the details.

[Queequeg]

Serious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?

Sometimes it makes sense to look at the big picture first, before getting down in the details.

Weakness, in all honesty.  A weak Russia is belligerent trying to cover up its weakness. 

Though this really depends on the ideology in Russia; if we are talking about some kind of free-market, reasonably liberal Russia then I don't think anyone here would really mind if their "sphere of influence" included most of Eurasia.  Its a bit different when it means that they invade Hungary for having a moment of sanity. 

[grumbler]

Serious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?

Sometimes it makes sense to look at the big picture first, before getting down in the details.

I am gonna go with "weakness."  A weak Russia is a humiliated Russia, which is a Russia whose government has to prove to its people that it isn't weak after all.  World wars have been started by weak Russias.  Strong Russias don't find such temptations very tempting.

[Berkut]

I think that the Russians are concerned about the possibility that an Islamic revolutionary state just a short jaunt down the Caspian is developing nuclear weapons.  Iranian missile technology is isn't where developed to the point they could get anywhere near the US, but they could reach Russian soil no problem.

If so they haven't shown a lot of proof of this concern to date.

There hasn't really been anything for them to do.  They can't do anything acting alone and have bigger fish to fry in any case.  The US policy for the last decade toward Iran has alternated betweeen sticking one's head in the sand and pretending the problem will go away if you just give out enough nasty State Dept human rights reviews, and various half-assed efforts at coordinating a sanctions regime.  Not hard to understand why the Russians have been in no rush to get out in front.

And that explains their plans to sell air defence weapons systems to Iran?

[Queequeg]

Serious question: what is a bigger challenge to US foreign policy - Russian strength or Russian weakness?

Sometimes it makes sense to look at the big picture first, before getting down in the details.

I am gonna go with "weakness."  A weak Russia is a humiliated Russia, which is a Russia whose government has to prove to its people that it isn't weak after all.  World wars have been started by weak Russias.  Strong Russias don't find such temptations very tempting.

Its also worth pointing out that a Strong Russia has checked the growth of every wannabe World Empire from the Mongols to the Nazis. Russia is to the nation states of Europe (and the world) what the Ozone layer is to ultraviolet light. Without it we'd have had the Ottomans, Mongols, French or Nazis ruling the whole continent and possibly the world.