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

[derspiess]

Of course, we can do a whole lot more in terms of border patrolling & enforcement, and we absolutely should.  But I don't see that happening, what with the administration kowtowing to the pro-illegal immigrant groups & whatnot.

Of course not.  We couldn't do it with the most right-wing pro-use-of-military-force US government in maybe a century, so any administration less in love with guns is not likely to do more than the one most in love with guns.  However, we "can do a lot more" in some magical fashion that has eluded everyone for decades, and "we absolutely should" if we just had a clue.

Maybe you & I had different administrations.  Bush was a gigantic wuss when it came to dealing with the Mexican border, illegal aliens, etc.

[Berkut]

I don't think that's the issue. Issue seems to be how best for Pres Obama to deal with other nations, the difficult relations, so that he doesn't put the US at disadvantage. Doesn't get taken. Pres Bush was certainly suckered by the Russkies, crafty dudes that they are!

At a disadvantage ?  Since when meeting and listening to what others have to say puts one at a disadvantage ?  Many seem to assume he'll get off the plane and start rolling over at the first pretext !  That's an absurd estimation at this point.

I know this new attitude goes against something deeply ingrained in american psyches: we are the greatest and should be obeyed.  Well here's a newflash:

- the russians have a large enough nuclear arsenal they could wipe you off;

- the chinese, one of your most dangerous rivals, own a great chunk of America's external debt; and that's not mentioning they provide americans with a lot of the manufactured products consumed daily;

- the muslim world, whose multitudes hate your collective guts, control *the* strategic resource upon which all of America's economy is dependant.


Being aware of these facts is not demonstrating weakness; it's rather a proof of lucidity.



G.

Shilebh, you were mentioning strawmen?

[Valmy]

the chinese, one of your most dangerous rivals, own a great chunk of America's external debt; and that's not mentioning they provide americans with a lot of the manufactured products consumed daily

Why are they our dangerous rival?  How do our interests conflict?  It seems to me it is in both party's interests that the other one does well.

the muslim world, whose multitudes hate your collective guts, control *the* strategic resource upon which all of America's economy is dependant

Hey if they cut it off, fine with me.  We would be fine in the long run and they would be fucked.

[DontSayBanana]

I think he might be on to something. You guys mentioned the Russians *need* an enemy, and that the US serves in that role. It's what's keeping them from looking totally pathetic as they "throw their weight around" (steaming destroyers into Cuba that are running on fumes isn't exactly a great way to flex muscle). It could simply be that with NK heating up again, and China flexing *real* military muscle, he's going to try to take the validity out of Russia's whining, and marginalize at least one problem in the far east.

[KRonn]

I don't think that's the issue. Issue seems to be how best for Pres Obama to deal with other nations, the difficult relations, so that he doesn't put the US at disadvantage. Doesn't get taken. Pres Bush was certainly suckered by the Russkies, crafty dudes that they are!

At a disadvantage ?  Since when meeting and listening to what others have to say puts one at a disadvantage ?  Many seem to assume he'll get off the plane and start rolling over at the first pretext !  That's an absurd estimation at this point.

I know this new attitude goes against something deeply ingrained in american psyches: we are the greatest and should be obeyed.  Well here's a newflash:

- the russians have a large enough nuclear arsenal they could wipe you off;

- the chinese, one of your most dangerous rivals, own a great chunk of America's external debt; and that's not mentioning they provide americans with a lot of the manufactured products consumed daily;

- the muslim world, whose multitudes hate your collective guts, control *the* strategic resource upon which all of America's economy is dependant.


Being aware of these facts is not demonstrating weakness; it's rather a proof of lucidity.



G.

You're assuming an awful lot. Bush made himself a fool at the hands of Putin. Seeing Obama's opening moves gives some of us reason to have some concerns. I'm all for listening, discussing, what ever, and that all isn't really the issue. There are difficult issues going on - Europe has been discussing with Iran over nukes for years. No change. Russia has helped Iran, after the overtures Bush made to them. There's no harm in pondering that this might be more of the same.

[The Minsky Moment]

Starting with getting rid of this missile defense system, and of course no more NATO expansion.

Gates has advised Obama that the missile defense system is a wateful, expensive boondoggle - that should be ditched in any case. And there is no NATO expansion option under serious consideration such that it could even be bargained away.  So these are both red herrings.

The fact is that at this particular moment in time, there really aren't any significant geopolitical areas of conflict between the US and Russia.  And Russian cooperation (or at least lack of opposition) with Iran and Afghanistan would be helpful.

Taking away all of the emotional aspects of the policy critique, what exactly is the problem here?

[Neil]

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.

This is assuming that Russia is a trustworthy and rational partner, an analysis that beggars belief.  Is there any occasion on which the Russians haven't shown themselves to be liars?  Is there any occasion on which they didn't break their word as soon as there was some advantage to doing so?

[derspiess]

It seems to me it is in both party's interests that the other one does well.

Yeah, I used to think that, too.  Putin kinda changed my mind, though.  Russia doesn't tend to act in accordance with what *we* think their interests are.  I thought that was common knowledge here.

[derspiess]

Gates has advised Obama that the missile defense system is a wateful, expensive boondoggle

FFS, that should only encourage Obama to move full steam ahead with it

[Berkut]

Starting with getting rid of this missile defense system, and of course no more NATO expansion.

Gates has advised Obama that the missile defense system is a wateful, expensive boondoggle - that should be ditched in any case.

O RLY?

Cite?

Of course, if this is the case - then why should Russia care?

And why should we give up our leverage over them, since apparently they DO care?

A quick search of relevant news articles about Gates and missile defense seems to have a notable lack of any claims that it is a "boondoggle".

[DontSayBanana]

This is assuming that Russia is a trustworthy and rational partner, an analysis that beggars belief.  Is there any occasion on which the Russians haven't shown themselves to be liars?  Is there any occasion on which they didn't break their word as soon as there was some advantage to doing so?

I think we're looking at the wrong thing. We're looking at what we hope to gain materially, and I think it's just a matter of wanting to not have Russia constantly nipping at our heels throughout the duration of the administration. Minimize the headaches so we can focus on more.

[Berkut]

It seems to me it is in both party's interests that the other one does well.

Yeah, I used to think that, too.  Putin kinda changed my mind, though.  Russia doesn't tend to act in accordance with what *we* think their interests are.  I thought that was common knowledge here.

Russia tends to act in accordance with that Putin's interests are.

[Berkut]

The fact is that at this particular moment in time, there really aren't any significant geopolitical areas of conflict between the US and Russia.

Then why the need to go suck up to them?

  And Russian cooperation (or at least lack of opposition) with Iran and Afghanistan would be helpful.

Sure would - which is exactly why we won't get it unless we give them something in return, and even then we aren't likely to get it anyway.

What will not work is going to them and begging for them to be nice to us. If you are going to deal with Putin, the only way to do so is from a position of strength. Giving up everything that they care about (like missile defense) in the vain hope that doing so will result in them playing along with us is naive.

[Iormlund]

Mexicans need to keep their own house in order, and that is the message we should have sent. 

If I were the Mexican president and I heard that, I would legalize drug trafficking. Problem solved.

[Sheilbh]

It seems to me it is in both party's interests that the other one does well.

Yeah, I used to think that, too.  Putin kinda changed my mind, though.  Russia doesn't tend to act in accordance with what *we* think their interests are.  I thought that was common knowledge here.

Depends who you mean by 'we'.  I think Russia tends to act in a pretty rational way, and can see the arguments for why they think certain things are in their interests.

I agree Berk, Grallon's erecting a pretty big straw man.