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

[derspiess]

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.

No, she's not.  Mexicans need to keep their own house in order, and that is the message we should have sent. 

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.

[Berkut]

Arguing that we should not expand NATO because to do so does not meet our needs is one thing - giving Moscow a veto on the decision is something else entirely.

Your post is apologism - just justification for why kowtowing to the Russians and doing as they tell us really isn't such a terrible idea.

"Trading" missile defense for Russian help in stopping Iran from getting nukes is a terrible idea - for no reason other than that Russia is and will simply make a deal with us, then turn around and do whatever the fuck they want anyway. It is a pipe dream to believe that they will actually do ANYTHING that is not explicitly in their own narrow interests, no matter what deal they "make" outside those interests. This fantasy that the only thing stopping Iran is Russia, and if we can only get them on board all our problems with Iran will go away is as silly as the entire "Gee, lets make it all better by pushing the reset button!" crap.

They said they supported the NATO mission in Afghanistan, then turned around and pressured Kyrgyzstan to shut down the US airbase doing exactly that. They say they don't want Iran to build a nuke, then turn around and offer to sell them advanced SAMs to defend those nuke sites. They cannot be dealt with in good faith, because they are not capable in interested in dealing in good faith.

As far as NATO is concerned, it is whatever we say it is - there is nothing written in stone that makes it a purely defensive arrangement. It is, if anything, a check to Russian aggression, and if adding more countries is necessary as a means of checking Russia, then we would be fools to give up that negotiating chip in some naive dream that if only we give up anything we can pressure Russia with, then we won't need to pressure them anymore.

So no, I don't think promises not to expand NATO are "low-cost". I don't think any kind of promise based on soem silly idea of goodwill and brotherly love is "low-cost". They certainly are not approaching their relationship with the US in any such naive manner.

[Valmy]

No, she's not.  Mexicans need to keep their own house in order, and that is the message we should have sent. 

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.

Nonsense Mexico has been asking for further assistance for years.  They cannot control the supply to the largest drug market in the world with a third world economy!  We cannot even make a serious dent in the drug trade despite a twenty year old 'war on drugs'.  What ridiculous thing do you demand Mexico to do next?  Colonize Mars?  Cure cancer?  Build seven cities of gold?  Besides this is just as much our house being poorly managed as their house.  If we took care of business the problem in Mexico would be much more manageable.

And you are right that the Democrats are unlikely to properly control the border because neither party seems particularly interested in actually doing that, unfortunately.  It is simply too politically difficult.  It is far better to burn up all our political capital and spend billions doing things like fighting land wars in Asia.

[PDH]

We should have conquered mexico back in '48.

[Berkut]

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.

There is always an opportunity to reset the tone - the naive part is the assumption that the tone has been set by the US, and it is up to us to reset it, or that we can do so unilaterlally - that it will get better if only the US stops being such assholes.

The reality is that Bush kissed Russian ass in his first term. He bent over backward trying to get them onboard with the entire "Russia is part and parcel of Europe and by extension the West, and we should all be together..." crap. Russia kicked him in the teeth in thanks.

The "tone" has been set by Moscow, not Washington. Having Obama and Clinton go crawling to them begging forgiveness and another chance is pathetic, and will be seen as weak. Putin is an opportunist of the highest order, and will take advantage of it, and already is by making new demands in return for this completely fake "reset".

[Valmy]

We should have conquered mexico back in '48.

That border with Belize and Hondoras is certainly alot easier to build a fence across.

[Sheilbh]

Arguing that we should not expand NATO because to do so does not meet our needs is one thing - giving Moscow a veto on the decision is something else entirely.

Your post is apologism - just justification for why kowtowing to the Russians and doing as they tell us really isn't such a terrible idea.

"Trading" missile defense for Russian help in stopping Iran from getting nukes is a terrible idea - for no reason other than that Russia is and will simply make a deal with us, then turn around and do whatever the fuck they want anyway. It is a pipe dream to believe that they will actually do ANYTHING that is not explicitly in their own narrow interests, no matter what deal they "make" outside those interests. This fantasy that the only thing stopping Iran is Russia, and if we can only get them on board all our problems with Iran will go away is as silly as the entire "Gee, lets make it all better by pushing the reset button!" crap.

Would the technology worked on so far suddenly go away?  If explained to the Poles and the Czechs would the missile sites?  They renege on the deal then missile defence comes back.  I don't see the problem.

As far as NATO is concerned, it is whatever we say it is - there is nothing written in stone that makes it a purely defensive arrangement. It is, if anything, a check to Russian aggression, and if adding more countries is necessary as a means of checking Russia, then we would be fools to give up that negotiating chip in some naive dream that if only we give up anything we can pressure Russia with, then we won't need to pressure them anymore.

Actually the NATO charter says it's a defensive alliance.  We've expanded its remit since the Cold War to try and give it a new, more modern raison d'etre.  Personally I don't think it needs one.  I think it makes plenty of sense to have a defensive alliance in Europe.  And as it's a defensive alliances I think member states should only be added if we're willing to defend them absolutely in the case of war, not to 'check Russia'.  And I think the last bit that if give up anything we won't ever need to pressure them again is just a straw man.

So no, I don't think promises not to expand NATO are "low-cost". I don't think any kind of promise based on soem silly idea of goodwill and brotherly love is "low-cost". They certainly are not approaching their relationship with the US in any such naive manner.

It's not based on a silly idea of goodwill or brotherly love. 
We're going to expand to the Balkans and the Russians are okay with that.
Any further expansion will have to pass the hurdle of the French government who, quite sensibly, don't really see the point of any of the possible other members joining. 
So, apart from the Balkans there won't be any further NATO expansion.
Promising that, for the forseeable future, costs, well it costs what exactly?  How is naive to base seemingly idealistic sounding policies on the real world rather than building castles in the clouds on the basis of a very illusory realism?

[Warspite]

What terrible concessions has Obama made so far?

It's one thing to make conciliatory statements - wake me up when Obama hands over the Sudetenland or lets troops back in the Rhineland.

[KRonn]

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.

Yeah, I worry about the same thing. Pres Bush was suckered by Russia. I kind of think that Pres Obama will get suckered a few times, then realize differently about some relations issues. It may be too late by then on some issues, as the damage may be done. Even worse is if the same attitude prevails and the olive branches keep going out, and keep getting used/abused.

[Sheilbh]

There is always an opportunity to reset the tone - the naive part is the assumption that the tone has been set by the US, and it is up to us to reset it, or that we can do so unilaterlally - that it will get better if only the US stops being such assholes.

Well, actually, Clinton and her counterpart pressed the 'reset' button, so I think in terms of images it was 'we're both going to work together better now'.  I didn't say the tone was set by the US, but that part of it was.  That's all.

The reality is that Bush kissed Russian ass in his first term. He bent over backward trying to get them onboard with the entire "Russia is part and parcel of Europe and by extension the West, and we should all be together..." crap. Russia kicked him in the teeth in thanks.

Yes.  He bent over backwards and talked about Putin's soul, while, at the same time, presiding over the largest ever NATO expansion, including 3 countries that bordered with Russia.  There was also some nastiness over Iraq.  I think Bush was superficially chummy while actually continuing the Clinton policy of taking advantage of Russia's comparative weakness.  It wasn't a bad policy.

Of course the Russians were happier with Bush's second term because they had more oil and were able to play the great I am.  They were accorded a respect and importance that they hadn't enjoyed for 15 years.

The "tone" has been set by Moscow, not Washington. Having Obama and Clinton go crawling to them begging forgiveness and another chance is pathetic, and will be seen as weak. Putin is an opportunist of the highest order, and will take advantage of it, and already is by making new demands in return for this completely fake "reset".

What demands has he made?  I don't understand the begging or the patheticness.  They've met them in Geneva and had an overload button to press, a couple of PR plays, at best.  Meanwhile there's what seems to me a highly plausible deal on the table over Iran.

The tone has been the product of a number of circumstances and events and is more possible to change now than it has been for the past 5 years.

[Sheilbh]

And to give an example of the power individual states (like France) have over membership, Greece has repeatedly blocked Macedonian membership because of the naming dispute.  So, presumably, they'll never be in until they change the name of their country

[Grallon]

Ah, another of Berkut's chest beating session is underway.

What part of "America can't rule alone" is so difficult to understand ? 




G.

[KRonn]

Ah, another of Berkut's chest beating session is underway.

What part of "America can't rule alone" is so difficult to understand ? 




G.

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!   

[Grallon]

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.

[grumbler]

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.

The alternative, of course, is the much more cost-effective one of interdicting the drug traffic on a number of planes, but from some reason the Fortress Amerikka types never see that as a viable option.