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

[Valmy]

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.

Oh I agree.  I was talking about China in that sentence though.

[The Minsky Moment]

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".

I see that you wrote your initial comment before doing the search and realizing Gates' view.  It is true I can't find him actually using the word "boondoggle".  Given that he was on watch as SecDef at a time when official policy was to push forward with deployment, that would be a little embarassing.  But he has quite clearly expressed public doubts about its technical feasibility and cost - and the translation from bureaucratese for press consumption to plain English comes out to "boondoggle".

As for the Russians, their main interest is spinning stories for domestic consumption and maintaining "face".  As a real superpower, we shouldn't feel the need to engage in similar behavior.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

But in fact we've given up nothing.

[Sheilbh]

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.

The US is in a position of strength, or, at least, Russia's in a position of comparative weakness.

[Neil]

Actually, it's possible that Obama won't concede anything to Russia.  After all, Obama's defining trait is his egotism.  It's possible that he will be offended by Russia's refusal to simply worship him.

[Neil]

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.

But can that be prevented?  The only time Russia was relatively quiet was when they had been completely crushed, after the fall of their empire.

[The Brain]

We Swedes know that Russia will always be an enemy of the West. Russia needs to be beaten when it's weak and opposed when it's strong. There can never be true peace with Russia because Russia doesn't want peace, and never will.

[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.

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.

Well, I think Putin acts in a rational way, that doesn't mean that it is rational for Russias interests, but of course I ahve a differing view on what is good for Russia than Putin.

I do think that overall Russia's stance is not irrational per se - it is just, in many ways, predicated on setting themselves up in opposition to US interests. I don't even see that finding common ground is all that possible given the current perspective calling the shots in Moscow, since the basis of their domestic policy requires that the US be the boogeyman sticking it to the poor Russians.

It is similar to how the Arabs approach Palestine - you can talk about coming to some agreement on partitiions or lines on the map, but you realize how hopeless it is once you understand that the goal is not peace, but continued conflict. So anything you come up with will fail, since success is not desired.

Russia does not want to be a "normal" western nation, dealing with the US in the normal way that other western nations deal with the US. Because that means they are just one of many, and not a particularly powerful one at that. So, IMO, they need this tension, and will continue to create it, and we should deal with them understanding that.

[Berkut]

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".

I see that you wrote your initial comment before doing the search and realizing Gates' view.  It is true I can't find him actually using the word "boondoggle".  Given that he was on watch as SecDef at a time when official policy was to push forward with deployment, that would be a little embarassing.  But he has quite clearly expressed public doubts about its technical feasibility and cost - and the translation from bureaucratese for press consumption to plain English comes out to "boondoggle".

Actually my view on Gates did not change between the time of my intial response and doing a quick google search. Because he at no time has ever expressed anything like the sentiment that the missile defense project was a boondoggle.

Spin however you like, but until you show me a source where he says anything of the kind, I will presume you were just making things up.

So...back to my original question:

O RLY?

Cite?

[Berkut]

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.

But in fact we've given up nothing.

You just said we were giving up the "boondoggle" missile defense project.

And how has Obama reacted to Russia stated intention of selling S-300 SAMs to Iran? Or his presuring to get US bases shut down?

I guess if you just define away the things we give up as "nothing" or claim that they are "boondoggles" or claim that people call them boondoggles when they do not, then you can conclude that we give up "nothing".

This is like arguing that Germany re-occupying the Rhineland is "nothing" since Germany really didn't have much a military at the time anyway, and really - who gives a shit about the Rhineland anyway?

[Berkut]

On the off chance that anyway might really care about Gates and the Obama administration views on the missile defense shield and its future:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gates20-2009feb20,0,6062742.story

Funny, they are a lot more sane and rational about it than JR. Note the conspicuous absence of the word "boondoggle" in the entire article.

[grumbler]

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

Maybe we had the same administration, and the only reason why no administration has every been anything but a "wuss" in your eyes is because they cannot.  Of course, that would make your casual assumption that Fortress America is simply a matter of will look silly.

[Razgovory]

Actually my view on Gates did not change between the time of my intial response and doing a quick google search. Because he at no time has ever expressed anything like the sentiment that the missile defense project was a boondoggle.

Spin however you like, but until you show me a source where he says anything of the kind, I will presume you were just making things up.

So...back to my original question:

O RLY?

Cite?

Well just to be fair please cite where Obama has his hat in his hand?

[derspiess]

Maybe we had the same administration, and the only reason why no administration has every been anything but a "wuss" in your eyes is because they cannot.  Of course, that would make your casual assumption that Fortress America is simply a matter of will look silly.

Leaving aside for the moment your "Fortress America" strawman attempt, tell me what radical rightwing militaristic measures the Bush administration took in regards to the southern border.

[Berkut]

Actually my view on Gates did not change between the time of my intial response and doing a quick google search. Because he at no time has ever expressed anything like the sentiment that the missile defense project was a boondoggle.

Spin however you like, but until you show me a source where he says anything of the kind, I will presume you were just making things up.

So...back to my original question:

O RLY?

Cite?

Well just to be fair please cite where Obama has his hat in his hand?

That is the message his entire approach to Russia has sent - that the onus for "fixing" the relationship is on the US, and the fault for it being acrimonious is the previous administrations.

Notethe difference between me puptting forth MY opinion, and JR stating that Gates told Obama "the missile defense system is a wateful, expensive boondoggle - that should be ditched in any case."

Gates, of course, has said nothing of the kind. He certainly has never said it was a "boondoggle" that should be ditched "in any case".