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

[Berkut]

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.

That is a good question.

But I think it presents a false dilemna - there is nothing about a strong or weak Russia that makes their actions constrained. They could act in a hostile manner towards the US whether they are weak or strong, relatively, and have done so over the last ten years or so.

IMO, this is due more to their particular leadership than their relative strength. They are belligerent because their leadership thinks that is how they can remain politically relevant, and that seems to be true when they were flush with cash and now that they are not.

Of course, you could argue that they were actually weak in both cases.

I think the real problem is that Putin et al need an enemy to maintain their hold on what is (in Western standards) illegitimate power. The last decade has made that clear, or at least made it clear that they think they need to, which amounts to the same thing.

[DGuller]

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.

Has Russia ever been strong?  It seems like throughout its entire history Russia has been acting out of weakness.

[Berkut]

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.

I think in most of those cases, they may have had some help, and in many of them were not exactly fighting the nasty Napoleons or Hitlers out of any sense of moral duty to protect the world from totalitarianism.

Nor do I really think there is any kind of potential threat of that kind now, or anytime in the near future. Maybe China? Seems implausible.

[Admiral Yi]

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.

:huh:The conventional wisdom is that they and the Chinese are the ones blocking more vigorous sanctions.  If you have some private information that would correct this misperception, please share it.

[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.

Has Russia ever been strong?  It seems like throughout its entire history Russia has been acting out of weakness.

A pathological sense of inferiority and strength are not at all antithetical.

[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.

I think in most of those cases, they may have had some help, and in many of them were not exactly fighting the nasty Napoleons or Hitlers out of any sense of moral duty to protect the world from totalitarianism.

Nor do I really think there is any kind of potential threat of that kind now, or anytime in the near future. Maybe China? Seems implausible.

Somehow I doubt the Ozone layer takes pride out of defending me from cancer.

And China is the most obvious; a Chinese invasion of a strong Russia through Siberia has clusterfuck written all over it. 

[Admiral Yi]

Has Russia ever been strong?  It seems like throughout its entire history Russia has been acting out of weakness.

From the Napoleonic War up to the Russo-Japanese they were called the Russian Steamroller.

[Queequeg]

Has Russia ever been strong?  It seems like throughout its entire history Russia has been acting out of weakness.

From the Napoleonic War up to the Russo-Japanese they were called the Russian Steamroller.

Crimea?  With only a few exceptions Russia has been far stronger on defense than attack.

[Berkut]

Somehow I doubt the Ozone layer takes pride out of defending me from cancer.

And China is the most obvious; a Chinese invasion of a strong Russia through Siberia has clusterfuck written all over it. 

Indeed. And I would hesitate to say that the Ozone layer is responsible for saving you from lung cnacer so we should go ahead and let it screw us over in other areas.

We don't need a strong Russia to save us from the Chinese. The best argument for a strong Russia is that hopefully if they are comfortable they will stop acting like such paranoid dickheads.

There are two problems with this though:

1. There idea of the power they ought to have and the realistic assessment of the power they can reasonably have are wildly divergent, as far as I can tell. It isn't enough for them to be an equal in the Western world with the other non-US Western nations - they want to be a superpower again, or at least a superpower-lite, and there isn't any reason to suppose that they can, will, or that it would be good for anyone but themselves if they were

2. They have pretty good historical reason for their paranoia - so I don't really see how to overcome that. If *I* were Russian, I would probably be pretty convinced the rest of the Western world was dangerous and not to be trusted, and act accordingly.

I don't think Russias actions are very hard to understand in context - I just think they are in a position where they are not going to see any upside to being anything but an antagonist to the US. And they are acting accordingly.

[Sheilbh]

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

You're making leaps here.  I said patronising, maybe that's the wrong word.  I mean superficially preposterous and 'weak', whereas Clinton was patronising.  President Bush looking into Putin's eyes and so on is difficult to describe.  I don't think that side of things justifies Russian hostility.  Though I think a feeling of humiliation and no longer being at the top table that was instilled through the 90s does explain later hostility.

I agree that we were overly friendly in the first term, but I don't think that was a mistake except in hindsight. Hell, I was quite the Russophile at the time - I thought Russia was going to move into the Western sphere. Shrug. live and learn - Bush certainly did.

How were you overly friendly in the first term?  You said loving things while expanding NATO, for the first time, to Russia's border.  You also supported three revolutions in 'Russian' states that saw pro-western, democratic governments emerge, for the first time there were American troops in their near-abroad and you pushed ahead with a missile defence programme that they believed aimed at them.

Now that doesn't mean the policies were bad.  I'd support at least three-quarters of it but I think the idea that the Bush administration, from a Russian perspective, was friendly is a bit bizarre.  The mood music may have been nice but the policy was pretty hard-headed and sensible.

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

Russian weakness, I think.  Which is why I think Obama's policy so far (and it's very early) is quite sensible.  Treat them with Cold War era respect (inviting them to meet in Geneva and so on) while offering relatively minimal and verifiable deals.  If they're weak and feel it, then I think they'll cause more issues that if they're weak but feel respected.

[derspiess]

President Bush looking into Putin's eyes and so on is difficult to describe.  I don't think that side of things justifies Russian hostility.  Though I think a feeling of humiliation and no longer being at the top table that was instilled through the 90s does explain later hostility.

I think Bush gets somewhat of an unfair rap about his "eye/soul" comment-- I don't think Bush or anyone in the administration genuinely thought Putin or the rest of the Russian leadership were good guys.  I think it was just the administration's well-intentioned (but wrong IMO) approach to speak of the Russians as we wanted them to be/act, hoping that would somehow influence them to act/be that way. 

Russians (at least not the ones in charge) don't think like Westerners; I wish we'd quit treating them like they were.

[Admiral Yi]

Crimea?  With only a few exceptions Russia has been far stronger on defense than attack.

It took the combined efforts of two major powers and two lesser states to eke out a bare victory over Russia in Crimea.

[saskganesh]

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.

Has Russia ever been strong?  It seems like throughout its entire history Russia has been acting out of weakness.

sure. as early as the 7 years war they have been feared. Freddy II almost killed himself out of military impotence.

[garbon]

Which is why I think Obama's policy so far (and it's very early) is quite sensible.

I don't think that's the real reason why.

[Neil]

I think in most of those cases, they may have had some help, and in many of them were not exactly fighting the nasty Napoleons or Hitlers out of any sense of moral duty to protect the world from totalitarianism.

A good point.  In every case, Russia was actually worse than the power that they constrained.