2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Roy Karrde]

and? that is how the presidential term system operates

Last time I checked no President has offered a Quid Pro Quo on National Security for their reelection, last time anything has come close to this would be Ted Kennedy in 1984.

do you interpret this to mean that obama would somehow totally reverse the current expansion of the missile defense project once the current negotiated silence is over? even though the exact same objections have existed during the recent buildup?

By offering to negotiate from a position of more flexibility ( ie weakness) that is the only conclusion to draw.

what does it matter
either:
1) obama is not reelected and security has been provided in the meantime by the negotiated continuation of the status quo
2) obama is reelected and the same happens until some point at the future when diplomatic negotiations resume. at which point ahmadinejad won't be in power, ground missile defense deployments will still be years away (2015), etc

You assume that it would be two or more years until this happens, Russia clearly sees this as a clear and present danger to them, and as such would be willing to call Obama on this once he is reelected. You also seem to believe that Ahmadinejad is the power in Iran ( He's not ).

premise: russia doesn't invade at the drop of a hat
evidence: russia and georgia were engaged in decades of conflict before the 2008 invasion

Conclusion: The events that led up to the invasion in 2008 were essentially Russia finding a excuse to invade Georgia, ie a drop of a hat.

[kurai]

By offering to negotiate from a position of more flexibility ( ie weakness) that is the only conclusion to draw.

You assume that it would be two or more years until this happens, Russia clearly sees this as a clear and present danger to them, and as such would be willing to call Obama on this once he is reelected.

actually, assuming that obama achieves a large margin of victory, the alternate conclusion would be one of strength. he could gain a mandate for decisive action, thus allowing for a defense of GMD/etc

russia does not see this as a clear and present danger evidenced by the fact that a negotiated silence was possible. thus the status quo of a perceived threat against russia is allowed to continue, and now it does so without even an objection.

You also seem to believe that Ahmadinejad is the power in Iran ( He's not ).

the point is that he is currently a material pariah who will no longer be available for scapegoating by that point

[Roy Karrde]

actually, assuming that obama achieves a large margin of victory, the alternate conclusion would be one of strength. he could gain a mandate for decisive action, thus allowing for a defense of GMD/etc

The mandate would be for the American people, and on the other hand such a mandate could and probably would be viewed on Russia as being used to disable the missile defense system for good. As Obama is not running as a foreign policy wok and such a foreign policy exercise could be done with the political capital gained from the election. You seem to think that the flexibility garnered Obama after the election will give him a greater stand against Russia. If true then Russia obviously wouldn't agree to such a deal now would they? In this partnership they see the flexibility Obama proposes as giving them a position of strength in future negotiations, as they would be negotiating with a leader who does not have to worry about what the populous thinks about him.

russia does not see this as a clear and present danger evidenced by the fact that a negotiated silence was possible. thus the status quo of a perceived threat against russia is allowed to continue, and now it does so without even an objection.

The only reason Russia is possibility willing to maintain it's silence is that Obama has guaranteed more flexibility in the position after he is reelected since he does not have to run again. Waiting a year to get everything you want on something you see as a danger to you, is clearly worth the time.

the point is that he is currently a material pariah who will no longer be available for scapegoating by that point

The greater point is that the people who preside as a threat from Iran and who the missile system was built to contain will still be in power. Thus the threat will still remain.

"continued sporadic military engagements escalated into an outright war" = "invasion at the drop of a hat"

this does not add up

Yes small skirmishes escalating by Russia to outright invasion shows Russia is willing to use overkill and invade at the drop of a hat.

[kurai]

The mandate would be for the American people, and on the other hand such a mandate could and probably would be viewed on Russia as being used to disable the missile defense system for good. As Obama is not running as a foreign policy wok and such a foreign policy exercise could be done with the political capital gained from the election. You seem to think that the flexibility garnered Obama after the election will give him a greater stand against Russia. If true then Russia obviously wouldn't agree to such a deal now would they? In this partnership they see the flexibility Obama proposes as giving them a position of strength in future negotiations, as they would be negotiating with a leader who does not have to worry about what the populous thinks about him.

The only reason Russia is possibility willing to maintain it's silence is that Obama has guaranteed more flexibility in the position after he is reelected since he does not have to run again. Waiting a year to get everything you want on something you see as a danger to you, is clearly worth the time.

yes, russia thinks this position is advantageous. why is it impossible that obama also thinks this position is advantageous?

really, this is an obvious case of realpolitik being revealed - both gain an advantage from putting this issue off until after the election.

being able to debate an issue such as this in 2014 will be useful for the legitimacy of rule - the actual expansion under obama remains, the ongoing objection of russia remains. neither party has an absolute ground on which an opposition could take hold. if you hold an advantageous domestic position, being able to maintain such a position for the next election cycle is helpful (as in the united states). "russia getting everything it wants" is not actually what russian political operators want; authoritarian elite power only makes sense with an us-versus-them mindset. this is a mindset of the cold war, and it remains in the populace (for now), and thus the ability for continued saber-rattling in the future benefits the maintenance of power (as in russia).

and in the meantime, the ships remain deployed!

The greater point is that the people who preside as a threat from Iran and who the missile system was built to contain will still be in power. Thus the threat will still remain.

this is not nearly as certain as you suggest. as with the threat against the russian elite, nothing is absolutely safe from revolution, but the threat of military action remains contained.

Yes small skirmishes escalating by Russia to outright invasion shows Russia is willing to use overkill and invade at the drop of a hat.

this is not what "invade at the drop of a hat" means. it is the opposite. it is gradual development towards invasion.

[Roy Karrde]

yes, russia thinks this position is advantageous. why is it impossible that obama also thinks this position is advantageous?

Oh I have no doubt Obama thinks this position is advantageous, it allows him to take a problem off the table, while doing away with a missile shield that is not front of mind for the American people, and avoid the political fall out.

being able to debate an issue such as this in 2014 will be useful for the legitimacy of rule - the actual expansion under obama remains, the ongoing objection of russia remains. neither party has an absolute ground on which an opposition could take hold. if you hold an advantageous domestic position, being able to maintain such a position for the next election cycle is helpful (as in the united states). "russia getting everything it wants" is not actually what russian political operators want; authoritarian elite power only makes sense with an us-versus-them mindset. this is a mindset of the cold war, and it remains in the populace (for now), and thus the ability for continued saber-rattling in the future benefits the maintenance of power (as in russia).

Oh Russia can still contain the us versus them mentality, only now it is "We were able to bring down the great America to our demands" something that will go over very well with the populous. And I will remind you that Obama offering to give more flexibility in this situation actually ceeds ground to Russia.

this is not nearly as certain as you suggest. as with the threat against the russian elite, nothing is absolutely safe from revolution, but the threat of military action remains contained.

Iran has shown previously they will brutally crack down on even the slightest whiff of a protest against them, the possibility of a actual revolution any time soon is fairly unlikely. Not to mention a actual revolution taking place in Iran may be even more dangerous, as they could try to instigate the U.S. or Israel into attacking, or attack a country in a type of "Wag the Dog" scenario to gain patriotic support back at home.

this is not what "invade at the drop of a hat" means. it is the opposite. it is gradual development towards invasion.

Except there was no real gradual development, you can have skirmishes back and forth, but Russia decided that it was time to put the hammer down on Georgia, this wasn't something that was a slow build up for years. It went from small skirmishes to outright invasion in nearly the blink of a eye.

[kurai]

Oh I have no doubt Obama thinks this position is advantageous, it allows him to take a problem off the table, while doing away with a missile shield that is not front of mind for the American people, and avoid the political fall out.

Oh Russia can still contain the us versus them mentality, only now it is "We were able to bring down the great America to our demands" something that will go over very well with the populous. And I will remind you that Obama offering to give more flexibility in this situation actually ceeds ground to Russia.

it does not cede any ground. you are operating on the assumption that obama is weak on foreign policy and that he wants the missile shield to be 'done away with', even though it is being maintained by the current action, and has been expanded over the course of his administration.

neither party wants the missile shield issue to go away. neither party wants the current deployment of the missile shield to go away. look at the actual results.

Iran has shown previously they will brutally crack down on even the slightest whiff of a protest against them, the possibility of a actual revolution any time soon is fairly unlikely. Not to mention a actual revolution taking place in Iran may be even more dangerous, as they could try to instigate the U.S. or Israel into attacking, or attack a country in a type of "Wag the Dog" scenario to gain patriotic support back at home.

i'm not saying it is immediately likely, but rather that it is possible so long as their foreign affairs remain contained (and this is the best case scenario for the current long-term strategy).

Except there was no real gradual development, you can have skirmishes back and forth, but Russia decided that it was time to put the hammer down on Georgia, this wasn't something that was a slow build up for years. It went from small skirmishes to outright invasion in nearly the blink of a eye.

"you can have skirmishes back and forth"? the actual timeline is like: years of sporadic conflict involving increasingly dangerous violence and threats led into months of increasingly deadly skirmishes which led into military buildup and invasion.

you can disagree that this is a gradual development of conflict (though this seems definitionally mistaken), but it really has no bearing on the threat of invasion for western europe or the united states, which is the actual issue at hand. in such cases, the russians make noise but do nothing.

and this "nothing" is the situation, in actual fact, that exists right now between russia and the missile shield deployment! they haven't done anything about it, and they don't have any real reason to do so - noise is helpful domestically, but they are actually looking for enhanced global economic integration, so the threat of russia is out of the question.

[Roy Karrde]

it does not cede any ground. you are operating on the assumption that obama is weak on foreign policy and that he wants the missile shield to be 'done away with', even though it is being maintained by the current action, and has been expanded over the course of his administration.

neither party wants the missile shield issue to go away. neither party wants the current deployment of the missile shield to go away. look at the actual results.

I am sure Russia wouldn't mind having it go away, as it is one less foreign policy headache to deal with. Obama may or may not be weak on foreign policy, but saying he will be more flexible after the election gives off the view that he would be more willing to give into Russia's demands once he does not have to worry about his own political hide.

i'm not saying it is immediately likely, but rather that it is possible so long as their foreign affairs remain contained (and this is the best case scenario for the current long-term strategy).

It is a rather frail possibility after the attempted revolution and the failure that brought about. Not to mention the Iranian populous remaining quiet during the Arab Spring.

"you can have skirmishes back and forth"? the actual timeline is like: years of sporadic conflict involving increasingly dangerous violence and threats led into months of increasingly deadly skirmishes which led into military buildup and invasion.

you can disagree that this is a gradual development of conflict (though this seems definitionally mistaken), but it really has no bearing on the threat of invasion for western europe or the united states, which is the actual issue at hand. in such cases, the russians make noise but do nothing.

You seem to also forget that Georgia was not even engaging in fighting in Russian territory during this, they were fighting with a breakaway Provence and Russia decided it was time to bring Georgia to it's knees.

and this "nothing" is the situation, in actual fact, that exists right now between russia and the missile shield deployment! they haven't done anything about it, and they don't have any real reason to do so - noise is helpful domestically, but they are actually looking for enhanced global economic integration, so the threat of russia is out of the question.

And the missile shield was never meant to target Russia, it was there to target Iran, but here is the thing Russia and Iran are good buddies especially when it comes to oil. You cannot tell me there is not some back channel pressure from Iran to Russia to make this shield go away.

[kurai]

Conclusion: The events that led up to the invasion in 2008 were essentially Russia finding a excuse to invade Georgia, ie a drop of a hat.

"continued sporadic military engagements escalated into an outright war" = "invasion at the drop of a hat"

this does not add up