2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Roy Karrde]

again, both sides can take mutual advantage from putting it off

on a practical level, obama can not give in on this issue without harming the party in 2014 and 2016 (and as above, he has no reason to reverse his current course)

You assume Obama actually cares about his party over himself or his political beliefs.

Furthermore you assume that Russia wont immediately call in all their chips to get it done. They have been chomping at the bit to get this missile shield down, including using our own START treaty renewal to argue that it made the missile shield illegal.

uh yeah

the whole point is that the separatists have been russian-backed for decades

since the russians were thus 'in' and 'with' south ossetia they considered the ongoing build-up of conflict to be against them (and their allies)

this is the entire justification for their involvement

I am sure, and it is a fairly weak justification, especially when Georgia did not actually threaten Russia directly with attacking South Ossetia, nor does it call for Russia's response of not only invading Georgia but driving toward the capital.

you have already cited an article in which "Russia and NATO have agreed to work on the missile shield but NATO wants it to be based on two independent systems that exchange information, while Russia favors a joint system with full-scale interoperability"... is this simply a lie? there are multiple interests involved.

Of which they knew NATO would not agree to a joint system as Russia's military dealings with Iran would make such system void of any purpose.

they could easily move forward on this, but they do not because of such regional interests (as you mention) on the part of russia, and because having this issue continue provides a useful target for 'noise' (as i argued above).

Which is a failed argument, if they wished to use it as a noise they would not have gone the radical step of actually attempting to use the START treaty to stop the missile shield, and even saying that by continuing it, it would make the START treaty void.

the status quo on the missile shield is not one favoring iran, it favors america, europe, and russia. as russia is increasingly looking to integrate with america and europe, the status quo remains. russia's economic interest in iran is tiny compared to that with europe: european defense is thus beneficial to russia. this is why nothing serious changes despite their "objections" - they are false objections.

You seem to have this rather false belief that Russia is looking for the status quo, despite the fact that not only have they become a vocal supporter of Iran at the UN, but also have attempted to shut down the missile shield at every turn. Not to mention the fact that Russia has a sizable military and economic intrest in Iran due to it's trade in war assets and economic assets with the country.

[kurai]

You assume Obama actually cares about his party over himself or his political beliefs.

yeah i am pretty confident that obama cares about the outcome of the midterm elections and the future of the country

to argue against this would be nonsensical

I am sure, and it is a fairly weak justification, especially when Georgia did not actually threaten Russia directly with attacking South Ossetia, nor does it call for Russia's response of not only invading Georgia but driving toward the capital.

i'm not at all saying that the war was justified. merely that the russians can portray the escalation against separatists as an escalation against themselves. thus, a gradual escalation of skirmish into the all-out invasion. which is what happened...

but russia does not conduct itself in this fashion anywhere other than the south caucasus - this is also the only area in which russian-allied separatists engage in conflict with another state. this has no bearing on the rest of europe or the united states - and one can not characterize any gradual escalation of conflict in these areas as a consequence.

Furthermore you assume that Russia wont immediately call in all their chips to get it done. They have been chomping at the bit to get this missile shield down, including using our own START treaty renewal to argue that it made the missile shield illegal.

...

Of which they knew NATO would not agree to a joint system as Russia's military dealings with Iran would make such system void of any purpose.

Which is a failed argument, if they wished to use it as a noise they would not have gone the radical step of actually attempting to use the START treaty to stop the missile shield, and even saying that by continuing it, it would make the START treaty void.

You seem to have this rather false belief that Russia is looking for the status quo, despite the fact that not only have they become a vocal supporter of Iran at the UN, but also have attempted to shut down the missile shield at every turn. Not to mention the fact that Russia has a sizable military and economic intrest in Iran due to it's trade in war assets and economic assets with the country.

all evidence indicates the development and deployment of missile shield technology in europe to defend against iran.

russia has taken no practical steps to stop this process (because a secure europe is in russia's interests) - in fact, we find the argument in your citation that they object as they aren't able to participate in this security themselves (as in the proposed joint plan).

of course, they engage in open objection against the process. we find two reasons for this

1) it helps legitimize their system of government: a cold war mindset in nationalist supporters remains prevalent, and this is a process which is historically effective at justifying authoritarian rule in russia
2) it also maintains positive relations with iran. but while russia is an important trade partner for iran, iran is not nearly as important to russia. the key here is russia's development of WTO accession and bilateral relations with the EU! we're talking hundreds of billions in trade compared to merely billions.

even if you think the russians somehow are motivated towards harming themselves through the development of a less secure europe, we find news today that they have agreed to not do so. that's the whole story which this discussion opened on. look at the actual outcome here! it is an easy task for the russian government to cry about something which benefits them while making no practical difference on the matter.

the logical conclusion is to find that they do not favor harming their own interests, they have not done so on this issue, and will not do so in the future (as their ties with the EU grow).

[Roy Karrde]

yeah i am pretty confident that obama cares about the outcome of the midterm elections and the future of the country

to argue against this would be nonsensical

Is that why he did little to campaign in the 2010 midterms? Or why he is refusing to give Congressional Democrats money?

First thing you need to realize is that Obama cares about himself above all else.

i'm not at all saying that the war was justified. merely that the russians can portray the escalation against separatists as an escalation against themselves. thus, a gradual escalation of skirmish into the all-out invasion. which is what happened...

That sounds more like Russia was fishing for a excuse to go to war.

but russia does not conduct itself in this fashion anywhere other than the south caucasus - this is also the only area in which russian-allied separatists engage in conflict with another state. this has no bearing on the rest of europe or the united states - and one can not characterize any gradual escalation of conflict in these areas as a consequence.

That is rather false, Russia has shown itself to go to war when ever it feels like it can gain back a piece of it's previous empire. Georgia in this example. Chechnia in the past.

russia has taken no practical steps to stop this process (because a secure europe is in russia's interests) - in fact, we find the argument in your citation that they object as they aren't able to participate in this security themselves (as in the proposed joint plan).

No steps to stop this process? You mean like threatening to target the missile shield in Europe or saying the START treaty is invalid with the missile shield? funny that sounds like they are trying to take steps to stop the process.

of course, they engage in open objection against the process. we find two reasons for this

1) it helps legitimize their system of government: a cold war mindset in nationalist supporters remains prevalent, and this is a process which is historically effective at justifying authoritarian rule in russia
2) it also maintains positive relations with iran. but while russia is an important trade partner for iran, iran is not nearly as important to russia. the key here is russia's development of WTO accession and bilateral relations with the EU! we're talking hundreds of billions in trade compared to merely billions.

You keep saying that Russia wants to have bilateral relations with the EU and that they are working toward Europe, but nothing could be further from the truth. Russia continues to defy the EU by keeping close military relations with Iran, they defy the EU by supplying military arms and even anti terrorist troops to Syria, they routinely threaten to shut off the gas to the EU as a means to create a energy crisis. These are not the acts of a nation that is willing to develop deeper relations with the EU, in fact it looks like a nation looking to regress into it's old Soviet Union ways of us versus the rest of the world.

even if you think the russians somehow are motivated towards harming themselves through the development of a less secure europe, we find news today that they have agreed to not do so. that's the whole story which this discussion opened on. look at the actual outcome here! it is an easy task for the russian government to cry about something which benefits them while making no practical difference on the matter.

the logical conclusion is to find that they do not favor harming their own interests, they have not done so on this issue, and will not do so in the future (as their ties with the EU grow).

You mean as their ties with the EU falter, but lets be clear here, by trying to take away the missile shield they are opening up the EU to attack, period, no other way around it.

Edit: By the way, Poland is starting to worry that Obama is selling them down the river

[kurai]

First thing you need to realize is that Obama cares about himself above all else.

total partisan nonsense

That sounds more like Russia was fishing for a excuse to go to war.

That is rather false, Russia has shown itself to go to war when ever it feels like it can gain back a piece of it's previous empire. Georgia in this example. Chechnia in the past. If Russia feels that expansionist tingle again, what is there to stop them?

uh
chechnya is not a counter-example

it also relates to separatists in the caucasus region. the difference that it involves a movement separating from russia (post soviet dissolution), rather than from georgia (while allied to the interests of russia).

there is no reason to think post-soviet territorial disputes are at all comparable to a threat to the rest of europe or the united states.

No steps to stop this process? You mean like threatening to target the missile shield in Europe or saying the START treaty is invalid with the missile shield? funny that sounds like they are trying to take steps to stop the process.

yes, amazing. a bunch of threats which have... not stopped the process. russia is not serious about stopping the process: the process is not stopped. it only sounds like they are trying to stop it.

i cite as evidence the fact that it hasn't stopped. in fact, it has become a practical reality and expanded to its current levels during the obama administration.

You keep saying that Russia wants to have bilateral relations with the EU and that they are working toward Europe, but nothing could be further from the truth. Russia continues to defy the EU by keeping close military relations with Iran, they defy the EU by supplying military arms and even anti terrorist troops to Syria, they routinely threaten to shut off the gas to the EU as a means to create a energy crisis. These are not the acts of a nation that is willing to develop deeper relations with the EU, in fact it looks like a nation looking to regress into it's old Soviet Union ways of us versus the rest of the world.

You mean as their ties with the EU falter, but lets be clear here, by trying to take away the missile shield they are opening up the EU to attack, period, no other way around it.

Edit: By the way, Poland is starting to worry that Obama is selling them down the river

wild stuff.

russia has spent 20 years building towards joining the WTO, but somehow their saber-rattling outweighs their interest in multilateral economic integration. russia relies on the EU for 50% of its trade, and 80% of its oil exports - but no, a few billion in trade with iran is worth destabilizing this system.

no measures are actually being taken by russia to persuade the united states to drawback the existing naval deployment. only threats. threats do not change the existing security deployment, they only act as a reminder to bolster the domestic legitimacy of a rule which relies on russia being perceived as a primary world power.

in the meantime, economic integration continues. european security is necessary for this - russia's "objections" are not serious. a system for such security is in place. it does not go away with today's news. it is unreasonable to argue that anyone in power would actually want it to vanish.

[Roy Karrde]

total partisan nonsense

Yeah he just decided to with hold funds for Democrats in Congress because he cares about everyone.

uh
chechnya is not a counter-example

it also relates to separatists in the caucasus region. the difference that it involves a movement separating from russia (post soviet dissolution), rather than from georgia (while allied to the interests of russia).

there is no reason to think post-soviet territorial disputes are at all comparable to a threat to the rest of europe or the united states.

You hope so, yet Russia's willingness to invade territories to regain previously held territory is a worrisome trend. As Heald said, even if there is a 1 and 1,000 chance, there is still a chance.

yes, amazing. a bunch of threats which have... not stopped the process. russia is not serious about stopping the process: the process is not stopped. it only sounds like they are trying to stop it.

So they were only not serious about amassing missiles to target sites, they were only not serious to working to consider breaking the START treaty. Don't look now, but they seem to be pretty serious about stopping this thing.

i cite as evidence the fact that it hasn't stopped. in fact, it has become a practical reality and expanded to its current levels during the obama administration.

That isn't much evidence, Russia has grown more and more impatient with the START treaty as evidence of them willing to attack the sites. Considering this has been growing since the previous administration, the more and more aggressive stands Russia is taking, and the willingness of Obama to make sure they do not act even more aggressively over the next few months. Shows that the White House is taking Russia's anger seriously.

wild stuff.

russia has spent 20 years building towards joining the WTO, but somehow their saber-rattling outweighs their interest in multilateral economic integration. russia relies on the EU for 50% of its trade, and 80% of its oil exports - but no, a few billion in trade with iran is worth destabilizing this system.

Don't look now but Russia is working to increase trade with China at a level that will soon dwarf their trade with the EU.

http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=39159&cHash=18acf4774bfd46ab35c6bad2f8882633

no measures are actually being taken by russia to persuade the united states to drawback the existing naval deployment. only threats. threats do not change the existing security deployment, they only act as a reminder to bolster the domestic legitimacy of a rule which relies on russia being perceived as a primary world power.

No measures? How about working to deploy missiles on their border that would target the sites?

in the meantime, economic integration continues. european security is necessary for this - russia's "objections" are not serious. a system for such security is in place. it does not go away with today's news. it is unreasonable to argue that anyone in power would actually want it to vanish.

It must mean Russia is rather unreasonable as they would purely be happy if the missile shield did vanish, giving Russia a strong arm against Europe with Iran growing increasingly restless.

By the way you may not believe it may go away, but the people this threatens, like Poland, are taking it seriously. Things must look different when your very security is on the line.