2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[kurai]

1) it is hardly weakness to get what you want while maintaining your current course of action. you insist on interpreting flexibility as a negative, when in fact it can also be used to take a stronger position: for example, a push for diplomatic negotiation towards legal assurances of nato-russia interoperability of a MD program, which could be criticized during the domestic election. by creating "space", this debate is avoided for the time being. it does not mean concession will occur after the election is over - you can interpret it this way, but it can not be convincingly argued given that the expansion of the MD program is one of obama's successful international projects, and one which both international players concede to be beneficial for peace in practice.

2) the point is not to allow the party to win, but to legitimize the election itself. if no one objects to the party sentiment, no one objects to the outcome. state-centered conservative ideology points towards maintenance of the current domestic power structure, and the us-versus-them rhetoric has been a primary aspect of the russian political sphere for many decades. continuing this trend unquestionably assists united russia's domination.

3) even iran is hardly the madman state you take them to be. they will not commit suicide by harming the contingent aspects of their own economic system. they are super-reliant on russia, and russia is reliant on the global economic system - undeniable given the WTO ascession at hand and actual foreign trade figures.

4) given enormous rates of focused bilateral growth, it will be quite a while before russia-china trade exceeds russia-EU levels.



but guess what! the EU is massively integrated with china at the same time. if russia relies on china, russia needs the EU.



you claim that i "ignorantly believe that Russia actually is dependent on Europe" - in actual fact, the connection to china is a connection to the EU.

we are not talking about isolated trade partners.

sum:

- we live in a period of global economic interdependence much different from the past (and particularly different from the cold war).
- security in the modern era is in everyone's economic interest.
- the threat of war is a vital tool for domestic politicians - conservative nationalist sentiment can maintain existing power structures.
- maintaining the political status quo is far more effective in a period of economic stability.

conducting threats but not undertaking actual action therefore allows both economic and political continuity.

in the issue at hand, we find an interesting nexus of power relations which appears volatile and contested at cursory examination, but actually serves to maintain the peaceful status quo on closer analysis.