Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I've long held that the GOP nomination race this year was the worst ever, and now I'm sure.
In an appearance in San Antonio Thursday, Rick Santorum told voters that if Romney became the nominee, they'd be better off giving Obama a second term.
That's the GOP for you. They oppose everyone, even members of their own party.
Let's just say that, in my opinion, if Romney does become President, I don't see Santorum as his likely Secretary of State...
Last edited by Dark Sage; 23rd March 2012 at 07:55 AM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...e-flexibility/Originally Posted by ABC News
To quote the Vice President: This is a Big Fucking Deal. The missile defense system not only protects Europe, but also our bases there, in other words Obama is willing to jeopardize the safety of all of Europe in exchange he doesn't have a hard time foreign policy wise in the next few months. If he keeps making deals like this, he won't have to worry about a second term.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
or it is totally of no consequence, as a negotiated pull-back from sabre rattling does exactly nothing to change the status quo
what do you think this "deal" results in? the persian gulf deployment remains, and russia won't openly cry over it
1) the cold war is over, russia isn't going to randomly start invasions and bombings as a result of feeling slightly threatened - what?
2) how does maintaining the current state "jeopardize the safety of all of Europe". how does this even make sense.
edit: better yet. read this entire 2010 article and tell me which aspect of continuing the current defense strategy is terrible. it being overseen by an obama administration does not count as an argument.
Last edited by kurai; 26th March 2012 at 01:34 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Last time I checked Russia wants all missiles gone
Georgia anyone?
By pulling out the system as Russia wants, it opens Europe up to many of the missiles Russia is supplying Iran.
Mind you the system that Russia wants scrapped was called by Obama: "To put it simply our new missile defence architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter, swifter defences of American forces and America's allies."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...d-barack-obama
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
maintaining the status quo is not "pulling out the system as Russia wants". it is continuing to expand deployments of the naval missile shield, and continuing the schedule of ground-developments years from now.
edit: and the russo-georgian war has exactly nothing to do with east/west security issues. and certainly nothing to do with this.
edit2: AND you are citing an out-of-date 2009 article with no longer complete information.
Last edited by kurai; 26th March 2012 at 01:40 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Except that is not what Obama is asking for, he is asking for space so that once reelected he can have more flexibility with the missile shield in that he doesn't have to run for reelection.
And I will remind you Russia is completely against Black Sea deployment, and ground based radar sites.
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20110728/165433768.html
I am giving you a article of Obama's excuse for what he wants to do when he moved to naval missile sites instead of the ground based ones under Bush.
You are saying Russia doesn't just invade at the drop of a hat, I proved you wrong.
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 26th March 2012 at 01:45 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
i think you are totally confused on what is being reported here
1) russia is free to object as much as it wants
2) united states currently has an expanding naval deployment of its aegis defense system, justified in its role as containing 'the iranian threat'
3) obama has asked that russia refrain from objecting to this (for political reasons)
thus if russia does not object, there is no motivation to drawback, thus providing both:
1) a bypass of criticism of obama on iran (if the existing deployment was to be withdrawn)
2) actual security from the already-deployed ships
the political reason also provides for the maintenance of existing security. what are you criticizing
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
You seem to be missing the big part here as usual.
Obama is offering a quid pro quo, that Russia refrain from objecting to this, which as you mentioned for political reasons. And thus help in Obama's reelection. Obama inturn will negotiate with Russia in a position of "more flexibility" as he will no longer be held accountable to the American people ( He can't be reelected ).
This buy's the U.S. a year at most with the defense shield, after which Russia will be at a position of strength at the negotiating table as they will believe they helped Obama win the election. On the other hand Obama believes that he will have a easier time agreeing to a pull back as Russia wants, as he does not have to worry about reelection and thus selling it to the American people.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
yes, there definitely weren't decades of actual conflict between georgia and russia before 2008
on both the military and diplomatic levels
(you don't know what you are talking about)
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Which means nothing in terms of the invasion or the overkill that followed.
Cute coming from you.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
and? that is how the presidential term system operates
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?
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
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
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
?
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
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.
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. You also seem to believe that Ahmadinejad is the power in Iran ( He's not ).
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.
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 26th March 2012 at 02:04 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
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.
the point is that he is currently a material pariah who will no longer be available for scapegoating by that pointYou also seem to believe that Ahmadinejad is the power in Iran ( He's not ).
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I have to admit, as much as we wish we're living in an era where the Cold War is of complete irrelevance, this is simply not the case:
1) Russia is still basically a dictatorship, elections are fixed and power is concentrated in a select few individuals.
2) Russia continues to act in a manner similar to the USSR in the states that surround it.
3) Russia still runs a deep espionage program that includes buying intelligence on the UK counter-intelligence service from the USA and deploying agents to hunt down those who have defected from the KGB or other Russian agencies.
4) The continual threat to shut down oil pipelines as leverage.
5) Supplying rogue states with arms.
6) Funding dictatorships and supporting other anti-US regimes.
7) Refusal to comply to or support unilateral measures against rogue states/dictatorships.
And so on.
Is Russia going to invade a major Western nation or use its nuclear arsenal? The odds are 1000-1 on those, but I still wouldn't rule it out.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
"continued sporadic military engagements escalated into an outright war" = "invasion at the drop of a hat"
this does not add up
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
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.
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.
Yes small skirmishes escalating by Russia to outright invasion shows Russia is willing to use overkill and invade at the drop of a hat.
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 26th March 2012 at 02:15 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
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!
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.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 what "invade at the drop of a hat" means. it is the opposite. it is gradual development towards invasion.Yes small skirmishes escalating by Russia to outright invasion shows Russia is willing to use overkill and invade at the drop of a hat.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
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.
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.
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.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
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'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).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.
"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.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 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.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
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.
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 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 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.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
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)
uh yeahYou 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.
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
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.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.
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).
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.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
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.
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.
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.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Realty check.
As you know, today marks the first of three days in which the US Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act. There's been tons of speculation on what their decision will be.
But tell me... Even if they find this law unconstitutional, can they really prevent us from paying for each other's health care?
Here's the scenario the way I see it. Your mother is very sick, and you don't have insurance or the funds for treatment. Are you going to tell her, "I'm so sorry, mom, money is tight, we can't afford to let you live"?
No, you're definitely not. You're gonna tell her, "We're gonna fight this." You're gonna go to charity organizations, churches, hold bake sales, declare bankruptcy if you have to, do everything in your power to raise the money to make her well.
And if worse comes to worst, you're going to demand treatment, and refuse to pay. And the hospital will find someone else to pay for it.
The point is, there's very little that the GOP can do. Everyone will pay for everyone's health care, regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.
That's my reality check.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
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'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...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.
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.
all evidence indicates the development and deployment of missile shield technology in europe to defend against iran.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.
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).
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
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.
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.
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.
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
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 26th March 2012 at 06:38 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
total partisan nonsense
uhThat 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?
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.
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.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.
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.
wild stuff.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
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.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Yeah he just decided to with hold funds for Democrats in Congress because he cares about everyone.
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.
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.
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.
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? How about working to deploy missiles on their border that would target the sites?
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.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
yes, even poland is interested in "security". do we mean military, political, economic? power relations can have multiple avenues.
threats thus far haven't prevented the expansion of a missile defense system.
this system provides for practical security for the EU and economic security for russia.
thus no serious action will be taken by russia that will result in the drawback of this system. to do so would be for russia to harm its own economic prospects. however, to threaten to do so provides a benefit for its political regime.
if you take a static, one-sided approach to international relations, you won't actually be able to make any useful assessments. you're linking to a bunch of pre-russian-election rhetoric as if it means that the russians are about to start invading poland as the first step in re-establishing a soviet union. but they don't follow through with their threats: there is no withdrawl from new start; and we find today's agreement to allow future diplomacy to take root - that pre-election rhetoric was only rhetoric!
yet we can see that there is increasingly unbreakable economic incentive for such rhetoric to not become reality, and also political incentive to keep talking about it as though it were divisive.
the issue remains up for discussion, but it is a non-issue - and that is the way that those in power want it to be.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
It hasn't? We see Obama is more than willing to negotiate from a position of weakness now, and Russia's main threats such as START and the Missile attacks only came within the last few months.
That is if Russia believes that Iran would actually attack, or that they could not corral Iran with their partnership with them and their partnership with China to prevent a attack. With out the missile shield, the only thing stopping Iran from ripping through Europe would be Russia holding them back. Much like the only thing holding Israel back from attacking Iran is the United States. That is a position of power, and would allow Russia to have a implied ace card much in the way the Mob does, and how the Soviet Union used to practice with their proxys. "It's a nice country you have there, it would be a shame if something were to happen to it".
That rhetoric came from the Medvadev, not Putin, meaning it would be idiotic to compare it to campaign trail rhetoric as it would do Putin no good. Not to mention Obama's willingness to have Russia put off any problems until after the election, shows that Obama does take the rhetoric alot more seriously than you do.
Again that is unless Russia finds more lucrative buyers ( China ), or believes they can use Iran as their strong man in negotiations, either of which is possible.
Sure it is.. keep believing that
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
maintaining a positive status quo is not negotiating from a position of weakness. naval defense has grown and is in place, ground defense is still on schedule for development; no serious russian action has occurred to halt any of this. rhetorical threats do not do anything.
yes, nationalist rhetoric does no good for the legitimacy of the united russia party of which both are members? this is a convincing argument.
your contention that russia would hold sole persuasive force over iran actually runs counter to the need for a missile shield: assuming russia's economic reliance on the EU, and iran's economic reliance on russia, this sort of persuasion serves as defense without deployment. no state commits economic suicide by engaging in war obviously counter to its own interests - we find a transitive relationship in which iran is reliant on the EU.
peace through voluntary economic integration is not really a new concept. but if you are envisioning a state attempting soviet-era economic autarky (as you appear to be), it will be hard to see where the "implied ace card" translates into a sufficient condition for peace. however, it is not in itself a necessary condition, and that is where the practical missile shield comes in.
thus what we find are the necessary (missile shield) and sufficient (trade interdependence) conditions for peace in europe!
you are arguing based on a cold war paradigm - but the economic conditions for this are no longer present, so the rhetoric should not be taken so vastly out of line with actual circumstances.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Starting the negotiations by saying that you are willing to be more flexible to their demands automatically denotes a position of weakness. To believe that what Obama telegraphed today was anything but weakness on his part is insane.
Does it help Putin? No not really, the rhetoric was not coming from him, nor was there any chance he was going to lose the election.
I never said I believe it, nor do I believe that Obama believes it, I do believe that Russia thinks that its ability to persuade it's Middle East partners is far stronger than they believe. Does that mean Iran will actually consult with Russia before bombing like crazy? No of course not, but that does not mean that Russia has the delusional belief they can stop them.
Yet you still ignorantly believe that Russia actually is dependent on Europe, when as I have noted their growing reliance on bilateral trade with China makes that less and less true. And gives Russia even more of a excuse to say "Hey we don't really need you when we are pulling in 200 billion in trade with China alone"
Yet you forget that Putin is not only a former KGB agent, but reminisces about it. To not assume that Cold War intentions do not come in play would again be ignorant, as Putin's philosophy was built up around the Soviet Union. For Russia to rise in power like Putin wishes, he is going to need a long leash and the ability to use many Cold War era tactics to gain control over much of Europe. Having a psychotic ally on one hand, and the lack of economic need on the other, gives Russia that power.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
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.
Last edited by kurai; 26th March 2012 at 09:48 PM. Reason: last post: please think about what this implies on IR, global economic integration, domestic party rhetoric - and peace!
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Again it all goes to intepretation, Russia will be seeing themselves as giving Obama the election, and increased flexibility means caving more to their demands.
So obviously you have proof to show that Putin and his party were using this for political gain right? Commercials? Flyers? Rallies? Seeing how these things from the START treaty to the missile attacks came from different sources, neither of which was Putin who was running for election. Then you must have some proof to show that they were doing this purely for election purposes, because if they were they would obviously be playing it up for the Russian people at events or on television to get the messaging out that these acts are all a united front for the party. Because honestly with out proof, your argument pretty much dissolves on itself.
You are dealing with religious nutjobs, here most of all the idea that economic dependence would stop them should be seen as nothing less as idiotic, especially since the massive economic sanctions placed on the country has not deterred them. If Iran sees a course of action they should take, they will continue to do so until responded with force. These last few years should have taught you that.
You seem to believe that Russia cutting itself off from the EU would some how damage their relationship with China, that is rather absurd. China can still trade with the EU, as they do with Russia. And using the Cold War policy we have already discussed to gain a upper hand in negotiations with the EU, could also be used by China seeing their deep connections to both Iran and Russia.
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 27th March 2012 at 01:03 AM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Going back to the Supreme Court news, from the first day of arguments it seems like the mandate is in trouble.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...0,423592.story
If the Government cannot establish how keeping this law on the books does not give Congress a free reign, its going to be a even tougher up hill battle than before.
Edit: CNN's Jeffery Toobin who has previously said that the court would uphold the mandate now isn't so sure...
http://www.businessinsider.com/peopl...t-today-2012-3
DAMN apparently the Obama Administration had it's ass kicked yesterday.
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 27th March 2012 at 12:00 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Don't make predictions yet Roy.
A survey was taken yesterday of 66 law clerks who formerly worked for the current justices. Most of them (two thirds) believed that, judging by their experience with their former employers, that the law will be upheld.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Who here made predictions? I know you do but I do not.
I am just speaking of what was seen, and what is the consensus right now. And that is the Obama Administration got it's ass handed to them today. If the Justices are going to be swayed by the oral arguments, then today's was a devastating defeat for the Obama Administration. I mean my God it got so bad that the Liberal Justices had to bail the lawyer out numerous times.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I wasn't making a prediction either, Roy.
But personally I doubt this fight will end no matter how the Court will rule. Both sides are going to be fighting over the issue of health care for years to come.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Dude how many predictions in this thread have you made? How many bets have you made about if X does Y then I will do Z. Like writing a paper about how you love Republicans, etc etc.
I don't know, I think this will take it off the table for some time. The states may adopt their own version like Romneycare, and the Socialized Medicine program that California tried to push for a while back. But with the mandate destroyed it will be even harder for Democrats to bring about any universal health care program on a national level.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Yes, Roy, I have made several predictions on this thread.
But I'm not making one here. I'm really not sure how the Court will rule.
You did make a valid point. The Justices really grilled the lawyers who argued in favor of the law today. And I am starting to wonder if this whole deal may or may not be more trouble than it's worth.
I mean, if the Court does uphold it, the GOP likely will never give up trying to repeal it, which will give Mr. Obama endless headaches if he is re-elected.
So no, this time, I will not make a prediction. I was just stating what a survey of some law clerks who worked for the Justices said.
Posting Permissions
