Russia vindicated?

[andrewl]

This article just appeared on NYT website. Here. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html?ref=world)

If true, and i don't doubt it is, it more or less confirms Russia's account of last summer's war. This is a very opportune moment for the Obama administration. They need to choose between the rhetoric of Bush, which is highly confrontational, or they can acknowledge that Georgia acted with deliberate military aggression against civilians. Quite literally, terrorism.

IMO, Saakashvili should be held accountable for this, preferably by his own citizens at the ballot box.

The Obama admin needs to take steps to include Russia as an equal global partner. This is their chance. The alternative is just another arms race.

Andrew

[Americano]

US missiles in Poland will overshadow any basis to create what I consider a necessary global partnership with Russia. The MIC is still running the US.

[andrewl]

US missiles in Poland will overshadow any basis to create what I consider a necessary global partnership with Russia. The MIC is still running the US.


True. But Obama has said he will cut investments in 'unproven' missile defense systems. It will be interesting to see how far he takes that pledge.

Andrew

[Americano]

True. But Obama has said he will cut investments in 'unproven' missile defense systems. It will be interesting to see how far he takes that pledge.

Andrew

It is going to be an interesting game. There's such a flood of lobbyist money in the form of campaign contributions, bribes, cushy jobs for pentagon officials and politicians being thrown at all the players it's going to take a set of big ones to change anything. Obama is one of the best orators I've ever heard and IMO he's going to have to take some things, this one included, to the people with the right spin to achieve any change.

[Michael]

This article just appeared on NYT website. Here. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html?ref=world)

If true, and i don't doubt it is, it more or less confirms Russia's account of last summer's war. This is a very opportune moment for the Obama administration. They need to choose between the rhetoric of Bush, which is highly confrontational, or they can acknowledge that Georgia acted with deliberate military aggression against civilians. Quite literally, terrorism.

IMO, Saakashvili should be held accountable for this, preferably by his own citizens at the ballot box.
Tis a bit weird to find out that the Russians didn't lie or make it up. ;)

They are no angels, that's for sure. But it does appear that Georgia got exactly what they deserved there - they appear to be the 'aggressor' party and they got their butts kicked - which is as it should be.

The Obama admin needs to take steps to include Russia as an equal global partner. This is their chance. The alternative is just another arms race.

Andrew
But what if the arms race itself is what the US seeks? And the US has never wanted or tolerated "equal global partners" before.

That being said, I don't see any political upside for Obama to make any 'friendly' gestures to Russia right now (other than routine diplomatic stuff) - and there are definitely potential downsides to Obama putting his neck out in front of the Russian relationship. Indeed, Obama is a total rookie in playing this game - Putin is truly machiavellian by comparision. Be careful what you wish for.

And Obama has NEVER put his neck out for anything on any issue yet. He's always played a 'cautious' position on every issue and I wouldn't expect any change on this particular issue. Obama is going to need every ounce of 'political capital' he's got to deal with Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Playing power games with Russia is just a sideshow to that main event.

[andrewl]

But what if the arms race itself is what the US seeks? And the US has never wanted or tolerated "equal global partners" before.

No doubt there are powerful poeple who do want an arms race, and no doubt some of those people will be applying pressure on Obama.


That being said, I don't see any political upside for Obama to make any 'friendly' gestures to Russia right now (other than routine diplomatic stuff) - and there are definitely potential downsides to Obama putting his neck out in front of the Russian relationship. Indeed, Obama is a total rookie in playing this game - Putin is truly machiavellian by comparision. Be careful what you wish for.I totally agree its a risk. But it is also an opportunity.

Good point about Putin. He is a very intelligent man, and no doubt he and Medvedev will try to take advantage of Obama to further their own interests. But the messages coming from Putin and Medvedev seem to contain a request to be treated with a measure more respect than they were under Bush. I think they are sincere about that, but will have little patience at the same time. It was interesting to note that there was no congratulations from Medvedev towards Obama in his news conference on Wednesday announcing their own missile plans.... obviously no coincidence on the timing of that.

And Obama has NEVER put his neck out for anything on any issue yet. He's always played a 'cautious' position on every issue and I wouldn't expect any change on this particular issue.He could move towards the position of France and Germany on issues of NATO expansion though, and he could certainly apply the brakes to the missile defense systems. I would not be too surprised to see Obama make some bold moves when he gets a bit more comfortable. He was really cautious in the campaign because it was his to lose, he did not need to take many risks.

Andrew

[andrewl]

Obama is going to need every ounce of 'political capital' he's got to deal with Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Playing power games with Russia is just a sideshow to that main event.

But he needs Russian cooperation on Iran especially.

Andrew

[Americano]

But he needs Russian cooperation on Iran especially.

Andrew

I don't think it's cooperation as much as reducing tensions. Iran will not back down from US aggression and since that aggression now openly includes Russia as a target the natural Russian reaction is providing deeper support for Iran. If US escalation continues with US troops staging in Pakistan to take the heat off the Afghanistan failure (Obama supported this) the next step could easily be Russian missiles and support troops in Iran. Somebody needs to put the brakes on US aggression.

[Michael]

But he needs Russian cooperation on Iran especially.

Andrew
For what?

The only issue with Iran is US political aggression and US military threats of regime change.

I see no other issue involving Iran that is worthy of consideration (except perhaps Iraq and the Kurds).

P.S. Its probably time for me to post my old "nukes are good for Iran and world peace" argument...

[andrewl]

For what?

The only issue with Iran is US political aggression and US military threats of regime change.

I see no other issue involving Iran that is worthy of consideration (except perhaps Iraq and the Kurds).

On any issues that might involve the security council.

P.S. Its probably time for me to post my old "nukes are good for Iran and world peace" argument...

i think i agree with that argument.

Andrew

[andrewl]

I don't think it's cooperation as much as reducing tensions. Iran will not back down from US aggression and since that aggression now openly includes Russia as a target the natural Russian reaction is providing deeper support for Iran. If US escalation continues with US troops staging in Pakistan to take the heat off the Afghanistan failure (Obama supported this) the next step could easily be Russian missiles and support troops in Iran. Somebody needs to put the brakes on US aggression.

Obama has made it clear that Iran cannot have the nuke. If he is serious about that he needs to have Russia on the american side. He will need their cooperation. If the US continues with the same bush rhetoric under an Obama admin, Russia will deliberately make solving the Iran issue impossible.

Andrew

[Michael]

Obama has made it clear that Iran cannot have the nuke.
And thus, US foreign policy is exactly the same as it was under Bush.

It is not the place of the US to decide what other countries may, or may not, do. That's the bullshit that causes BIG problems for the US and drains all possible 'goodwill' towards the USA.

And the US has zero credibility on the issue of the NPT after that deal with India.

[Michael]

On any issues that might involve the security council.

Like I said, I don't think Obama could or should do anything with respect to Russia right now other than to muzzle down the cold war rhetoric coming from the Bush Admin.

Putin and Russia are going to march to their own drummer and will vote at the UNSC according to their own interests - US interests be damned, no matter what Obama says or does.

A pragmatic Obama can and ought to be able to work with that. Pretending to play nice with Russia is no better policy than pretending to be beligerent to Russia. Either one will open the door for Putin to play some machiavellian game to make Obama/US look foolish and that's definitely not in Obama's interest. Best not go there with a rookie Administration. Russia isn't causing any trouble right now so don't poke (or stoke) the bear.

i think i agree with that argument.
Pity that - I always enjoy a good disagreement! :D

[andrewl]

Pity that - I always enjoy a good disagreement! :D

Well there is one significant problem with your argument that an Iranian nuke will promote peace. I get the sense that regardless of any other nations wishes on the matter, including the US, Israel would strike fast and hard against Iran if they were convinced that Iran was about to achieve that status.

When Obama talks about a nuclear armed Iran being a game changer this might be partly what he is referring to.

Andrew

[Michael]

Well there is one significant problem with your argument that an Iranian nuke will promote peace. I get the sense that regardless of any other nations wishes on the matter, including the US, Israel would strike fast and hard against Iran if they were convinced that Iran was about to achieve that status.
You see, the problem here is that my argument is entirely predicated upon a rational avoidance of war.

When state actors (Israel and/or the US) seek war as policy, then my calculations based upon avoidance of war will not apply.

If one seeks war, then any nuclear weapon ability held by Iran is bad news no matter what.

When Obama talks about a nuclear armed Iran being a game changer this might be partly what he is referring to.

Andrew
Yes, a nuclear-armed Iran is a gamechanger. It changes the ability of nuclear bullies to have their own way and that clearly annoys the nuclear bullies.

And the US lost all credibility on nuclear proliferation arguments when they signed the deal with India. Any US Administration dictating who 'ought' to have nuke weapons who should 'not' has become laughably absurd. Bush has 'changed the game' already. Obama's sweet smile can't change that.

[Americano]

Well there is one significant problem with your argument that an Iranian nuke will promote peace. I get the sense that regardless of any other nations wishes on the matter, including the US, Israel would strike fast and hard against Iran if they were convinced that Iran was about to achieve that status.

When Obama talks about a nuclear armed Iran being a game changer this might be partly what he is referring to.

Andrew

Obama has stated he won't back down on allowing Iran to obtain nuclear arms production ability. I'd think a major influence on that stance was Israel's proneness to shoot first and ask questions later. They don't know anything more about Obama's policy direction than I do. Lieberman's return to grace might also be a factor.

The back channels are obviously getting hot as all high level personal and professional alliances among career diplomats, military, spies and associated business people are trying to find out which current administration polices Obama will retain and which will be reviewed to pass on to their politicians. That's been his current goal the first working day he's had. 90-days isn't much time to get up to speed from scratch and I'd think the Poland missiles will be at the top of his priority list. In his shoes I'd have it passed to Putin that a serious review of the issue is already underway on his end as he gets the security briefings, he knows the gloves are coming off and this could be his first real clash with the military-industrial complex, who currently operate the US. Unless he caves and agrees US missiles and troops to be stationed in Poland are to defend the EU from Iranian missiles. If so, he'll be off to a really bad start for my opinions on his foreign policy.