Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: xBullx
Thanks Aswad!
You're cordially welcome, as always, Bull.
quote:
I do believe that Putin is an issue that will come up in much greater detail no matter who might be the President of our country. Concurrently I do believe he maintains a desire or at the very least no reservation about restarting a rather chilly reunion of sorts.
Putin will come up either way, yes.
However, Obama is more of a diplomat, whereas Romney is more of a strongman in this regard, and the current situation needs a diplomat, because Putin isn't the sort to be bullied around. He isn't impressed that easily. Cool, composed, callous and calculating, that would seem an apt description. A hard man, for better or worse. And the world cannot afford two hard men going head to head with nuclear weapons. The USA can, however, afford to negotiate about how to achieve the USA's goals without the side effects Putin cannot (and should not) tolerate. Obama can handle that situation, and Russia has essentially said they'll hold off on a decision until after the election, because they're willing to proceed with negotiations with Obama, but don't trust that anything will carry over from one president to the next.
quote:
I understand the missile shield issues and wish I had a greater concept of what it is that Russia sees as alarming about a shield, I however have limited understanding of the shields offensive versus defensive capabilities.
Here is a simple rundown about Russia's perspective:
NATO wants to place a missile shield in Poland, for ostensibly legitimate reasons. The missile shield diminishes the Russian second strike capability. Without the ability to retaliate with second strike, the power balance of mutually assured destruction is lost. Putin is a Cold War era KGB man, and Romney is a bit of a hawk, so the situation clearly isn't reassuring, at least. If the USA should decide, under Romney, it wants to launch a first strike when Russia has diminished capacity for retaliation, then Russia is screwed.
The resolution, of course, is to bomb the missile installation out of existence before the problem arises. That involves a preemptive strike on Polish territory, directed at a NATO facility. I need not explain how NATO will view that. NATO will have no problem getting UN support for considering that an act of war and thus legitimizing a counterattack. Article 5 dictates that all NATO allies participate in the conflict, on the side of the USA. With a level-headed president there would be no such attack, as the cold facts dictate that an attack on Russia isn't a sensible course of action under any other circumstance than global nuclear war. For better or worse, Obama is a more level-headed man than Romney, I think.
Now, there are several ways to resolve this on NATO's side.
Russia has been extremely forthcoming, even to the point of saying they will let it go if NATO will give them written assurances that the missile shield will not be used against Russia. They're willing to let a flimsy piece of paper (to you and me, a handshake is solid, but not so to most heads of state) reassure them, despite our long standing tradition of systematically breaking our word every time we give it. This time, NATO won't even give that word. You tell me: how is Putin supposed to interpret that, other than that NATO indeed does intend to use the missile shield against Russia? And why would we be willing to risk a war to put a missile shield in place, unless we're planning a war already? Those thoughts must have occured to Putin already, and I doubt he finds them pleasant to consider.
Obama can get traction on this point, seeing as Russia really wants a peaceful resolution.
Romney has said he'll force the matter, in a way that would make it treason for Putin not to attack the installation. I (dis)credit Putin with many things, but I do not think he's the sort of man to commit treason, not even in the privacy of his own heart. He cannot, and will not, give up Russia's defenses against a nuclear strike (i.e. the deterrent of a second strike in retaliation). Romney is saying "I'll go ahead with it anyway", which is provoking a war, whether knowingly or from willful ignorance.
The most telling thing to me on this point is: the Russians are willing to listen when Obama speaks.
That's one hell of a vote of confidence right there.
quote:
I mean why would Medvedev, who I believe was the President of Russia at the time, have to report our Presidents intentions back to Comrade Putin?
Putin was the president all along, he just wasn't The President (in name) for a short while.
Discretion can be the better part of valor in politics, sometimes. There are interests on both sides that would like to see a real conflict, or at least a return to a Cold War situation. To keep the talks private and informal can make a lot of headway without getting the extremists and the nationalists (by which I don't mean mere patriots) involved in a bad way. Clinton did that when hashing out the Oslo Accords, for instance, which was arguably a step in the right direction for the Middle East.
It wasn't a major secret around these parts. Seeing as we share a border with Russia, and a tangled past with the Soviets, we pay close attention to the comings and goings over there. Indeed, it was never a given that we would come down on the side of the USA in the cold war, except the Soviets bungled some things during the time of the Nazi occupation, and the USA extended a hand in friendship at the right time. Roosevelt may have suggested that free people should look to Norway, but in the process, he accomplished having the people of Norway look to the USA, rather than to the Soviets. Some pretty strong ties have been established over the years since then. But we do have a past with the Soviets, and a shared border with Russia, both of which conspire to make them a more relevant part of the news for us than they're likely to be for you (and it's easier to get straight answers when some people here have retained social ties there).
Most likely, Obama was making preliminary inquiries, scouting to get the lay of the land.
Any eventual negotiations proper will have to be open and transparent for either side to get what they want out of it, so I wouldn't worry about this.
quote:
Moreover I believe that Putin punked and looked down on our President at the G20 summit in Los Cabos, Mexico. That pissed me off, I may not be a fan of Obama, but he is our President and I’m a bit funny about anyone outside of our family dissin’ our own.
Putin is Putin. I don't think Obama has a problem dealing with him. And, crucially, Putin doesn't seem to have a problem with Obama.
It's like with the humanitarian efforts during the Afghan war: if you want men in Afghanistan to listen, you don't send a woman to talk to them, and if you want women in Afghanistan to speak freely, you don't send a man to talk to them. The reasons may make no sense to our way of thinking, but they make perfect sense to the people we're talking to, and so we either choose not to communicate, or we choose to do the give and take thing. Obama is humble enough to put results ahead of his own pride, and I think he comes out of such things with that pride intact.
That Putin has some measure of respect for Obama seems promising. I don't see Putin punking anyone he doesn't respect. With the Chechnyans, he hasn't bothered at all. With the journalists that have been chewing him out, he has simply eliminated them in a very dismissive and dispassionate manner. And if we stop to think, you and I have traded a few jabs on occasion and I don't think we came out of that any worse for the wear; there seems to be solid mutual respect in place.
quote:
Additionally I fear Obama would be willing to appease Putin to a degree that I don’t believe we should agree too. Not that Romney wouldn’t or perhaps Romney would be to aggressive, I’m not certain, but this thread is supposed to be about Obama.
Appeasing Putin doesn't really come into it, because of the missile shield thing.
There are areas where one may need to stand up to the guy, but this is one where it's a question of provoking. I think we can agree there is a huge difference between provoking someone and simply not appeasing them. And I think Obama is capable of rationally weighing the need to be firm against the cost of conflict, and assessing the risks.
I also think he knows the difference between a legitimate grievance and mere posturing. Russia has done plenty of posturing, but they currently have a legitimate grievance that Obama is best suited to dealing with (or so I think). If nothing else, Obama already has an open ear that's listening attentively to his words, and that's a damn good place to start.
quote:
I believe as you most likely do, that a Geo-Political Conflict with Russia is not only possible, but well under way. I just hope if elected Obama realizes that the old KGB agent is playing for keeps and the chance he likes America is about as likely as a snow storm in Panama.
Putin probably doesn't like the USA, but I think it's more a question of liking Russia than of disliking the USA. More to the point, he knows his situation and his limits. If he chooses to expand, by politics or by conflict, he knows not to reach further than the old borders of the USSR. The cost of even a low intensity war on a single front would be immense for either country, and it would always carry with it a looming threat of a nuclear holocaust. Both sides can posture and rassle a bit, but if one side goes past that, it's not so much playing for keeps as choosing to die messily. Putin knows the score, and so does Obama.
The former USSR territories, or even just Russia itself, that's a pretty big sandbox.
I don't think Putin will credibly risk the extinction of our species just to get a slightly bigger one.
quote:
NBC News had a rather good article concerning this very subject today, it was titled ” As anti-US policies multiply, should next president treat Russia as friend or foe?” I’m not sure how to do those link things or I would.
From here on the sidelines, that article seems very partisan.
To me, it appears Russia under Putin is becoming more like how the rest of the world is used to seeing the USA these past 12 years. For the USA to criticize that, at least without recognizing the same flaws about themselves, seems to be a case of- if you don't mind me saying so- classic American relativism and exceptionism. The main difference, as far as I can see, is that Russia is talking about preexisting interests and demanding to be respected as an equal in global politics, while the USA is- as is often the case- talking about wars of aggression, about taking the first step, and doing so well beyond its own borders or interests. Russia seems more honest and more content to stick to the Slavic part of the playground, but is otherwise becoming the Second America, which isn't really all that much of a Cold War spectre. There's always more than one side to the truth, and from here, seeing two of those sides, I can't really say Russia is very foe-like at the moment, whereas the USA has always been rather foe-like (even as seen by an ally).
And, let's face it, Putin and Russia deserve some respect.
The kind one accords sleeping bears and sleeping dragons alike, particularly when their treasure chests are full.
quote:
As far as a civil war in the US, I don’t believe there would be something similar to 1860’s but I believe we are already in the midst of a cultural civil war. While I don’t foresee an armed intervention, it is possible; we shoot off guns in this country for much less.
A cultural civil war is the status quo, and has been for at least twentyfive centuries. It's how your current culture arose. Depending on what wins out, a cultural civil war may well be the best thing at the moment. To attain, if they can. Those words are quite applicable at this juncture. You have PM, in any case.
quote:
I do believe that you’re wrong about one thing. I sincerely believe a full blown civil war in America would not only be very detrimental to the US, but also to the rest of the world. There is a reason that Deutsch isn’t the world’s foremost spoken language.
It would be detrimental, sure. Extremely so. But nowhere near the impact of an external war.
quote:
In the end it is certain that the US can be rebuilt under Obama. What it will look like is the debate we’re having over here.
It will be more up to the people, I think. Especially with Obama.
Bit short as introductions go, but we're opening the topic, at least.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
< Message edited by Aswad -- 10/31/2012 4:31:23 PM >
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
RE: Forward? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread