Barack Obama And The Russian Bear

Putin won't care what Obama says, now that Palin's departure has cleared a path for an invasion of Alaska.

My God, FlownOver, you're right. We're in trouble! Woverines!

Hmmm, on the grand scale of national importance, I tend to view the scale as tipped ever so slightly towards US-Russia relations over the likes of Sarah Palin. Yet the posts in reference to the demise of Palin garner hundreds of comments and the thread on US-Russian relations has thus far only two, and they both reference Palin. There is something scarily odd with this picture...

I think that Obama will ratchet down some of the more inflammatory (read unnecessary) moves that Bush made.
.
The difference is that Bush also thought in terms of the Cold War, and Obama does not. The Obama administration, I think, in the future will make it clear that they are not the same people ideology-wise.
.
As stark as we see the differences between this administration and the last one, it is apparently not important enough to the Russians to note. It should be. Russia didn't help itself too much when it monkeyed around with the oil, placing the EU smack in the middle of a dispute between Russia and the Ukraine.
.
If Putin fails to note those differences, he will become isolated(1). The EU, Turkey and others will simply build around them because, given history's lessons, there is no way that the EU wants to be in a position of dependency with Russia.
.
Russia has been very heavy-handed in it's policies within it's sphere of influence(2). They need to lighten up a bit. I also think that we do not need to aggressively push NATO beyond the zone where they can be really effective(3).
.
Cutting through all the chaff, the US and Russia do not have to be enemies.
.
1. No one can really isolate Russia, but they can be prevented from having too much undue influence, particularly on economic matters. This can work to their detriment.
.
2. As defined by Russia's ability to interact with a free hand. I'm not implying any formal or informal "division" establishing spheres of influence.
.
3. The attempts to push NATO right to Russia's borders would be seen by anyone as a threat. Such activities are really Bush's attempts to further neoconservative ideology in foreign policy but were not based in the realities I note in (2) above.

I was writing my commentary as you posted, Exiled.
.
I think it might just be human nature (the mystery behind the Palin move) and the distance (Russia is far from the US, except in Alaska). After all, local politics trumps all else, as they say. Iran is a good example and this, necessitating Obama's stand.
.
But I agree, our stands and the stands Putin will establish, will set the tone for the Western Hemisphere for probably the next 30 years. The relationships we have with China will set the tone in the Eastern. Palin is just a flash in a pan. Apparently fools' gold...
.
Both are fraught. In the current economic situation, the Eastern Hemisphere looms large due to our external debt.

Russia is a growing power, actively reasserting itself on the world-stage, both economically and militarily.
~
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), led by Russia, and Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC)have been throwing around their economic weight as of late, notably a call for the replacement of the dollar as an international reserve currency.
~
Militarily Russia has demonstrated its desire for regional hegemony, with last years takeover of the breakaway Georgian provinces merely one example. Another troubling action was the response to Poland's acceptance of the US missile defense system, whereby a top Russian military official quoted the Russian military manual in reference to the procedures for detonation of nuclear weapons, as clear a threat as could be made without explicitly stating as much.
~
While Obama certainly should refrain from antagonization, he must remain resolute in the missile defense system plans. Bush authorized the system and it was accepted by Poland. However arguably ineffective it may be, Russia explicitly threatened to bomb any site where the system is established. Were Obama to back away from these plans now it would lead Russia to the conclusion that they can bully American foreign policy by way of military threats. Its an unfortunate situation in which we either continue to build a system which we may not need and further alienate Russia in the process, or, we submit to belligerent Russian threats and give the impression to the world that America can be bullied to avoid conflict. Not a prudent option given the tumultuous resentment of America around the globe, which need not be encouraged.

" .. "how great powers ought to see this new century." .. "

And how should small ( or no) powers see this century - same as last century?
Isn't this the same person who talks about "partnership" and "a world with no walls"? Do the "great powers" see this century and their national interests different from how the rest of the world sees it?

.

" .. those things that we define as our national interests. So we don't need the Russians, we don't want to trade with them. .."

That sounds familiar - as in we don't need the UN's permission or the support of the rest of the world. We shall invade Iraq with or without their support.

The more things change the more they remain the same, so it is said.
Despite the sweet cooing, BHO IS a hawk rooted in the old cold-war mentality.
On the domestic scene: Eviscerating our constitution.
- Same old assault on freedoms/FISA.
- Even less transparency.
On the international scene:
- Shielding and thereby humanizing/enabling torture and torturers.
Habeus corpus? What is that!
- Sabotage of democratic institutions, sabotage of elections and backing lawless 'leaders' and renegades in other countries like Iran.

- Shrill "holier than thou" belligerence. New war fronts. More mayhem. More gratuitous deaths of civilians.

.

[We know that there is a military operation currently underway in Afghanistan. Do we at SWAMPLAND care how many sisters, mothers and toddlers were raped and died violently over the 4th of July weekend in Iraq? In Afghanistan? In Pakistan? In oil-rich Nigeria? In resource-rich Congo? Not really, thus we rationalize, they were all terrorists or islamists or taliban. Were they?]

.

" " .. the old Cold War approaches .. is[sic] outdated; that it's time to move forward in a different direction .." " on Iran? On Afghanistan? On Israel? On war-mongering?

BHO is moving alright - in the SAME direction. He is staying the course.
Does it matter to you if your tormentor/killer wears a toothy grin that spews sweet rhetoric OR a scowl beneath a cowboy hat?

Peel away BHO's "words just words" beguiling sweet rhetoric and we find not only the same old superpower belligerence but a disturbing "caucasian uber barbarian" colonial/imperial viciousness.

No CHANGE - same posture/supremacy, same talk/policy, same walk/actions in the imperial pursuit of plunder of the world's resources.

We voted for a new beginning - we got a BUSH ACT #3, extreme edition.

......

"Vice President Joe Biden signaled that the Obama administration would not stand in the way if Israel chose to attack Iran ..."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090705/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_iran_israel

That is not a new direction, Mr POTUS.

Now BHO, the protector of our people and its constitution, shouldn't the lowly Americans have a say in the matter since the USA may commit its tax-payers' resources and sacrifice its young men in the aftermath?

And shouldn't sovereign Iran, which feels threatened by Israel and USA, seek to effectively protect its citizens and its sovereignty at any cost?
Wouldn't we do the likewise if threatened by foreigners?
Why does Israel seek/have nuclear weapons?

[Who IS in charge anyway, Rahm Emmanuel?]

Exiled:
.
You're right, of course, about the relative importance of Russia and the outgoing governor of the Commonwealth of Moosylvania. I'm experiencing a transitory high from the charcoal lighter fluid and I just couldn't suppress the snark instinct. If I have given offense I apologize most heartily.
.
Seriously, there's a good chance Putin et al. would love to pull a Khrushchev and try to punk the charismatic young American, but the prospect is so obvious I'm reasonably sure our side will be on guard against it. That said, I have zero doubt the RW echo chamber will claim Obama screwed up the meeting; I'm betting the script is already written.
.
Incidentally, I'm claiming extra credit for spelling "Khrushchev" without looking it up.

Exile- I think we can use a "new administration, new thinking" explanation for dropping the Polish missile defense system. IMO, the possible "impression to the world that America can be bullied" is mitigated by the change (even if rhetorical in some cases) Obama brought to US FP.
.

On second thought, this probably renders my last comment moot:
.
We're not going to reassure or give or trade anything with the Russians regarding NATO expansion or missile defense.
.
Unfortunately, I find myself agreeing with cfukara (I wish it weren't so).

FO
~
As a Republican, I am wholly confident in my view that Obama will certainly hold is own in the pending meeting. I have no fear of him botching this.
~
Pint
~
That's reasonable, I suppose. But I do believe that Obama needs to be extremely careful in not appearing to allow Russia to dictate the terms.

Exiled: Would that you represented the rule, not the exception, in your party.

Perhaps, I should have said "despite being a Republican..."
~

Neo, can we clone you? I mean seriously? Or find you a good Republican woman and tell you to be fruitful and multiply? (Or live long and prosper if you prefer.) I thought the days of finding a reasonable, intelligent, conservative were over, I'm SOOOO glad you're proving me incorrect. Believe it or not, we NEED you. We need discourse and disagreement and to find common ground where it can be found. So thanks for sticking around with us.

Sorry, yutsano, I am philosophically opposed to human cloning.
~
In all seriousness, though, thank you for the compliments. I enjoy, generally, sticking around here. I've had some excellent and informative discussions, which greatly outweigh the few times I have been bombastically insulted. It comes with the territory, however, of advocating unpopular views and is certainly a price I am willing to pay for my convictions.
Cheers

MS
~
By the way, thank you so much for this much needed thread. Now, what we choose to do with such a wonderful gift is entirely up to us.

cfukara
~
I absolutely understand where you derive your angst. It is indeed a difficult position we average Americans are in, merely spectators to a ruthless bloodsport in which we see our elected officials tarnish the standing of American respectability. We are utterly incapacitated in our ability to guide our government's initiatives with honorable principles, to adhere to international law, and prevent the outsourcing of our national sovereignty to bellicose expansionists in a far away desert land. However, you remind me of Chomsky in your near relentless assault on American imperialism, with nary a scant glance at the egregious records of our counterparts. Russia is hardly the shining beacon of tolerant, even handed benevolence that would warrant such outrage at American arrogance; though to be sure, Russia certainly excels in pragmatic and intelligent international discourse, far beyond what American foreign policy demonstrates. While Putin has been playing chess, Bush was playing checkers. Let us hope Obama can join our dear Vlad at the chess table, without sacrificing American provostship.

It's nice to have a pres who's foreign policy doesn't consist of bomb ready aim. Let's see what happens (if anything)

Sorry, yutsano, I am philosophically opposed to human cloning.
-
Can't blame a man for trying.
-
In all seriousness, though, thank you for the compliments. I enjoy, generally, sticking around here. I've had some excellent and informative discussions, which greatly outweigh the few times I have been bombastically insulted.
-
Trust me, you haven't lived in the Swamp yet until KT has taken you to the woodshed. THEN you'll see someone who has deeply held convictions. Plus she has a unique knack for shaming folks. I feel for the Swampkids on occasion!

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), led by Russia, and Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC)have been throwing around their economic weight as of late, notably a call for the replacement of the dollar as an international reserve currency.
-
BTW, I find this a fascinating point, mostly because if China were to remove the position the dollar holds on the world exchange market, it would cause a massive crash of that currency and China would lose billions, if not even a trillion or two. I can't imagine them being that fantastically foolish when they've shown themselves to be deft denziens of Adam Smith's models. My guess is the call for the currency is to somehow check American military strength. They know they really can't beat the US in a military fight, so they seek to check our power by other means. In that context alone knocking the dollar off its pedestal makes perfect sense. But would China be so willing to lose a substantial portion of their wealth just to feel more secure in the world? It's an interesting question to say the least.

To the contrary, unless the world were allied against China, I fear that militarily they have the upper hand. In additional to overwhelming manpower advantage potential, technologically China has rapidly expanded its capabilities and has the social means to mass produce military equipment at a disproportionate rate compared to the US. According to a 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review Report, China “has the greatest potential to compete militarily with the United States and field disruptive military technologies that could over time offset traditional U.S. military advantages.” Were war to erupt, Russia would almost certainly be required to join China, for the vast border the two nations share could be utterly overrun by China's infantry in such massive numbers, the expedience of which would make Hitler's blitzkrieg look like Napoleon's 1812 death march into Russia in comparison.
~
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/070523-China-Military-Power-final.pdf

While you do make some good points, Exiled, the US still has a major technological advantage in key areas like military aircraft and subs. And, while Chinese military spending has increased dramatically in the past two decades, I don't beleive their military expenditures are anywhere near ours. And, despite China's man-power advantage, they would almost certainly have trouble moving and coordinating their army (unless their military transport system has been dramatically upgraded recently). While I would agree that China does pose the greatest long-term challenge for the US, I don't think that China, for now, has the technology or resources to pose a serious military threat to the US. While an invasion of China would be stupid beyond belief, for many of the reasons that you mentioned, my impression is that China is not even close to the US when it comes to offensive military potential

I found a web site with some good (if slightly dated) info on Chinese military spending. (Sorry, I don't know HTML)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/budget.htm

In short, China spent about $57 billion in 2008.
By contrast, the US spent about $680 billion in 2009 according to this site.
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#USMilitarySpending

When you consider that China's military spending has increased dramatically recently, while US the US defense budget has been fairly stable for decades, the US is still far ahead of China in terms of money invested.

@ohiolib- for a minute there with the $680 bln quote I thought you were going to turn into a Borgen Project poster.

Anybody have an opinion on the politics of Medvedev vs. Putin? I was getting the distinct impression that part of Obama's itinerary was to lend more weight to the presidency of Dmitry at the expense of Vladimir. Perhaps Medvedev plans to stick around longer than the single term that was predicted when he was initially chosen by Putin?

Ohiolib
~
While you are correct in your assertions that the US still holds advantages in particular areas of military technology, and especially in funding, that is not the entire picture. During the Cold War the world was divided along bi-polar alliances, with a Soviet and Western bloc. With the fall of the USSR two contending paradigms emerged. One, offered by Francis Fukuyama, suggested that the collapse of Soviet Russia would inevitably lead to a unipolar system lead by American dominance whereby western principles of free-market democracy would prevail. Samuel P. Huntington poignantly offered a contending theory, asserting that the vast array of cultural/social cleavages in the world were lying dormant under the bi-polar system. With the decline of the USSR these fault-lines would emerge into a multi-polar system. Huntington, thus lends us a very relevant paradigm, which has been transforming into a multi-faceted bi-polar system. By their own admission, Russia and China are offering a counter to a western dominated world. They emerge as rising economic heavyweights who seek to align themselves with a myriad of fast rising international players, such as India and Brazil. The integration of these societies will, if unfettered, lead to an unshakable coalition of like minded, economically stable and militarily powerful nations determined to resist American hegemony. Together, with China and Russia assuredly directing momentum, this alliance constitutes an insurmountable foe. There appears to be a return to bi-polarism, however with a far superior eastern bloc with a plethora of nations in leadership roles.

Well said Exiled. Assuming you are accurate (I believe you are), aren't the invasion of Iraq / Afghanistan and the likely missile defense system in Poland all like leaning into an incoming right-cross?