Originally Posted by spence
Yea, the idea of world leaders trying to collaborate is pretty offensive is it not? I'd note that:
A) US/Russia relations were advancing under Medvedev including further reductions in nuclear weapons via New Start.
Depends on who is collaborating with whom. Collaborating with tyrants is offensive as well as stupid. They will, eventually, when they see a weakness, betray you and your "agreements." Medvedev was Putin's man. Putin was actually the true power when Medvedev was President. Every one knew that. They certainly knew that in Eastern Europe.
and...
B) Obama may have scrapped Bush's missile defense plan, but he replaced it with something just as effective or according to Robert Gates even better...
But they are not in place. The Polish SM-3IIA missile won't be in operation until 2018. And though they are somewhat better against short or intermediate range missiles, they are not as good as the previous Bush proposed SM-3GBI for long range interception. Nor are they as fast. In the interval, a window of opportunity has been given to the aggressor. And a combination of the two systems would be a more complete defense. The cost? Which is more, stopping aggression at the cost of dollars, or warring against it at the cost of more dollars and of human lives?
Syria may have been clumsy at times but I think Russia was actually worried we'd take military action. They responded and now Syrian WMD is being destroyed. I'd like to hear your better solution...do nothing? Invade? How well would that have gone over?
This is confusing. If it was wrong to invade Iraq, why would we not leave the Syrian tyrant alone? Sure, both tyrants killed 100,000+ of their own people, but they kept the militant Islamists in check. . . . Right? Should we have done a shock and awe on Assad just to scare him into giving up his WMD? We are led to believe that our abbreviated spanking of Saddam by Bush Senior helped to scare him into getting rid of his WMDs, and so it wasn't really necessary to invade Iraq and topple the whole regime. Why is it better to call for the dethroning of Assad, and have Syria be ruled by Islamists of the "radical" bent? And do we really believe that Assad is going to give up the weapons that assure his power over militants who are trying to topple him? He knows what the people did to Saddam when he was toppled. He knows what would happen to him if the Obama Administration gets its wish that he be deposed. He has been driven into the Putin camp.
Unfortunately we try and actually care about people. It's a bit inconsistent, but I wouldn't attempt to peg it on any one President.
Has this caring for people by diplomacy been revised into a new workable form? When we cared for people in the past by appeasing . . . sorry . . . "collaborating" with tyrants it led us into wars in which hundreds of thousands were killed. And it led to things like the Yalta conference where, because we cared for people so much and for the sake of their peace, we allowed the soviets to enslave nearly all of Eastern Europe and half of Germany. And 10 million Ukrainians were starved to death. We had the bomb. We had the allies, especially Churchill, and would have the Soviets really pressed us with war if we had refused to let them have their way? The peaceful, negotiated way was more "caring" for people.
I'd go back to several good books I've referenced in the past...we've become too reliant on militaristic quick fixes and lost the art of leaning into an adversary.
When did we have this art of leaning into an adversary without having the military power to do so? Can you lean into an adversary without having a big stick to back it up if they don't respond to the leaning? Doesn't being powerful and willing to use your power make it easier to lean on someone? Isn't possessing power usually NECESSARY in order to "lean"?
Even on matters less than war, measurement should be taken. I guarantee you Russia looks at the position of all sides of Congress to evaluate what room the Administration has to move within. Yes there are doves and hawks, but petty disrespect is far worse.
Aw get off this disrespect stuff! Obama has disrespected as well, if not more so, and he has been pretty petty about it. This President being the almighty one who must be bowed down to crap is tiresome. We may be almost there, but we are not yet a full-blown dictatorship. Silencing opposition on the pretext that it might give Putin a motive to make some move or other is a tyrannical way dictate American policy foreign or domestic. That is pure, dictatorial nonsense. The internal affairs of this country are not supposed to be dictated by the President. He is supposed to execute the will of Congress, not the other way around. If he bullies opponents in order to set domestic agenda, he is disrespecting the People, the Congress, the Constitution, and corrupting the office of President. He needs to get off his high horse and get down to the earth of doing his sworn duty--attend to foreign affairs and administrate CONGRESS'S budgets and bills, not demanding his own, and quit executive ordering his own agenda to bypass the will of Congress and the People.
Completely disagree. This was a defensive action, and he did only what he thought he could get away with. Putin fears the EU and Nato because they will destroy the counter reforms Putin has used to maintain power.
Right, in football parlance, the best offence is a good defense. So fear drives Putin to attack with a good defense. I like that. I think you're on to something.
The situation in the Ukraine was if anything the result of a failed bribe attempt. The annexation of Crimea was via intimidation. These actions have no sustainable legs. We may be very well witnessing the last flash of the USSR fading into memory...
That would be nice. Hope it doesn't take too long to fade.
We've already buffered our defenses with a more effective missile defense.
I guess that just was not a strong enough move. It hasn't impressed Putin enough to stop him from taking Crimea. Oh . . . He's probably not familiar with football terminology. Our "defenses" are actually an offensive move. Had he known we are not just being defensive, which I take from your insisting Putin's invasion was just defensive (weak?), had he known that we are actually on offense, he might really have been scared and left the Ukraine alone.
Looks at the unity with the EU and the impact. The Ruble is at a record low. The Russian market has dropped 10% this month. Money is flooding out of Russian banks. Their 3rd world economy is on the brink of recession.
Is all that because of Putin's weak defensive move? Hmmm. Nooo . . . that was already happening--WITHOUT HIS ACTING LIKE A BULLY. Gee, if not being defensively offensive gets you all that misery, then . . . SCREW THAT! Let me just go and take what I want. It's already bad anyway.
Of course our "economy" and especially the EU's economy are just peaches. How's that . . . you say the Fed Reserve is still pumping out quantitative easing funny money? Yeah . . . that's a sure sign of how well we're doing.
And now Germany, perhaps the most important EU nation is warning on harsher economic sanctions.
Ouch!! Geese. On top of the 3rd world brink of recession. That'll really get em. They're going economically poo anyway . . . so what's the difference?
I'd say this is being played pretty well.
-spence
|