Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
UPDATE: In their first face-to-face meeting, Presidents Obama and Medvedev agreed they were "ready to move beyond Cold War mentalities," and launch a "fresh start" in what has been an increasingly strained relationship. There was agreement to cooperate on stabilizing Afghanistan and reining in Iran's nuclear ambitions. But the most substantive part of the meeting is the decision to develop a new arms control framework to replace the one dismantled by Bush and his team (who considered virtually any treaty a subversive document). Obama and Medvedev agreed to launch negotiations to draft a new arms control treaty that could slash US-Russian strategic nuclear arsenals by a third. (What's really needed is for both sides to abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that mandates building down to a nuclear-free world!)
While the tone, the words and the possibilities of the young Presidents' first meeting gives me cautious optimism about the resetting of this difficult relationship, I still believe some fundamental differences and difficult issues lie ahead. As I wrote last month, the folly of a destabilizing missile defense system and NATO expansion, perhaps now, wisely, put on a backburner in light of the metastasizing geoeconomic crisis, are two fundamental issues which must be confronted if we're going to see a real reset of relations. (By the way, for those who seek a better translation of "reset" than the one provided by our State Department, try "perezagruska."
Meanwhile, I'm still befuddled by the big red box with a yellow push button, with "reset" stamped on it, which Secretary of State Clinton presented Russia's Foreign Minister as a sign of better relations. In Moscow, which I visited in mid-March, those who remembered Stanley Kubrick's Dr Strangelove thought the box was a prop from that iconic film. That film, by the way, should be shown in every High School in America and Russia.
****
For the sake of a safer world, the US needs to rethink its policies toward Russia -- beginning with the folly of a destabilizing missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Despite the fact that the majority of Czech citizens oppose hosting the system -- which is never reported in the US mainstream media -- the Bush Administration rushed to deploy what Ploughshares Fund president Joseph Cirincione calls "a system that doesn't work to defeat a threat that doesn't exist," spending $14 billion a year in the process.
The Obama Administration recently signaled a smart break with the destructive policies of that era when it said it would "not divert resources from other national security priorities until we are positive the technology will protect the American public." That bodes well for ultimately scrapping missile defense since it hasn't tested successfully against even the most rudimentary decoys and countermeasures any enemy would possess.
But as Stephen F. Cohen (disclosure -- my husband) makes clear in his Nation cover story "The New American Cold War", charting an alternative and smart course for US-Russian relations demands much more than abandoning an ineffective, unneeded technology. Of course, we need a new arms control framework -- Bush and his team dismantled decades of bipartisan cooperation and work in this area. We must sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, and eventually abide by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that mandates building down to a nuclear-free world. There is growing momentum for total disarmament as seen in the Global Zero movement, and President Obama is an advocate for this stance as well.
But resetting the relationship with Russia -- as both President Obama and Vice President Biden have indicated a desire to do -- will require more than that. It demands an end to the triumphalist thinking that has defined the US mindset and strut since the end of the Cold War. President Obama and some on his team seem to be on the road to understanding how vital this shift is.
However in both capitals, Moscow and Washington, this new thinking faces opponents who seize on "reset" as capitulation. Witness the recent controversy surrounding a supposedly "secret letter" from President Obama to Russian President Medvedev that reportedly extended an offer for the US to cease deployment of missile defense in Eastern Europe in exchange for Russian help ending Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Both President Obama and Russian officials deny there was any such quid pro quo offer, and Obama said the letter wasn't a secret and it addressed a host of issues including nuclear proliferation.
But the New Cold Warriors -- who seek, at best, "neo-containment" for the sake of continuing the folly of NATO expansion to Russia's doorstep -- seized the opportunity to reassert their dangerous ideology. According to the Washington Post, Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that "Moscow will use our desire to bring the temperature down to its advantage, on issues such as Russia's desire for hegemony over the former Soviet republics on its borders." GOP leaders sent President Obama a letter saying his reaching out to Russia on these issues was "unwise and premature" and that it "undercuts our allies." Finally, an editorial revealed the Manichean lens through which the Washington Post editors see the world, "Perhaps the Kremlin leadership believes that ‘reset' is another way of saying ‘capitulate.' If so, Ms. Clinton would do well to clarify the administration's policy when she meets [Russian Foreign Minister] Lavrov" on Friday in Geneva.
Contrast that with the kind of new thinking laid out in Cohen's Nation article and displayed by Cirincione. "US threats will make it more difficult for Medvedev to do something he wants to do anyway: reset the US-Russian relationship," he said. "We should be saying, ‘We need to cooperate to reduce our common threats'…. President Obama understands he has a better chance of getting what he wants through openness rather than bravado. If he threatens Russia it makes it harder for them to make concessions."
A key to this "reset" is that the US and its allies halt NATO expansion. These are times that demand economic recovery not expansion of a military alliance forged to combat the Soviet Union and which threatens cooperation on mutual economic and security interests. It is a moment when Central and Eastern Europe face its worst economic crisis since the collapse of their economies following the fall of the Berlin Wall. Ukraine in particular is in desperate financial shape and will need both European and Russian support. Georgia is also in economic straits. We should shelve talk of NATO expansion and work with Europe and Russia to build a more viable economic region through a new global financial architecture. Expect European protesters to articulate similar demands in April when President Obama attends a summit commemorating NATO's 60th anniversary. But a new tack will face fierce opposition among those invested in NATO expansion and in the belief that Russia poses a threat to our interests.
Finally, Iran looms large. As Cirincione told me, "Any successful Iran strategy has got to have the cooperation of Russia, it's as simple as that."
Russia has no desire for a nuclear-armed Iran or an Iran with long-range missiles. It doesn't want Iran increasing turmoil on its southern border. Russia also has leverage -- it could end arms sales to Iran; end or suspend cooperation on the Bushehr nuclear power plant; increase diplomatic pressure through UN sanctions or resolutions. Cirincione points out that Iran doesn't want to be viewed as a pariah state and when Russia swings against it Iran is isolated.
"But Russia [needs] a US-Russian relationship that involves cooperation and mutual respect -- not just the US telling Russia what it's going to do," Cirincione said. "And they have to know that the US intentions for Iran don't involve starting a third war in the region. Then all things are possible."
Of course, new agreements between the United States and Russia to dramatically reduce nuclear arsenals are vital for success in dealing with Iran as the major powers create the context and pressure for non-proliferation worldwide.
There will not be a fundamental change or reset of US-Russian relations -- no real partnership -- until there is new American thinking about Russia. Despite the gathering of some old guard thinkers around President Obama there is reason to believe that a new approach is emerging -- perhaps driven by the realities and conditions of our times.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
"It demands an end to the triumphalist thinking that has defined the US mindset and strut since the end of the Cold War."
Nothing "triumphant" about Vladimir Putin taking power (and keeping it as the "Man Behind Medvedyev")...is there?
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 3:19pm
Article Translation into common language
"The US needs to stop declaring that it won the Cold War and surrender to the glory that is Mother Russia.
Only Mother Russia has the best interests of the world; certainly not a arrogant capitalist bully like the US."
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 3:21pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 3:21pm
Well, actually, anti-socks, in case you haven't noticed things in the last...oh...almost 20 years...
they ain't against capitalism either!
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 3:28pm
And for the US to disarm and scrap all our nukes....
Then, as Obama has already thrown in his card in the hole..the Cancelation of the Umbrella for Europe...he has no chips after the Russian Peace Lovers laughed, declared the end of America and said, Nyet!...as did Iran with its demand for apologies...
so..we have effectively surrendered our cards before anyone called our hand...
That is how one cleans out a novice poker player..no experience = broke.
Thanks for Obama, the next guy is going to have to rebuild an entire economic systyem, banking system, military complex and currency...all from a posistion of weakness...to use what is left to try to restart the free enterprise system..if those who create the jobs even want to do it anymore.
Bush left Obama a mess...and with the help of the Deomctratic Peoples Congress and Obama, they will leave the next guy...nothing but destruction.
Russia will not be an issue or how to handle them,so, KVH or her husband can take a vacation...their job will have been completed...we will have already taken ourselves out.
Posted by YourJomamma at 03/05/2009 @ 3:32pm
they ain't against capitalism either!
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 3:28pm
Granted that Putin used capitalism on a short term basis, especially in the oil and gold markets; however, he has been pretty clear that he is not looking at Russia being a capitalist nation long term.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 3:38pm
KVH should check with Obamanation first! He is busy eating his foreign relations ploy!
Obama on Tuesday protested reports that there was a quid pro quo offer made to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to kill America's proposed missile defense system in Europe in exchange for Russian assistance in preventing Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. In legalese that immediately brings to mind the Clinton administration parsing during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Obama gave this non-denial denial:
"What I said in the letter was that, obviously, to the extent that we are lessening Iran's commitment to nuclear weapons, then that reduces the pressure for -- or the need for -- a missile defense system," Obama said. "It was simply a statement of fact that I've made previously, which is that the missile defense program, to the extent that it is deployed, is designed to deal with not a Russian threat, but an Iranian threat."
In Washington, it still depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
Missile defense systems are defensive in nature and do not distinguish between country logos but are designed to take out the missiles of all those who would launch them at us or our allies whether they're Russian, Iranian, North Korean, Pakistani, Chinese, or any other.
Posted by comancheamerican at 03/05/2009 @ 3:53pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 3:38pm
That's not true, at all, anti. Putin has made it very clear that he does not want to return to a system of publicly owned enterprises and means of production. He has frequently denounced socialism and communism as economic systems. What he is aiming for is something much closer to the modern Chinese model or, perhaps even more precisely, something modelled on Singapore where you have an authoritarian political system resting on a capitalist base. Law, order and little or no dissent, but a privately owned and managed economy. And please, no protests that he wants the government and the economy closely tied together in some especially corrupt way. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Posted by cka2nd at 03/05/2009 @ 4:13pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 3:38pm
Did I miss where he's announced a plan to lop the heads off the rich oligarchs, Larry?
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 4:14pm
Funny the atavism on this thread...and actually starting with Ms vanden Heuvel and her (and her spouse's) incessant Russophilia.
That, originating back to the days of Walter Duranty, and the silly love affair with Gorbachev, believing him the "Lincolnesque" character that he later cultivated once OUT of power...
and the old Cold Warrior Right, like lvlib/anti-socks, still dreaming of a "godless Commie Russia" that we can go "toe-to-toe with, just like Reagan did"...when, even more so, the Russians are as capitalist as any nation out there and there are more new millionaires there than in Silicon Valley in the 90s.
Both locked in ancient, even extinct mind-sets and near-extinct ways of thinking.
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 4:20pm
Posted by cka2nd at 03/05/2009 @ 4:13pm
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 4:14pm
I'm sorry, but I'm laughing too hard to concentrate on a serious response.
you both consider Putin, the former head of the KGB to be honest in his statements?
I mean, I didn't give Bush any credit for his "looking into Putin's eyes" comments either.
Let's see what Comrade Putin really wants from his speech recently at Davos. He speaks 1st of wiping the books clean ala Breton Woods.
"Third. Excessive dependence on a single reserve currency is dangerous for the global economy. Consequently, it would be sensible to encourage the objective process of creating several strong reserve currencies in the future. It is high time we launched a detailed discussion of methods to facilitate a smooth and irreversible switchover to the new model.
Fourth. Most nations convert their international reserves into foreign currencies and must therefore be convinced that they are reliable. Those issuing reserve and accounting currencies are objectively interested in their use by other states.
This highlights mutual interests and interdependence.
Consequently, it is important that reserve currency issuers must implement more open monetary policies. Moreover, these nations must pledge to abide by internationally recognised rules of macroeconomic and financial discipline. In our opinion, this demand is not excessive.
At the same time, the global financial system is not the only element in need of reforms. We are facing a much broader range of problems.
This means that a system based on cooperation between several major centres must replace the obsolete unipolar world concept."
In other words, a new a new world money system apart from the dollar or even the Euro
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 4:33pm
Uh, Larry did you read what you wrote???
"you both consider Putin, the former head of the KGB to be honest in his statements?"
and then you say...
"Let's see what Comrade Putin really wants from his speech recently at Davos."
So aren't YOU trusting Putin's honesty in his statements by citing his speech?!??!?!?
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 4:38pm
here is the link to the Davos speech.
http://tinyurl.com/c6mvcf
So aren't YOU trusting Putin's honesty in his statements by citing his speech?!??!?!?
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 4:38pm
I think what is clear is that while his intentions are obvious, you can determine what is honest by the actions.
Putin has shown from Davos that he is still a unrepentant global marxist who sees a one world govt as the solution not only for Mother Russia but the world.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 4:42pm
Putin has shown from Davos that he is still a unrepentant global marxist who sees a one world govt as the solution not only for Mother Russia but the world.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 4:42pm
So do most of your neocon bretheren Liv. In your minds, the global leaders will be a board of directors of the wealthiest corporate owners and they will call the shot....oh, that's right, they already do.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 5:00pm
So do most of your neocon bretheren Liv. In your minds, the global leaders will be a board of directors of the wealthiest corporate owners and they will call the shot....oh, that's right, they already do.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/05/2009 @ 5:00pm
I have no desire to see that happen.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 5:16pm
KVH, why go through the spin? We all know Obama got played by Russians on his first time out.
It'll be interesting to see how Hillary handles Putin through Medvedev. If I remember correctly, Putin and President Clinton didn't have what you would call a good "diplomatic" relationship either.
Posted by ACook at 03/05/2009 @ 6:22pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 4:42pm
So trust what Putin says when he sounds "Commie" ...DON'T trust him when he sounds capitalist OR how he has basically let the Free Market run pretty much free (more than Europe) and built up a HUGE and powerful rich upper class?
Because..."Once a Commie, always a Commie", right Larry...and he's just biting at the chance to start funding revolution in Central America and shooting down Korean airliners, like the Good Ol' Days, huh?
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 7:51pm
Because..."Once a Commie, always a Commie", right Larry...and he's just biting at the chance to start funding revolution in Central America and shooting down Korean airliners, like the Good Ol' Days, huh?
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 7:51pm
If you bothered to read his speech at Davos, it is quite clear that he is seeking a new marxist paradigm where Russia and China would be re-aligned as the dominating powers.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 8:38pm
Speaking as an amateur Marxist, I declare that I agree wholeheartedly with "Mask." There is hardly anything Marxist about Russia's government today. The same goes for China.
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/05/2009 @ 9:50pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 8:38pm
Plus I hear Putin wants to put flouride in our water and sap all our precious bodily fluids!
And he and the Hu Jintao have brainwashed Raymond Shaw into an assassin!!!!
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 10:33pm
"Moscow will use our desire to bring the temperature down to its advantage, on issues such as Russia's desire for hegemony over the former Soviet republics on its borders."
THAT HEGEMONY IS OURS!!!!!!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2009 @ 10:39pm
you both consider Putin, the former head of the KGB to be honest in his statements?
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 4:33pm
the u.s. would NEVER have a president with similar credentials.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2009 @ 10:42pm
Third. Excessive dependence on a single reserve currency is dangerous for the global economy. Consequently, it would be sensible to encourage the objective process of creating several strong reserve currencies in the future. It is high time we launched a detailed discussion of methods to facilitate a smooth and irreversible switchover to the new model.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 4:33pm
mr. putin is right.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2009 @ 10:44pm
In other words, a new a new world money system apart from the dollar
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 4:33pm
that's why saddam had to go.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2009 @ 10:45pm
China would be re-aligned as the dominating powers.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 8:38pm
well,
who's paying for your subsidized water?
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2009 @ 10:47pm
an amateur Marxist
Posted by JakobFabian at 03/05/2009 @ 9:50pm
a mere engellian.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2009 @ 10:48pm
Plus I hear Putin wants to put flouride in our water and sap all our precious bodily fluids!
Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 10:33pm
are you of the body?
the will of landru will guide us.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2009 @ 10:52pm
<i>Posted by Mask at 03/05/2009 @ 10:33pm</i>
Ok...so strawmen aside...if you take out the word "marxist," antisocialist is completely right. Russia has consistently sought close ties with China, to the point of conducting (curiously) joint amphibious military exercises, among other things. So yes, the notion of a Russia-China alliance is far from speculative or silly.
And is this alliance a good thing? Uh, probably not.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/06/2009 @ 01:22am
RUSKIES!!
That shit is f*ckin' gold for the GOP.... We can wax lovingly about Ronald Reagan, gin up the fear that Dems are weak, and maybe get a few sheckels for the Military Industrial Complex.
Come on, tell the truth. How many of you right wingers asked Santa for a Ruskie under your Christmas tree last year?
Posted by koroviev at 03/06/2009 @ 05:48am
In which country does Katrina vanden Heugel live? Where is our celebration of the USSR's crumbling? Where were our victory parades, the monuments to our victory, our triumphalism?
Instead we gave Russia billions, bought their nuclear fuel, helped secure their arsenal.
Katrina and her husband are humiliated at the Soviet Union's disintegration. They mourn the freedom of Eastern Europe and the Baltics. They grieve that the Bear had to disgorge his conquests. They perked up with the reinvasion of Georgia. Which bully and tyrant from Stalin to Mao, from Pol Pot to Arafat did she and her ilk not support at some point?
Now, preventing a resurgent Russia, they deem US triumphalism. KVH had no problem with Soviet tanks garrisoning Eastern Europe for near half a century. But US batteries protecting Europe and America anguish her. If they don't work, why does she consider them a threat to Russia? And if they do, what is wrong with the US and her allies being protected?
So what if it doesn't offer 100% protection! What's wrong with just 20% effectiveness? That is enough against Iran or NK which are unlikely to have a massive rocket fleets for many decades. Even China has fewer than 50 ICBMs. Against a limited attack partial effectiveness is sufficient. Thus, if Iran were to fire 5 warheads, 25 anti-missile rockets each just 20% effective could bring them all down. The mere knowledge that the US might scotch their first strike would be enough to give an opponent second thoughts. What is wrong with equipping ourselves with such protection? Why be utterly helpless if a Kim Jung Il or Ahmedinejad go hairwire? But indeed, KVH wants the US to be intimidated by the world's SOBs. Those are her friends.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 03/06/2009 @ 08:47am
Posted by Thrawn at 03/06/2009 @ 01:22am
But, see Thrawn you CAN'T "take out the word "marxist'" with lvlib/anti-socks.
I wasn't discussing some Russia/China axis...I was noting his 1959 mind-set where he still sees Commies under the bed and in the closet, when BOTH countries (R & C) are about as capitalist as you can get.
See, he's not thinking of some NEW paradigm of the great Eurasian CAPITALIST powers allying themselves...he's seeing "Marxist-Leninists forming their International Communist Conspiracy" and fomenting revolution and putting American atomic secrets in pumpkins...
because he likes a nice, orderly, AS HE REMEMBERED IT world....not all this "new, complicated stuff" that is what the rest of us call "present day".
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 08:51am
Third. Excessive dependence on a single reserve currency is dangerous for the global economy. Consequently, it would be sensible to encourage the objective process of creating several strong reserve currencies in the future. It is high time we launched a detailed discussion of methods to facilitate a smooth and irreversible switchover to the new model.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/05/2009 @ 4:33pm
mr. putin is right.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/05/2009 @ 10:44pm
No surprise that Frosty would welcome a one world govt.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 1:40pm
But, see Thrawn you CAN'T "take out the word "marxist'" with lvlib/anti-socks.
I wasn't discussing some Russia/China axis...I was noting his 1959 mind-set where he still sees Commies under the bed and in the closet, when BOTH countries (R & C) are about as capitalist as you can get.
See, he's not thinking of some NEW paradigm of the great Eurasian CAPITALIST powers allying themselves...he's seeing "Marxist-Leninists forming their International Communist Conspiracy" and fomenting revolution and putting American atomic secrets in pumpkins...
because he likes a nice, orderly, AS HE REMEMBERED IT world....not all this "new, complicated stuff" that is what the rest of us call "present day".
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 08:51am
This is a great example of how "progressives" like yourself can't see the forest for the trees. Just as I noted that the global and US socialist organizations have remade themselves for the 21st century, so are China and Russia. This new paradigm of a mixture of elements of capitalism with both Maoist and Marxist dogma has produced a new hybrid communism. that may seem like an oxymoron to the average person. But it fits into the long range views of marxism and Maoism that even more fringe communist elements like the RCP here in the US cannot understand.
So, I'm not looking for 1950's style communists under the bed. I have my eyes wide open to what they are evolving into for the 21st century. If you were half as bright and pragmatic as you think you are, you would do more than issue sharp repartees and actually investigate what's going on in the world.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 1:47pm
"a mixture of elements of capitalism with both Maoist and Marxist dogma has produced a new hybrid communism."
So are they "Marxist capitalists" or "Adam Smith Commies"?
LOL.
No, Larry, what you see is what your old 60+ years eyes WANT to see. A world unchanged.
Russkies and Chinee Reds still poised to dominate the world, unless God-fearing capitalist Uh-mericans (and the Euro-trash if'n they know what's good for 'em)...standing tall and strong against the Commie wave with B-47s (or whatever new-fangled planes they have these a'days) at their fail-safe positions...just like we did back with Ike, Dick Nixon, Foster Dulles...
oh, and don't forget the "None Dare Call It Treason" types back home. As Edith and Archie would sing "Boy, we could use a man like Joe McCarthy againnnnnn!"
Nawwwww...all this talk that the Cold War ended is just a big, fat Commie plot! The Cold War continues....they're still out there...reading their "Das Kapital" and making their Five Year Plans. Nothing's changed!!!!
Oh...wait....doesn't that mean?....
The Gipper DIDN'T "win the Cold War"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 2:29pm
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 2:29pm
Sometimes I think I overestimate your reasoning capacity. Comments like yours indicates that at your core your either willfully or by some mental deficiency, unwillingn to consider any facts that are outside your preconceived notions of the world.
And this is especially bizarre given you are such an devotee of evolution. Yet you do not apply it to politics outside your own interest group (the Democrats).
Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 2:40pm
This is not a foreign policy, but an updated, international version of Nixon's enemies list. Like Nixon's list, it is a product of paranoia, and not based on reality. Foreign policy is no place for campaign histrionics. Words have meaning, and their use can have deadly unforeseen consequences. It is stupid to deploy a missile defense system that does not work, against threats that do not exist. It is insane to extent a defensive alliance into the sphere of influence of a former enemy that does not pose a threat. Except for Mitchell and Carter, modern politicians are a menace in foreign policy.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 03/06/2009 @ 3:22pm
Our president went hat in hand, looking desperate and got slapped. Russia's response was about as artful as Kruschev with the shoe. You can't negotiate weakly and expect to be on equal terms.
This is smart diplomacy at work. I guess we need to get out our Russian phrasebooks and get back to work. The end is nigh and the president will gleefully hand over the keys to the castle.
Posted by Weyld1 at 03/06/2009 @ 3:48pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 2:40pm
Larry, what you propose is silly...ergo I answer it with silliness.
And really not THAT much more exaggerated than your ideas.
"Maoist capitalist hybrids"?
How far will you go to create your "Old World Order"?
And again, answer the question, only half-mocking...
DID Reagan "win the Cold War"? Or are we in it again?
And does that mean that if it's still going on...if his health had permitted, that in 1989, Reagan would have stood at the Berlin Wall in a flight-suit with a banner saying "Mission Accomplished!"...
and it not be true???
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 4:01pm
'The letter drew praise in Washington from Democrats like Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, who said he proposed something similar to Mr. Bush last year only to have Vice President Dick Cheney reject it. "This overture by President Obama is Reaganesque in its boldness," Mr. Schumer said on the Senate floor. "It has the potential to represent the most cooperative approach to a global threat by our two countries since President Reagan and Gorbachev signed the missile defense treaty 20 years ago."'
NY Times - Excerpt Russia Welcomes Letter from Obama By ELLEN BARRY Published: March 3, 2009
Schumer is an AIPAC shill. This is doing Israel's bidding. Why doesn't Israel offer to go no nuke in exchange?
The defense shield doesn't work, but symbolically, it represents a commitment to Czech Republic and Poland. What is being offered is capitulation by Obama on a sphere of influence important to Russia. This is exactly what Schumer opined in the NY Times last year.
Clinton comes a calling right after conference with Israel. This is really pathetic, and once again, "our" geopolitical interests are being directed by Israel.
Medvedev will be asking for much more than abandonment of the missle defense system - and contrary to Schumer's assertion that this is Reganesque, this is capitulation to an oligarchy comprised of former Communist mafia for the sake of preserving Israeli monopoly over nuclear weapons.
Posted by OneVote at 03/06/2009 @ 4:03pm
BTW, the irony is incredible on this particular thread...
here is Ms vanden Heuvel bemoaning "sounding triumphant"...the idea of folks (similar to lvlib/anti-socks) going around after 1990 and saying "Haha! F-U Commies. We (aka Reagan, naturally) won the Cold War and yoooo-oo lost. Nana-boo-boo!"
And you've got our old John Birchers like lvlib who think it WASN'T won...that it's still going on with "Maoist capitalist hybrids" over there in Moscow and Peiking ("Beijing" is a Commie ruse to make us THINK they're different!!!!), just waiting to send the Red Menace and the Yellow Horde across the seas to get us.
So...on the one hand we have the Hard Left telling us "Don't be smug about 'winning' the Cold war!"...
and people on the Hard Right telling us...we didn't end it!
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 4:07pm
Larry, what you propose is silly...ergo I answer it with silliness.
And really not THAT much more exaggerated than your ideas.
"Maoist capitalist hybrids"?
How far will you go to create your "Old World Order"?
And again, answer the question, only half-mocking...
DID Reagan "win the Cold War"? Or are we in it again?
And does that mean that if it's still going on...if his health had permitted, that in 1989, Reagan would have stood at the Berlin Wall in a flight-suit with a banner saying "Mission Accomplished!"...
and it not be true???
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 4:01pm
What we have is that socialist and marxist systems have evolved out of necessity.
What they are doing is making themselves more acceptable to the Western socialism of Europe.
You may think this is silly or stupid, use whatever ad hominem you like. But the facts are the facts and they don't stand or fall because of Mask.
And Reagan was absolutely correct in bringing down the old Russian marxist empire. It has seen how China evolved their brand of maoist communism and are rapidly trying to develop their own.
And Putin makes it quite clear (and gets dupes like Frosty to cheer) that he wants a one world govt with one currency. That is hardly democratic.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 4:15pm
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 2:29pm
Sometimes I think I overestimate your reasoning capacity......
Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 2:40pm
We all did....he's used up his non-renewable quota, besides, now that he can worship The One from sun up to sun down....reasoning is no longer needed....The Messiah has arrived (just be sure he always does so w/his left and right Teleprompter)! Long live HusseinO!
Must be nice going to bed each night reciting...
HOPE AND CHANGE
Posted by Happy at 03/06/2009 @ 4:57pm
And Putin makes it quite clear (and gets dupes like Frosty to cheer) that he wants a one world govt with one currency.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 4:15pm
oh, blow it out your blowhole, pastorcito.
i agreed with mr. putin's contention that we need more than one reserve currency, nothing more.
twit.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 9:41pm
"Third. Excessive dependence on a single reserve currency is dangerous for the global economy. Consequently, it would be sensible to encourage the objective process of creating several strong reserve currencies in the future. It is high time we launched a detailed discussion of methods to facilitate a smooth and irreversible switchover to the new model."
how in the world does advocating SEVERAL reserve currencies advocate ONE world government?
you've gone bonkers.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 9:44pm
And Reagan was absolutely correct in bringing down the old Russian marxist empire.----Posted by antisocialist at 03/06/2009 @ 4:15pm
Did he? You seem to indicate that it was still going strong to today with Putin?!???!?
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 10:43pm
Posted by Happy at 03/06/2009 @ 4:57pm
"general lack of respect for authority and Obama DS."
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 10:44pm
Did he? You seem to indicate that it was still going strong to today with Putin?!???!?
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 10:43pm
where's zombie reagan when we need him?!?!?!??
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/06/2009 @ 11:47pm
What? No mention of the gift that Hillary gave the Russians? The one that said in Russian, "overcharged" or "overloaded", not "reset"? Did all the russian translators in the Obama State Dept. have to be let go because tax troubles?
Posted by twillie at 03/07/2009 @ 1:08pm
Did he? You seem to indicate that it was still going strong to today with Putin?!???!?
Posted by Mask at 03/06/2009 @ 10:43pm
No, the old one is gone. This is just a new version.
Posted by antisocialist at 03/07/2009 @ 1:59pm
Thanks for a great article and let's just hope that it will work out that way. I am just shocked about the comments I am reading and it almost seems that the Cold War, at least in the minds of some of the contributors, hasn't ended yet. Yes, most Russian people believe in Medvedev and Putin and they don't see that there would be a reasonable alternative at the moment. Try to get some information about what they are trying to do domestically and you might start understanding why they have so much support. We seem to live in a time now, where no world leader seems to have a definite solution and maybe that's the ideal moment to search for new solutions together.
Posted by danceart at 03/08/2009 @ 07:01am
danceart at 07:01am says:
>> most Russian people believe in Medvedev and Putin and they don't see that there would be a reasonable alternative <<
Is a reasonable alternative to a KGB colonel who has political opponents and critical journalists assassinated, that hard to image?
What was reasonable about the farce of Russian "peacekeepers" creating the pretext for a Russian invasion of Georgia and ethnic cleansing of Georgian villages?
What was reasonable about the devastation the Russian army brought to Chechnya?
Moreover, how do you know what the Russian people believe? Who now controls Russia's radio and television?
The Russians are better off at the moment than when the country was being looted under Yeltsin. The oil bubble has given the country a boost and substantial reserves. She is living off those now. We will see how happy the people are in a year from now, if the price of oil remains subdued.
Stephen Cohen's 2006 prediction of a New Cold War is even more ridiculous today than back then. What has happened is that Putin has shown his true colors Russia's autocratic penchant has reasserted itself. The bear has resumed growling and threatening. But that has only sharpened the Russophobia of Eastern Europe and the Balts. No one is really scared, except the Kremlin as it cannot turn the clock back, can't bring down a new Iron Curtain, won't be able to defy a judicial system forever, and is going to have to deal with businessmen and democratic forces who invariably will reassert themselves.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 03/08/2009 @ 12:56pm
Posted by antisocialist at 03/07/2009 @ 1:59pm
So Reagan only won a TEMPORARY victory over Communism?
His image is starting to get more tarnished, isn't it, Larry?
Posted by Mask at 03/08/2009 @ 10:24pm
This is growing into a rather silly argument. Conservatives need not hold Reagan up to near-divinity in order to contend that his actions (along with those of many important others) were instrumental in helping break the back of the Soviet empire. The fact that Russia's influence may return says nothing about Reagan, any more than a newly resurgent Germany would tarnish the victory over the Nazi regime.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/08/2009 @ 11:59pm
Posted by Thrawn at 03/08/2009 @ 11:59pm
Again, you're imparting a semi-logical argument onto lvlib/anti-socks' totally ILLOGICAL ideas.
He's saying that Putin is some "new Stalin" and that a "Comintern" pact between Russia and China is in the works and "The Commies are on the march again"....
but of course in a bit of trouble as a Reagan sectarian in making sure to still credit the Gipper for "winning the Cold War...just....uh...er...not the NEW Cold War!"
Larry wants it both ways and even separately they're not accurate.
Posted by Mask at 03/09/2009 @ 06:29am
The fact that Russia's influence may return says nothing about Reagan, any more than a newly resurgent Germany would tarnish the victory over the Nazi regime.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/08/2009 @ 11:59pm
What if Germany's resurgence was led by former Nazi?
Posted by OneVote at 03/09/2009 @ 11:38am
I dunno.
Seems the boys who ran the "old Germany" ended up, for the most part, in Nuremberg, and afterwards, swinging from a gallows or taking cyanide. Not so with the boys who ran the old Soviet Union. Many, if not most, of those boys ARE still around, influential as ever. Read: Putin.
I don't see the direct comparison there.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/09/2009 @ 12:52pm
Indeed, if the Soviet Union, in Reagan's day, really was "all that", TANKS WOULD HAVE ROLLED upon Gen. Jaruzelski's inability to guarantee the intervention of the Polish military in the Solidarity situation. Compare this to Prague, '68, Budapest, '56, that is, when they still had some oomph.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 03/09/2009 @ 1:10pm
<i>Posted by OneVote at 03/09/2009 @ 11:38am </i>
Same. Bringing back the old regime basically ex nihilo would say nothing about the defeat of the old one, and certainly wouldn't tarnish it.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/09/2009 @ 10:19pm
Capitalism -- A brain power dictatorship
Freedom, the right to pursue happiness as you perceive it to be, this is a system of trade where no one enriches themselves upon the misery of another, where everyone has an equal opportunity to be productive, and absolutely no one has an "equal opportunity to compete." In short a system where all share equally in the profits. Some call it socialism, but reality calls it fair trade.
Not to say that capitalism is bad, for even if 90% of us were selfish it would still work, as out of self-preservation do we vote for the politician thought to be most honest. But as evident by all politicians taking funds from lobbyists, the root cause of corruption in government, as we mortals live a doomed existence and must have pleasure to ease the stress of it, surely most all of us think we deserve more and with much pleasure take all we can. And with a clear conscience especially when no one is looking, take all the law will allow.
For equal opportunity to compete against us slow thinkers is economical slavery, and a class society. For brains like sex-appeal pass from father to son, and from mothers to the Daughters of the American Revolution.
And so, as no one less intelligent can fool us, what we need is our 70% slow and careful thinking laboring class to run a slow and careful acting government. For we will always need those most intelligent to run our industry and military, and just as slow thinking politicians could never fool such a fast thinking power combine, so could no fast thinker have the darkness needed to do their corruption. For when us laborers have the power to guarantee full disclosure, and when fast thinkers are free to expose corruption in government, surely we have a best hope for freedom and equality
Posted by Alabama.John at 03/10/2009 @ 12:59pm
Same. Bringing back the old regime basically ex nihilo would say nothing about the defeat of the old one, and certainly wouldn't tarnish it.
Posted by Thrawn at 03/09/2009 @ 10:19pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Perhaps in a purely theoretical construct this would be true. However, the post war stationing of occupying forces in a divided Germany relegates such comparison to the abstract. United Russia isn't exactly ex nihilo "phoenix," because the burning was never really complete, despite claims of the triumphalists. While fears of a return to Stalinism may not be appropriate, it is equally inappropriate not to acknowledge that resurgence of the old guard should be viewed with caution. For example:
'On December 12, 2007, Kasparov announced that he had to withdraw his presidential candidacy due to inability to rent a meeting hall where at least 500 of his supporters could assemble to endorse his candidacy, as is legally required. With the deadline expiring on that date, he claimed it was impossible for him to run. Kasparov's spokeswoman accused the government of using pressure to deter anyone from renting a hall for the gathering and said that the electoral commission had rejected a proposal that separate smaller gatherings be held at the same time instead of one large gathering at a meeting hall.[48]'
Source: Wikipedia
United Russia is more ex materia than it is ex nihilo.
Posted by OneVote at 03/10/2009 @ 1:05pm
We should be clear: public ownership that disproportionately benefits the wealthy elite is no more socialistic than one where taxpayer resources used to promote and protect privately owned enterprises that are "too big to fail" is free market. Both systems rely on the government to protect the country - resulting in a large well armed military and strong punitive laws that punish the country's enemies and reformers who "work outside the system".
Both systems despise activists. The only "good" activist is dead, imprisoned or resides in an "enemy" country. If they are dead or imprisoned they serve as examples. If they are local they are an example of what "tough laws" can do to those who undermine the strength of the county. If they are foreign they are examples of the type of oppression that the country so righteously opposes. Local activists weaken the country and embolden its enemies. Foreign activists are freedom fighters and give further proof that our government is on the side of freedom and goodness.
The leadership of the US and Russia find solace in the threat posed by the other country. Their purpose is to protect the country and its interests. They get reelected by making their countries strong.
Posted by rimchamp77 at 03/10/2009 @ 1:14pm
Antisocialist................The very name you use as a face to post here shows, YOU are still caught into the anachronistic framework of the Cold War.
I have not seen any statements from any leaders in Russia that say they want to go back to central planning, away from the free enterprise system.
What I find amusing is all this talk about Russia and you have no words about China, which is an openly centralized government under an still called today "Communist Party", but acting as a capitalist powerhouse (actually many times more efficient than many so-called "democracies" in the West).
It only goes to show how the mental model-frame-works you are still using are completely out of date. They don't fit the new realities but never mind, you keep on shoveling it in for all to see how far out into space you are.
Why would Putin or Medvedev want to go back to central planing when they have lots more power (as leaders and individuals) with the proven free enterprise system?
Putin is today still extremely popular amongst Russians, perhaps more so than many so-called "democratic" leaders in other countries of the West.
Many from the Right and the Left are still stuck in those anachronic frames of mind.
WE NEED NEW IDEAS!!!
Posted by etniks at 03/10/2009 @ 1:33pm
Putin is not fooled by America's two faced agenda: He knows full well that the missiles in Poland are provocative: They could be pointing at Russia OR Iran and he doesn't need Obama to "promise" it's Iran. Obama made a fool of himself in deluding himself that Russia could be bought off so easily. Moreover, America showed its two-faced loyalties when it supported Saakashvili's outrageous war in Georgia (that it was armed by Israel has not escaped Putin either).Putin also knows how two faced America is when it pretends to want "total" nuclear disarmament, while conveniently fully and financially supporting Israel's nuclear program. Putin is aware too that America also supported Israel's air bases in Georgia from which Israel intended to launch an attack on Iran. Obama needs to come clean if he wants an honest and sincere relationship with Russia; Putin is NOT a fool, and knows that all the US wants is its support against Iran, and he will never do that. Putin was not fooled by Bush, and he won't be fooled by Obama.
Posted by mystic7 at 03/10/2009 @ 1:36pm
Since it was mentioned in several comments, just a few words about the "media" in Russia. We live in the deep province. In our home, the radio station that's most of the time on is, as far as I know, financed by the US, 24 hours. (Echo Moscou). We most of the time don't agree with them, but they are quite intelligent. On our cable television we get 62 chanels, for which we pay about $8 a month. If we don't want to watch the Russian chanels, we have BBC World Service and Deutsche Welle and if we don't want any politics at all, we have Kultura, 24 hours. And of course, we have fast internet ($30 per month), so we can read any international newspaper we want. We certainly don't live in an ideal country, but by now we are at least as connected to the "world" as Americans are.
Posted by danceart at 03/10/2009 @ 2:22pm
" We certainly don't live in an ideal country, but by now we are at least as connected to the "world" as Americans are" (danceart) What we really want to know is : Can you see Sarah Palin from your front porch?
Posted by mystic7 at 03/10/2009 @ 3:46pm
I have missed the cold war since it supposedly ended. The Russians were great adversaries and they will be again. They know how to handle penny-ante upstarts effectively. Georgia got a little tutoring last summer when their foolish leader goaded the Russian bear. It won't be long before the regions covered by the Hitler-Stalin pact will be brought back into the fold and there won't be anything to be done to prevent it. Napoleon and Hitler wasted some of the finest armies the West has ever seen in futile attempts to subjugate Russia. The result was total disaster for the West both times.
Posted by jsens at 03/10/2009 @ 4:00pm