I ask because foreign affairs should be more than just Iraq. This provocative piece causes me to wonder about John McCain's other foreign policy views.
John McCain believes we should kick Russia out of the G8:
The future of the transatlantic relationship lies in confronting the challenges of the twenty-first century worldwide: developing a common energy policy, creating a transatlantic common market tying our economies more closely together, addressing the dangers posed by a revanchist Russia, and institutionalizing our cooperation on issues such as climate change, foreign assistance, and democracy promotion.We should start by ensuring that the G-8, the group of eight highly industrialized states, becomes again a club of leading market democracies: it should include Brazil and India but exclude Russia. Rather than tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks, Western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization's doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom.
Do we agree with John McCain, or not, on this point?
A side note for tomsyl, who recently posted his opinion that Obama was an idealist. In this same speech, McCain said:
I am an idealist . . .
But back to Russia, this is a well established position:
June 9, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- John McCain is a saber-rattler when it comes to Russia. On the campaign trail, the Republican presidential candidate warns of the "dangers posed by a revanchist Russia." A quick Google search produces video of McCain plodding through his oft-repeated joke that when he looks in Vladimir Putin's eyes, he sees three letters: KGB (and not, like George Bush, Putin's "soul").As president, McCain says he would back up his tough talk with equally aggressive policies. He wants to kick Russia out of the Group of 8, the organization of the world's leading industrial powers. McCain has also long been a proponent of quickly expanding NATO to include former Soviet allies like Georgia. Russia bristles at the notion of the Western military alliance encroaching on her border.
* * *
But the sound of sabers rattling is music to the ears of Randy Scheunemann, the McCain campaign's senior foreign policy and national security advisor. A long-term confidant of the candidate, Scheunemann also supports a very tough stance toward Russia. Unlike McCain, until very recently he was paid to support that stance. McCain, already under fire for the role of lobbyists in his campaign, is taking his foreign policy advice from someone who was a paid lobbyist for former Soviet Bloc countries that are wary of Russia, and seems to advocate those policies the countries and their former lobbyist want. Notably, McCain supports a quick expansion of NATO, and Scheunemann has already helped two former Soviet satellites gain admission to NATO and has worked on behalf of two others.
Interestingly, neither Scheunemann nor the interviewer mentioned that Randy Scheunemann used to be employed as a lobbyist for the Georgian government. That’s right, the person who’s giving John McCain advice on Russia and Georgia was “registered with the U.S. Department of Justice as a foreign agent working on behalf of the government of Georgia.”
But if we launch a new Cold War with Russia, whither Iranian policy?
Israel, of course, fears a nuclear Iran as shown by this open letter to Barack Obama on the eve of his trip to Israel:
I am convinced that you regard a nuclear Iran as an intolerable threat, as you put it to AIPAC, and that, under your administration, negotiations with Iran would be coupled with a vigorous campaign of sanctions. And you've made the convincing argument that you could summon international goodwill far better than the current administration. No nation would be more relieved by an effective sanctions campaign than Israel. We know what the consequences are likely to be of an attack on Iran--retalitory missiles on Tel Aviv, terrorism against Jewish communities abroad, rising anti-semitism blaming the Jews for an increase in oil prices.We worry, though, that the sanctions will be inadequate and that the Iranians will exploit American dialogue as cover to complete their nuclearization. Unless stopped, Iran's nuclear program will reach the point of no return within the early phases of the next administration. We need to hear that under no circumstances would an Obama administration allow the Iranian regime to go nuclear--that if sanctions and diplomacy fail, the U.S. will either attack or else support us if we do.
Can air strikes alone terminate Iran's nuclear program? For the record if an Osirak-on-steroids (Operation Opera) could guarantee complete termination of Tehran's efforts to build nuclear weapons, I am not entirely unsympathetic to the undertaking.
However (IMHO) to launch air strikes and fail to eradicate the program is worse than relying on sanctions and other means to deny Iran nuclear capability. And whither Maliki's loyalties (or the Iraqi Shia) were we to do that?
But if we poke Russia in the eye (whether G8 or a central Europe ABM base or otherwise) increased Russian support for an Iranian nuclear program would seem a logical counter-punch. If Russia blocks sanctions against Iran, wouldn't air strikes become nearly inevitable?
Not to mention Russia's growing leverage over Europe as a supplier of natural gas.
Is there wisdom or folly to be found in ratcheting up confrontation with Russia?
--
. . . and it looks as though they’ll punish the monkey and let the organ grinder go . . .
--
. . . and it looks as though they’ll punish the monkey and let the organ grinder go . . .


Update ? -- How would kicking Russia out of the G8
(#105078)benefit America in any tangible fashion?
Other than posturing about "standing tall" against the tyrannical Russians?
Can we do it? Probably not
Why should we do it? Unclear
So, why is McCain saying it?
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
Excellent diary.
(#105063)I think the admission of Georgia to NATO is a very dangerous move, if it should happen as things currently stand. This is a nation with 2 serious hot border disputes with Russia. It's a tinderbox and lining up the weight of NATO behind it with unequivicle support risks emboldening the Georgians to be less than wise and dragging us all into a conflict.
Randy Scheunemann - lobbyist for Georgia
(#105077)The nation not the state. This is a matter of public record, IIRC.
Yes, admitting Georgia to NATO would be a dangerous move, and yet a top McCain foreign policy adviser was very recently paid by the Republic of Georgia to advocate their interests.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentHardball w/Russia
(#105045)The more pertinent question is: Can we kick Russia out of the G8?
The answer: Somewhere between unlikely to damn near impossible.
Why? Because it would take a unanimous vote to boot Russia out.
So why did McCain say this? My take is that he has two reasons:
(1) The idealistic. The G8 is supposed to be a group of industrialized democracies, and Russia is no longer a free country and it is barely industrialized. They were invited into the club because of its superpower status and because they were an emergent democracy with the promise of becoming a free nation. Alas.
(2) The realpolitique. McCain is sending a message that we disapprove of Putin's relationships with rogue and fringe nations and that we will use our leverage to encourage Putin to change his ways. McCain is breaking from Bush in this regard because Putin made Bush look the fool.
Anyway, using Soros-funded ThinkProgress as an authoritative source is no better than using RawStory, Bill, because you only get part of the story. Disappointing, because your sources are so uniformly one-sided.
If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters.--Barack Obama, 2008
If these are the goals, the remark is stupid.
(#105121)I agree that indicating a desire to decrease Russia's role in the G8 as a device for realpolitik is a good idea. But given the realities, it is better to talk about "will seek to kick out" or advocate lesser steps to lessens its role as a response to specific Russian actions that we disapprove. Then the Russians can decide what they want to do. More importantly, we have to win others to our point of view to make it go anywhere. Even if the proposed sanctions are less than "kicking them out," the point is more symbolic both to the Russian and to the allies with whom we need to gain influence to sell this point of view.
McCain's red meat advocacy to "kick them out" serves no purpose other than a domestic and political one. It is not realpolitik -- it is dumb diplomacy. Sending over-heated messages of disapproval does nothing to influence the Russians.
As for your disdain for Soros linked groups, you freely cite much more biased right wing sources without irony. Spare us the clutched-pearls routine about groups with an agenda.
- reply
parentIf it's "[s]omewhere between unlikely
(#105075)... and damn near impossible" - and I'd lean toward the latter - to boot Russia out of the G8, then it isn't very effective leverage to influence Russian (foreign, much less domestic) policy, is it?
So either it's not Realpolitik that's driving McCain's rumblings along these lines, or it is - and he's just not very good at it.
A man must be orthodox upon most things, or he will never even have time to preach his own heresy.
- reply
parentHuh?
(#105050)barely industrialized? Russia has a GDP comparable to Great Britain or France - about $2 trillion. They'll also be providing the heavy lift capability for our space program starting in a few years, since we won't be able to. Economically and technologically, they're a lot more formidable than you seem to think.
Politically, I don't agree with a lot of what Putin has done, but to say they're not a free country is exaggeration. The Russian people sure seem to approve of the job he is doing, so I'm not sure what country you're comparing them to. They're certainly freer than Belarus, Saudi Arabia or China to name just a few.
I'll make the same point I've made before - trying to kick them out of the G8 for no reason other than the fact that we disagree with some of their policies is a stupid shortsighted idea. Now if you were trying to use that as leverage to get something out of them, that would be worth discussing. Otherwise, it just sounds like a temper tantrum - like a lot of McCain's proposals.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentRussia is not a free country
(#105072)And they've gotten less free over the years. Freedom House has the data.
Comparing Russia's total GDP with France and Britain is misleading. The much better measure is per capita GDP. The UK is 20th, France is 23rd and Russia is 52nd, right behind Croatia. India's and Brazil's are lower, but they're big countries and Brazil is free and India is also free.
As for McCain's policy toward Russia being a "temper tantrum", do you have anything other than your feelings and perceptions to support such a contention?
If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters.--Barack Obama, 2008
- reply
parentDon't be silly
(#105118)the definition of the G8 has nothing to do with per capita GDP, or Iceland would be a founding member.
I call it a temper tantrum because you've yet to explain, or even try to explain, what benefit we would receive from trying it. If you're going to stick a finger in someone's eye, you'd better have a good reason for it. If you want to guarantee that they'd reflexively block our moves in all international fora, this move would accomplish it, but I don't see the benefit to the US of doing so.
As for how free they are, I'd call them more corrupt than authoritarian, but maybe that's just me.
Once again, a poorly thought out McCain proposal designed to appeal to ignorant voters on an emotional level. Yup, he is certainly proving to be a typical Republican candidate.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentOh, but I have explained
(#105149)You either don't get it or you disagree. Take your pick.
The G8 was intended to be a group of the largest industrialized democracies, so of course Iceland wouldn't be in.
If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters.--Barack Obama, 2008
- reply
parentBoth
(#105170)it's a symbolic move with no benefit to the US. Explain to me again how that's good foreign policy.
Your second paragraph renders the GDP/person point meaningless.
I blame it all on the Internet
- reply
parentDo you have anything besides allegiance
(#105099)To say it's not a temper tantrum? What on earth does kicking Russia out of the G-8 accomplish besides making yourself feel better? Not that the G-8 accomplishes much anyways.
- reply
parentMissing the point
(#105147)Russia can't get kicked out unless the other G's unanimously agree, and you said it yourself: the G8 doesn't accomplish much anyway. McCain's statements are symbolic, intended to send a message to Putin. As for "temper tantrums", the onus is on Hank, not me. He made the claim, so he gets to back it up.
If you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters.--Barack Obama, 2008
- reply
parentSymbolic, intended to send a message
(#105171)You say Putin, I and just about everyone else will say 'American voters'. Given that he's not actually intending to accomplish anything besides shoot his mouth off, well, "temper tantrum" is a subjective claim but I'd say it fits well enough.
- reply
parenttotal nonsense
(#105049)Russia was not an emergent democracy when it joined the G8. That is simply crazy talk. Russia joined the G8 in 1997, several years after Yeltsin ordered the attack on the Russian parliament. It was also a couple of years after the indiscriminate destruction by aerial bombing of Grozny. The idea that Russia is only just now displaying dictatorial behaviour is total nonsense.
from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away - Matthew 25/29
- reply
parentGood diary Bill
(#104959)So if we poke Russia in the eye, they'll actively aid Iran's nuclear development? Become a corrupt dictatorship? Aren't these things happening anyway? Russia seems to be going down the path of a cold war all on their own, so it seems important to at least consider not sanctioning it.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
That is not how it seems to me
(#105013)Russia seems to be going down the path of a cold war all on their own
That is not how it seems to me. Here is a story on Secretary of State James A. Baker III's pledge not to expand NATO eastward to Gorbachev. This was back in 1990.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A06E3D8113BF936A15756C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
NATO was expanded under Clinton and may be expanded again.
Back in 2001 the USA unilaterally withdraws from an anti-ballistic treaty with Russia, after 30 years.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/13/rec.bush.abm/
These days of course the US is putting anti-ballistic missile radars in Russia's neighbours to supposedly to counter some dubious threat from Iran.
I don't know if Russia is setting out on a path of a new cold war, but if they were, they are not doing it alone.
from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away - Matthew 25/29
- reply
parentWas that "dubious threat from Iran" picture photoshopped?
(#105057)But that would nean the Iranians were lying, wouldn't it? Probably as the result of something the US did that prevented them from being truthful.
The Russians, as major arms merchants, are constantly making grandiose claims about their supposedly state of the art weapons systems, almost as if they didn't lose all of the Central European stooge-ocracies they used to own before betting on an arms race they ultimately lost. One of their biggest customers is Iran, who's spent billions on AA systems the Russians claim can shoot down cruise missiles. (They didn't work too well when the Israelis bombed the crap out of that NK-related site in the Syrian desert, though. In fact, they didn't work at all AFAIK.)
But now you say that Russia's going back to the old days because the US is building radars near its borders? Amazing how much influence this country has, isn't it? We say "jump", the rest of the world says "how high?"
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
- reply
parentCold War indeed!
(#105061)I think it's pretty obvious that the Russians wouldn't take kindly to the placement of the radars on their borders. There is even talk of their reviving similar facilities on Cuba.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3508773,00.html
Czechs have always struck me as level-headed, pragmatic people. Have you any info on educating them to the dangers of Iranian missiles? Most seem still in the dark regarding this threat.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/22/content_8742164.htm
If the Russians are interested in making mischief anywhere, they don't need to launch any weapons. They can and actually have simply turned off the spigot of petro-resources exported to neighbours. Maybe they'll have to do it again before you get the message. Cold War indeed!
from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away - Matthew 25/29
- reply
parent??
(#105300)Did you intend to reply to my post instead of another's? You keep saying "cold war indeed!" like in a Lewis Carroll story, but that's not a subject I mentioned, nor is the issue of Russia launching missiles.
The CVVM polls are old news; check with the source instead of the Chinese to find out more. Have you never heard of a poll showing that a majority of those questioned disagree with an action of their government? What happens if you have one in Canada and a majority say the health care system sucks - do you junk it and go to HMOs?
I can't tell if you think the Iranian missiles are real or fake. The Iranians say they are intended for defense only; here's a map of where one might land.
The Russians are going to turn off the gas pipeline spigot to send me a message? Neat; hope they spell my name right. But please tell them a case of Stoly would do the trick without chilling all those French chapeaus. And BTW, I don't live in Europe, nor is there a pipeline from there to the US. (I bet those scalawags at Exxon are building one underwater at night, though; see Xinhua for more details.)
I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems scary and weird. It'll happen to you.—Abraham Simpson
- reply
parentenergy independence
(#105302)So Czechs are cottoning on to the threat of missile attack from Iran. Foolish Czechs. If the Iranians want to make trouble though, I doubt they will launch missiles at Europe. They might go for Romania - the name is a palindrome for Iranoma and surely has an ominous ring to Persian ears. Still, if Iran chose to anything aggressive towards Europe, and let's assume that's what they want, they could do something towards blocking the Straights Of Hormuz where much of the oil Europe burns passes through. I mentioned similar tactics with respect to Russia ie, oil exporters will have muscle beyond their arsenals if supplies tighten. Radars are not going to do much to change this. The squeak heard round the world - that would be the sound of Russians or Iranians shutting down the taps on their exports. Not because folks in USA import it but because others do, and these others will have to look elsewhere for supplies. I don't think there is much controversy here. In fact I think fear of this very scenario is behind the recent talk of 'energy independence.'
from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away - Matthew 25/29
- reply
parentAwesome
(#105014)"Russia Forced into Dictatorship by BAD USA! Film at 11!"
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentRussia a dictatorship?
(#105030)Russia a dictatorship? But it's been 15 years since the Duma was attacked by tanks, awesome though that was.
from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away - Matthew 25/29
- reply
parentFrom what I hear, Russia is seriously annoyed with Iran.
(#104987)I wouldn't worry too much about a new Cold War with Russia. They're just resuming their old geopolitical position in the world, a role we haven't seen in a while, going back to the days of Rus, with all roads leading to Moscow.
Randy Scheunemann is trouble. He's a horrible continuance of everything the Republicans should be rejecting this time around. He's got McCain's ear. He's also the engineer of McCain's 2000 defeat.
The USSR was always its own worst enemy. In a sense, this new Russia is something it should and could have always been. Yes it's crude and jingoistic, but in our heyday we weren't much different. Russia's got to find its own place in the world, and it's come to the game almost a century late.
This may be apocryphal, but I am given to understand when Putin came to power, he was seriously annoyed to discover the ongoing Bushehr reactor complex, which had been built for cash by some of Yeltsin's cronies. Grudgingly, he agreed Iran could have the reactors, but Russia would fuel them.
Now Russia is giving Iran the stink eye. Iran is viewed as something of a rival in the area, and the last thing Russia needs right now is another casus belli. Russia's squeezing the rest of Europe for cash in exchange for natural gas, they like stability. Nobody in Russia wants yet another powerful nuclear entity on their borders.
Russia is pragmatic enough to fulfill its end of non-proliferation treaties, and they've got the good sense to dismantle the vast majority of its own nuclear weapons stockpile. Many US reactors are now fueled with the stuff once found atop the USSR's ballistic missiles.
The erstwhile Warsaw Pact countries will soon host NATO missile defense systems. Pull the cord taut on your globe, inspect the flight path from Iran to Europe, that's where to put such a defense system. That scares Russia. Russian have always had a strong paranoid streak, they might entertain fantasies that we're trying to bottle them up. Maybe one of our negotiators ought to bring a string and a globe to the next round of negotiations: maybe we could get Russia to build that ABM system itself.
Russia's got a huge inferiority complex. Even in the time of the tsars, they always had two faces. There's St. Petersburg, an idyllic European-style city built on a swamp, atop the bones of tens of thousands of slave laborers. Then there's the often-burned Moscow, the old confluence of real power.
Russia demands our constant attention, but they're far more useful to American interests if we allay their intrinsic fears. The worst-kept secret of the Cold War was this: the USSR was always more afraid of us than we were of them. When you consider our own fears during those grim decades, that's really saying something.
Russia is not the enemy, okay, it's not our good buddy, but the world doesn't neatly divide in to friends and enemies. Countries don't have friends anyway, and if we looked at Russia as a fellow-traveler on the road, one who exhibited faith in the nuclear disarmament treaties we offered, I believe we can trust them to be part of a worldwide solidarity against Iran's schemes. We really don't have a choice.
- reply
parentgolf on the moon
(#105042)The Iranians are not breaking any nuclear proliferation treaties. The Russians have IAEA's El Baradei to back them up on this. If it's anyone who is lacking faith in the NPT, it must be the USA who have been lobbying others to put a stop to Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology.
Here's an interesting story showing Stalin almost as popular as Putin with the Russian public.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7519129.stm
I don't see how the Cold War can be characterized as grim, especially by Americans, anyhow. Single income families, houses in the suburbs, golf on the moon...
from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away - Matthew 25/29
- reply
parentROFL! Oh, Mickey, the preciousness of it all amuses me.
(#105081)I was a Cold Warrior. I shot Communists. End of story. Until you have a clue about the Cold War, spare me any adjectives about the Cold War. It wasn't very cold, and it wasn't just one war.
- reply
parentI never meant
(#105285)I never meant to imply that you didn't shoot communists. I only meant to point out that those with more important things to do did them.
I'm thinking there must be plenty around who would jump at the chance to rewind history and go back to the reassuring comforts of the Cold War - bombing communists who never bomb you.
from him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away - Matthew 25/29
- reply
parentGolf on the Moon?
(#105076)I'm in. Corporate sponsorship would be a terrific way to pay for space exploration. IMHO.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentI'm not referring to Russia vis a vis Iran
(#105003)I was talking about Russia herself and the dangerous course Putin set her on internally.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentInternally, by definition
(#105035)means not our problem. I mean, we should encourage democracy in whatever way we can but after 8 years of Bush it's not like we can shake a stick at anyone for their executive staying within the law. Changing their politics won't be done by kicking them out of the G-8 or any other pointless bellicose nonsense, our only chance for influence is with a soft touch. That aside, we can partner for shared interests in the short term.
- reply
parentApologies, but
(#105038)That statement is so hyperbolically out of any realm of reason I can relate to, that I can't even begin to respond. If you really draw any kind of equivalence between the two situations, oh geez, nevermind.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentWell, it was the least important part of my post
(#105066)But yeah, I'll stand by it. Am I saying that Bush is qualitatively as bad as Putin? Only in a couple areas. But the whole thing with loudly and sanctimoniously scolding someone, you've gotta be about 10x as clean as them to pull it off without being told to go eff off, and we're not.
Honestly, though, I think the whole sanctimonious scolding thing is pointless to begin with. Just noting that given our behavior over the last 8 years it'll probably lead to guffaws.
- reply
parentThe answer of course is complicated
(#104961)How Russia responds will depend upon the severity of the poke and kicking them out of the G8 would seem to demand a rather vigorous response from Moscow.
Russia (IMHO) would want it both ways. It wants an Iranian nuclear program that proceed slowly. Too slowly to risk Tehran actually getting a bomb but not too slowly to not twist Western knickers.
But if the next Administration starts a jihad of sorts against Russia their reaction could be unpredictable. And that would be bad, on many, many levels.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentI'd counter
(#104966)...that talking about whether or not they belong in the G8, isn't a bad place to start. Russia is seriously go down a dark path, and I'm not sure our long term interests are served by totally ignoring it.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentOn the topic of the G8
(#105036)What the heck is the point of it if Italy's a member but China, India, Brazil and now maybe Russia aren't?
- reply
parent"We" should not be talking about it in public
(#104971)unless we already have other members of the G8 on-board with the idea. If we do, then THEY should be talking about it in public, while we stay coy until momentum is built up.
If we float the idea and it fails to go over well with the rest of the G8, then floating the idea was a bad idea.
= = =
To return to Obama's central thesis on Iraq, too many of our resources and geo-political assets are tied down in one place, precluding the ability to maneuver elsewhere. Rather like buying the largest house once can afford (barely) but thereby being unable to take vacations or routinely drive new cars.
If public opinion in other G8 nations is anti-Iraq War, their leaders have less ability to cooperate with us on other issues.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentSorry
(#104973)But both points strike me as trivial. Sen. Obama is naïve if he thinks any of the G8 would conflate the Russian problem with Iraq. In addition, I sure as hell don't think we should contemplate putting pressure on Russia in secret.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentI don't think we have the firepower to put much pressure
(#104976)on Russia, period. We might think we do but Russia's natural gas resources give them substantial leverage over Europe.
IIRC, Putin wrote his PhD thesis on using natural resources for geopolitical advantage.
McCain talking tough is simply more reverse Teddy Roosevelt -- talk tough for the American people -- but accomplishes little in actual results. But if we were to make a serious diplomatic move against Russia, its best NOT telegraphed.
= = =
Obama very likely does not have a well developed Russia strategy.
However I believe he believes that we need to re-build our geo-political capital before playing power political games on the world stage.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentWhere's Sally Fields when we need her?
(#104978)"They like me, they really like me, now they'll listen to me"
Hogwash.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parentWhether they like us is irrelevant
(#104980)The fact that we are over-extended allows others to take advantage and reduces our ability to help others.
Also, foreign public opinion simply does constrain foreign leaders, at least in foreign democratic nations.
The proper balance between defense and welfare are the tectonic plates that lie beneath our political discourse.
- reply
parentExcept
(#104985)We aren't over-extended in any way relative to putting pressure on Russia. Russia going rouge is a much bigger issue for the rest of the G8, so maybe they should worry about their low reserves of geo-political capital.
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- reply
parent