4 ms·

>1. Obama made a huge* back-channel concession to Russia to get them to deny Snowden asylum. He had to do something to get Putin to decide not to shelter Snowde

by cube13 13y ago

>1. Obama made a huge* back-channel concession to Russia to get them to deny Snowden asylum. He had to do something to get Putin to decide not to shelter Snowden, and it would likely be an extremely painful concession. Most likely something security related in eastern Europe, probably BMD. Realistically, that's not much of a concession, even though the Russians will play it up as such. It'll be a political hit for Obama from the 10 people who still care about it in the US, but in terms of international politics, it won't be all that much. Think about it this way: Russia is one of the largest oil producing nations in the world. They supply most of Europe. Why would they nuke their paying customers? The BMD interceptors that are currently planned on getting put in eastern Europe have a very questionable test record, are stupidly expensive, and, in all honesty, were a needless provocation of the Russians when they were planned during the Bush administration. Removing them would save a lot of people a lot of money and de-escalate a silly situation.

kposehn 13y ago
I disagree. The BMD systems are an essential way for Poland and other eastern european countries to counter Russian influence by guaranteeing a US military presence and negating the effect of short-range missile deployments. Bush started it for good reason - it is in the US' best interests to keep Russia from becoming dominant over eastern European countries. They already use natural gas as a major level over countries (remember when they switched off the gas due to a 'pricing dispute'?). We want to mitigate Russian influence in their periphery as no one in Europe or the US wants another warsaw pact. Russia wants to dominate them because their security stems from having a large buffer between them and germany (or anyone else for that matter.
- old-gregg 13y ago
  > having a large buffer between them and germany You sound like you're stuck in 1982. The biggest geo-political headache for Putin is not maintaining a useless "buffer" with Western Europe, but the growing Chinese influence in the East. Look at the map: the soon-to-be superpower shares a fairly huge border with Russia with precedents of isolated clashes in the 60s. And there are no buffers to "dominate". Germany, on the other hand, sends their ex-chancellors to work for Russian natural gas giants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Gazprom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Gazprom
  - kposehn 13y ago
    > You sound like you're stuck in 1982 No, look at Russia's geopolitical moves since the 1800's all the way until today. They have a buffer with China already called Siberia. And yes, they are concerned about China anyway (as well they should be).
    - jacalata 13y ago
      Siberia is in the north of Russia. Are you thinking of Mongolia? There is also a direct china-Russia border on the east.
      - kposehn 13y ago
        I'm referring to the region east of the Urals, primarily along the southern frontier. Pretty much just west of Baikal to the Pacific. That is often considered Siberia as a whole, though more local definitions I'm not aware of may define it differently.
        jacalata 13y ago
        Looks like there are several definitions I'm not aware of, including 'the entire eastern two thirds of Russia'. Interesting!
    - old-gregg 13y ago
      That's where I grew up. I can assure you, nobody in Russia sees its own territory hosting multiple critical industries with half a dozen cities with >1M population as a "buffer" against China. "Siberia" is not a well-defined region, BTW, kind of like "Wild Wild West" in the US - more like a general direction they used to send expeditions to, like 200 years ago. Just pointing out how weird your comment seems. Either you're trolling, or your mental picture of that part of the world needs an overhaul.
      - kposehn 13y ago
        The heartland of Russia is west of the Urals. While Siberia has a ton of value, it is also a buffer. The Ukraine & Belarus are the same. Think about it this way - how is China going to go rolling into Moscow? By holding Siberia, they have an effective buffer against incursion into the most valuable parts of the country. > That's where I grew up. Whereabouts? I'm honestly curious as to your experience in Russia and what it was like. > Either you're trolling, or your mental picture of that part of the world needs an overhaul. No to both. Why would I be trolling? To me this is a discussion and I'd like to know more about your viewpoint.
- vetinari 13y ago
  They are not essential for Poland or other EE country. They are a tool in the US game to weaken Russian influence in the region. For Poland and the rest of EE, it does not matter. Either Russia, or US domination, both are bad for the local interests. They cannot gain much, but they can become victim in the process.
  - kposehn 13y ago
    The thing is, they want a security guarantor that isn't Russia. Russia tends to dominate; the US tends to accelerate the economy. By having a US military presence, they are much more secure from domination by Russian interests (political, economic and security). This also means that western companies will feel more secure and invest further in their economies - something they all want because it brings rapid growth that tends to be better sustained.
  - kposehn 13y ago
    > They are a tool in the US game to weaken Russian influence in the region. I do agree with this point :)
- mscarborough 13y ago
  > "Bush started it for a good reason". Bush didn't start anything in that part of the world for a good reason. Look what those trillions of dollars got us. For me it was friends with PTSD or other traumas or are still there waiting to come home to their families. BMD was just Reagan's Star Wars 2.0. It wasn't clever or strategery, just more of the same nonsense to pay defense contractors. Sorry but this college professor act just really falls short.
  - kposehn 13y ago
    > Sorry but this college professor act just really falls short. I'm not a college professor; nor am I acting like one. I'm going off of 13 years of research into geopolitics. You're entitled to your own opinion and I don't begrudge you that - but don't begrudge me mine.
- Zigurd 13y ago
  There is a strong argument that the BMD systems create friction for allies who would prefer to have smoother relations with Russia.
  - kposehn 13y ago
    True! I definitely think it has caused a huge set of problems with some nations.
rayiner 13y ago
> Realistically, that's not much of a concession, even though the Russians will play it up as such. It'll be a political hit for Obama from the 10 people who still care about it in the US, but in terms of international politics, it won't be all that much. Are you joking? Do you not remember how Republicans attacked Obama during the election for being cozy with Russia? There is a big block of older voters who grew up in the cold war who will flip at something like that.
- cube13 13y ago
  Lame duck president and a VP that, realistically, doesn't stand a change to win? Less of a risk than you'd think.

by cube13 13y ago

kposehn 13y ago

I disagree. The BMD systems are an essential way for Poland and other eastern european countries to counter Russian influence by guaranteeing a US military presence and negating the effect of short-range missile deployments. Bush started it for good reason - it is in the US' best interests to keep Russia from becoming dominant over eastern European countries. They already use natural gas as a major level over countries (remember when they switched off the gas due to a 'pricing dispute'?). We want to mitigate Russian influence in their periphery as no one in Europe or the US wants another warsaw pact. Russia wants to dominate them because their security stems from having a large buffer between them and germany (or anyone else for that matter.

old-gregg 13y ago
> having a large buffer between them and germany You sound like you're stuck in 1982. The biggest geo-political headache for Putin is not maintaining a useless "buffer" with Western Europe, but the growing Chinese influence in the East. Look at the map: the soon-to-be superpower shares a fairly huge border with Russia with precedents of isolated clashes in the 60s. And there are no buffers to "dominate". Germany, on the other hand, sends their ex-chancellors to work for Russian natural gas giants: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Gazprom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Schr%C3%B6der#Gazprom
- kposehn 13y ago
  > You sound like you're stuck in 1982 No, look at Russia's geopolitical moves since the 1800's all the way until today. They have a buffer with China already called Siberia. And yes, they are concerned about China anyway (as well they should be).
  - jacalata 13y ago
    Siberia is in the north of Russia. Are you thinking of Mongolia? There is also a direct china-Russia border on the east.
    - kposehn 13y ago
      I'm referring to the region east of the Urals, primarily along the southern frontier. Pretty much just west of Baikal to the Pacific. That is often considered Siberia as a whole, though more local definitions I'm not aware of may define it differently.
      - jacalata 13y ago
        Looks like there are several definitions I'm not aware of, including 'the entire eastern two thirds of Russia'. Interesting!
  - old-gregg 13y ago
    That's where I grew up. I can assure you, nobody in Russia sees its own territory hosting multiple critical industries with half a dozen cities with >1M population as a "buffer" against China. "Siberia" is not a well-defined region, BTW, kind of like "Wild Wild West" in the US - more like a general direction they used to send expeditions to, like 200 years ago. Just pointing out how weird your comment seems. Either you're trolling, or your mental picture of that part of the world needs an overhaul.
    - kposehn 13y ago
      The heartland of Russia is west of the Urals. While Siberia has a ton of value, it is also a buffer. The Ukraine & Belarus are the same. Think about it this way - how is China going to go rolling into Moscow? By holding Siberia, they have an effective buffer against incursion into the most valuable parts of the country. > That's where I grew up. Whereabouts? I'm honestly curious as to your experience in Russia and what it was like. > Either you're trolling, or your mental picture of that part of the world needs an overhaul. No to both. Why would I be trolling? To me this is a discussion and I'd like to know more about your viewpoint.
vetinari 13y ago
They are not essential for Poland or other EE country. They are a tool in the US game to weaken Russian influence in the region. For Poland and the rest of EE, it does not matter. Either Russia, or US domination, both are bad for the local interests. They cannot gain much, but they can become victim in the process.
- kposehn 13y ago
  The thing is, they want a security guarantor that isn't Russia. Russia tends to dominate; the US tends to accelerate the economy. By having a US military presence, they are much more secure from domination by Russian interests (political, economic and security). This also means that western companies will feel more secure and invest further in their economies - something they all want because it brings rapid growth that tends to be better sustained.
- kposehn 13y ago
  > They are a tool in the US game to weaken Russian influence in the region. I do agree with this point :)
mscarborough 13y ago
> "Bush started it for a good reason". Bush didn't start anything in that part of the world for a good reason. Look what those trillions of dollars got us. For me it was friends with PTSD or other traumas or are still there waiting to come home to their families. BMD was just Reagan's Star Wars 2.0. It wasn't clever or strategery, just more of the same nonsense to pay defense contractors. Sorry but this college professor act just really falls short.
- kposehn 13y ago
  > Sorry but this college professor act just really falls short. I'm not a college professor; nor am I acting like one. I'm going off of 13 years of research into geopolitics. You're entitled to your own opinion and I don't begrudge you that - but don't begrudge me mine.
Zigurd 13y ago
There is a strong argument that the BMD systems create friction for allies who would prefer to have smoother relations with Russia.
- kposehn 13y ago
  True! I definitely think it has caused a huge set of problems with some nations.

rayiner 13y ago

> Realistically, that's not much of a concession, even though the Russians will play it up as such. It'll be a political hit for Obama from the 10 people who still care about it in the US, but in terms of international politics, it won't be all that much. Are you joking? Do you not remember how Republicans attacked Obama during the election for being cozy with Russia? There is a big block of older voters who grew up in the cold war who will flip at something like that.

cube13 13y ago
Lame duck president and a VP that, realistically, doesn't stand a change to win? Less of a risk than you'd think.