Buchanan: Get out of Russia's face

[Vympel]

Link

Who Lost Russia?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

By 1988, Ronald Reagan, who had famously branded the Soviet Union "an evil empire," was striding through Red Square arm-in-arm with Mikhail Gorbachev. Russians were pounding both men on the back.

They had just signed the greatest arms-reduction agreement in history – eliminating all Soviet SS-20s targeted on Europe, in return for removal of the Pershing and cruise missiles Reagan had deployed in Europe.

"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven!" wrote Wordsworth about his first hearing the news of the fall of the Bastille.

Many of us felt that way then.

Within three years, the Berlin Wall had come down, the puppet regimes of Eastern Europe had been swept away, Germany was reunited, the Red Army had gone home, the Soviet Empire had vanished, and the Soviet Union had broken up into 15 nations. The Baltic republics were free. Ukraine was free.

Yet, on the eve of the G-8 summit, Vladimir Putin has announced that Russia will retarget missiles on NATO. We must, he said, counter Bush's decision to put anti-missile missiles in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic. Why are we doing this?

The United States says the ABM system in Europe is to defend against an Iranian attack. But Tehran has no atom bomb and no ICBM.

We appear to be headed for a second Cold War – and, if we are, responsibility will not fully rest with the Kremlin. For among those who have mismanaged the relationship are presidents Clinton and Bush II, the baby boomers who appear to have kicked away the fruits of a Cold War victory won by their Greatest Generation predecessors.

How did they do it?

When the Red Army went home from Eastern Europe, the United States, in violation of an understanding with Moscow, began to move NATO east. We have since brought into our military alliance six former members of the Warsaw Pact and three former provinces of the Soviet Union: Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

Anti-Russia hawks are now pushing to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. If they succeed, we could be dragged into future confrontations with a nuclear-armed Russia about who has sovereignty over the Crimea and whether South Ossetia should be part of Georgia.

Are these vital U.S. interests worth risking a war? Why are we moving a U.S.-led military alliance into the front yard and onto the side porch of a country with thousands of nuclear weapons? Would we accept any commensurate Chinese or Russian move in the Caribbean?

After Moscow gave us a green light to use the former Soviet republics of Central Asia to base U.S. forces for the Afghan war, the United States has sought permanent bases there. Russia and China have now united to throw us out of their back yard.

America colluded with Azerbaijan and Georgia to build a Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan pipeline to transmit Caspian Sea oil across the Caucasus to the Black Sea and Turkey, cutting Russia out of the action.

In 1999, the United States bombed Serbia 78 days to punish her for fighting to hold her cradle province of Kosovo, which Muslim Albanians were tearing away. Orthodox Russia had long seen herself as protectress of the Balkan Slavs. That Clinton ignored Russia in launching this unprovoked war on Serbia was seen in Moscow as proof that Russian concerns had become irrelevant in Washington.

After helping dump over the government in Belgrade, our Neocomintern – the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, and other fronts – interfered in Ukraine and Georgia, helping oust pro-Moscow regimes and install pro-American ones. Since then, NED has been run out of Belarus and its subsidiaries are about to get the boot from Moscow.

Can we blame the Russians for being angry? How would we react to left-wing NGOs in Washington, flush with Moscow oil money, aiding elements hostile to the Bush administration?

The United States has been constantly hectoring Russia on backsliding from democracy. But compared to Beijing, Moscow is Montpelier, Vt. And why, if the Cold War is over, are Russia's political arrangements any of our business?

If we don't like the way Putin treats Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Boris Berezovsky, and the other "oligarchs" who robbed Russia blind in the 1990s, maybe Putin doesn't like how we treated Martha Stewart.

Harry Truman is often blamed for having started the Cold War. He didn't. Stalin did. But Clinton, George W., and the neocons have a strong claim to having started the second. A first order of business of the next president should be to repair the damage this crowd has done – and to get out of Russia's face.

I do so enjoy reading Pat Buchanan on foreign policy issues. Referring to the "National Endowment for Democracy" and similar fronts as the Neocomintern is gold.

[K. A. Pital]

Haha. Pat is of that old brand of isolationist paleocons, so in terms of foreign policy today he sounds far more sensible than the neocons

P.S. The article is very old. I've seen it months ago on the VIF.

[MKSheppard]

blah, It's not even worth replying to Buchanan's rants anymore.

[Axis Kast]

The United States says the ABM system in Europe is to defend against an Iranian attack. But Tehran has no atom bomb and no ICBM

Except that Iran has every reason to seek the atom bomb, and no worthy claim on the benefit of the doubt. While it may have a reasonable claim on an independent nuclear fuel cycle, the particular infrastructure chosen to prosecute will make it a virtual nuclear power, if nothing else.

Why not develop an ABM system? First of all, Iran’s arsenal would be small. Second, it would be borne on platforms that are not particularly technologically impressive. Third, it would potentially enable the United States to respond to “rogue” launches.

Not to mention that we’d have stationed the ABM system elsewhere, if not for rejection from Western European nations.

In any case, Putin could not possibly expect that an ABM system which might deploy in the foreseeable future would be any threat to the effectiveness of Russia’s arsenal as a deterrent against the United States.

Are these vital U.S. interests worth risking a war? Why are we moving a U.S.-led military alliance into the front yard and onto the side porch of a country with thousands of nuclear weapons? Would we accept any commensurate Chinese or Russian move in the Caribbean?

I agree that the United States gains nothing obvious from bringing the Ukraine into NATO.

On the other hand, I sincerely doubt that China and Russia have held off wielding influence on a broader scope simply because it’s the “polite, neighborly thing to do.”

In 1999, the United States bombed Serbia 78 days to punish her for fighting to hold her cradle province of Kosovo, which Muslim Albanians were tearing away. Orthodox Russia had long seen herself as protectress of the Balkan Slavs. That Clinton ignored Russia in launching this unprovoked war on Serbia was seen in Moscow as proof that Russian concerns had become irrelevant in Washington.

More correctly, it would have been seen as new evidence of an old truth: European fears count for more than Russian ones.

After helping dump over the government in Belgrade, our Neocomintern – the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House, and other fronts – interfered in Ukraine and Georgia, helping oust pro-Moscow regimes and install pro-American ones. Since then, NED has been run out of Belarus and its subsidiaries are about to get the boot from Moscow.

As if Russia did nothing untoward. Right. And I’ve got a bridge to sell you in New Mexico.

The United States has been constantly hectoring Russia on backsliding from democracy. But compared to Beijing, Moscow is Montpelier, Vt. And why, if the Cold War is over, are Russia's political arrangements any of our business?

So, because the leak in my bathroom is worse, I shall ignore that in my roof? That is poor logic.

And as a nuclear power with vast natural resources, an under-employed scientific infrastructure, and a military legacy decades in the making, how can we not but be interested that Russia develops liberal proclivities?

If we don't like the way Putin treats Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Boris Berezovsky, and the other "oligarchs" who robbed Russia blind in the 1990s, maybe Putin doesn't like how we treated Martha Stewart.

I don't get it. One should ignore intimidation and repression aimed at a whole group or class of individuals because some of their number were responsible for exploitation or crimes?

[Vympel]

As if Russia did nothing untoward. Right. And I’ve got a bridge to sell you in New Mexico.

Nothing to do with the price of tea in China, as far as Buchanan is concerned. The USA has no legitimate interests in the area. What Russia does is irrelevant.

(Nevermind that with the trawman comment as "Russia did nothing untoward ..." you're flagrantly ignoring what he wrote in the article itself, that being that responsibility for another Cold War would not rest solely with Russia ...)

So, because the leak in my bathroom is worse, I shall ignore that in my roof? That is poor logic.

The very statement is rife with the imperialist and delusional hegemonic sentiment that drives the US foreign policy establishment. I believe Pat would respond that it's not your bathroom or your roof.

I don't get it. One should ignore intimidation and repression aimed at a whole group or class of individuals because some of their number were responsible for exploitation or crimes?

Say what? So you're saying the oligarchs are a repressed class of individuals, only some of which are responsible for exploitation or crimes? Please tell me of these poor unjustly repressed billionaires who got rich without robbing Russia blind.

Really, this response is a really eloquent of a basic inability to even comprehend what like Buchanan is saying- ie. none of our bloody business, let's fuck off.

[Medic]

The whole series of events described in the article does raise an interesting point, it seems sometimes as if we act as if the Cold War never ended.

The Soviet Union was broken up and more than a few of the constituent parts of it have joined NATO, with a few more in line. If I were more inclined to paranoia I'd say the long term goal is continued isolation and the break up of Russia itself. I'm not, but I can't help that those fears may exist in some Russians.

From the American perspective, I'd say ABM counters Russia's feelings of inadequacy at the moment. No Iran doesn't have nukes, but they won't either be entirely nuclear-capable if their only missiles are all ought to be shot down, either by us or Israel. As Stuart put it, we're raising the cost of joining the nuclear club.

[Axis Kast]

Nothing to do with the price of tea in China, as far as Buchanan is concerned. The USA has no legitimate interests in the area. What Russia does is irrelevant.

That’s untrue. First of all, the United States has an interesting in seeing the Ukraine become a prosperous democracy, if only to avoid “brain drain”. Second, the United States clearly prefers that Russia not restore its borders to those of the old Soviet Union. Third, there is a vested interest that Russia not dominate Eastern European resource markets for Europe’s sake. More competition is better from their standpoint.

(Nevermind that with the trawman comment as "Russia did nothing untoward ..." you're flagrantly ignoring what he wrote in the article itself, that being that responsibility for another Cold War would not rest solely with Russia ...)

The only reason that Russia can cry about Washington’s rumblings and doings over the Ukraine is that, “It’s in their backyard.” But I don’t see that argument as carrying any weight. Isn’t it Ukraine’s backyard, after all? If it boils down solely to an issue of power, I don’t see how we’re going to spark a “new Cold War” by backing a particular candidate under the table. Russia isn’t positioned to sustain that kind of standoff. Buchanan is engaging in wild-eyed alarmism.

The very statement is rife with the imperialist and delusional hegemonic sentiment that drives the US foreign policy establishment. I believe Pat would respond that it's not your bathroom or your roof.

First of all, it was a figure of speech. Second, whether rife with subconscious imperialist and hegemonic sentiment, the point still stands: we have a vested interest in Russian behavior because Russia has nuclear weapons and a large infrastructure of chemical and biological weapons that they have not properly secured, to say nothing of their intellectual resources. Biopreparat, anyone?

Say what? So you're saying the oligarchs are a repressed class of individuals, only some of which are responsible for exploitation or crimes? Please tell me of these poor unjustly repressed billionaires who got rich without robbing Russia blind.

Are you saying that we shouldn’t worry when a country squelches free enterprise? I’m not saying that we don’t punish Kenneth Lay. I’m saying that we don’t intimidate or run Steve Jobs out of town because of what happened in Texas. You tell me it’s none of our business. I tell you that his statement smacked of, “The many can pay for the crimes of the few, because all are despised.” I agree that Russia’s particular economic choices aren’t particularly of interest to the United States, except insofar as they demonstrably delay desirable reforms.

Really, this response is a really eloquent of a basic inability to even comprehend what like Buchanan is saying- ie. none of our bloody business, let's fuck off.

It’s always our business. Just as, when any nation is powerful enough, they seek to impose a kind of order on the world around them. It is a natural and understandable tendency.

Part of the problem, of course, is that I don’t see the need for condominiums with Russia. There’s not going to be a significant new arms race accruing from the ABM system. Partly because nobody in their right mind has faith in it. Second because Russia can’t now afford it.

Now, am I saying we need to be proactive and take any particular set of steps? No. But I am saying that there are interests in those locations that should be tended.

We must not say, "Oh, gee, former Soviet Union. Forget it."

[Vympel]

That’s untrue. First of all, the United States has an interesting in seeing the Ukraine become a prosperous democracy, if only to avoid “brain drain”.

I fail to see how prosperous democracy = avoid brain drain.

Second, the United States clearly prefers that Russia not restore its borders to those of the old Soviet Union.

What's it to them? (Nevermind there's little evidence that's Russia's goal)

[qiote]Third, there is a vested interest that Russia not dominate Eastern European resource markets for Europe’s sake. More competition is better from their standpoint.[/quote]

For Europe's sake? Again, why?

The only reason that Russia can cry about Washington’s rumblings and doings over the Ukraine is that, “It’s in their backyard.” But I don’t see that argument as carrying any weight. Isn’t it Ukraine’s backyard, after all? If it boils down solely to an issue of power, I don’t see how we’re going to spark a “new Cold War” by backing a particular candidate under the table. Russia isn’t positioned to sustain that kind of standoff. Buchanan is engaging in wild-eyed alarmism.

Originally, you tried to make out that Buchanan was saying that Russia was somehow blameless. As for Russia being annoyed about Washington interference in what anyone understands is their "backyard", the point is, again, it's got nothing to do with America in the first place. Buchanan, as far as I understand, is not so naive as to argue that great powers don't appropriate influence for themselves and the little countries just have to bear it.

First of all, it was a figure of speech. Second, whether rife with subconscious imperialist and hegemonic sentiment, the point still stands: we have a vested interest in Russian behavior because Russia has nuclear weapons and a large infrastructure of chemical and biological weapons that they have not properly secured, to say nothing of their intellectual resources. Biopreparat, anyone?

Who says it has not been properly secured? I've seen no evidence of some massive outflow of Russian NBC weapons or skill. Further, what has these professed interests in Russian behavior got to do with the above? Nothing.

And American behavior is certainly not conducive to reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation with missile defence, is it?

Are you saying that we shouldn’t worry when a country squelches free enterprise?

Free enterprise doesn't include robber barons.

I’m not saying that we don’t punish Kenneth Lay. I’m saying that we don’t intimidate or run Steve Jobs out of town because of what happened in Texas. You tell me it’s none of our business. I tell you that his statement smacked of, “The many can pay for the crimes of the few, because all are despised.” I agree that Russia’s particular economic choices aren’t particularly of interest to the United States, except insofar as they demonstrably delay desirable reforms.

What equivalent of Steve Jobs in Russia was run out of town?

It’s always our business. Just as, when any nation is powerful enough, they seek to impose a kind of order on the world around them. It is a natural and understandable tendency.

It's our business because it's our business, in other words. You're not putting much particular effort into devising a justification for this behavior.

Part of the problem, of course, is that I don’t see the need for condominiums with Russia. There’s not going to be a significant new arms race accruing from the ABM system. Partly because nobody in their right mind has faith in it. Second because Russia can’t now afford it.

Now, am I saying we need to be proactive and take any particular set of steps? No. But I am saying that there are interests in those locations that should be tended.

We must not say, "Oh, gee, former Soviet Union. Forget it."

There's a difference between "forget it" and "get out of their face".

[Big Phil]

While I'm not surprised to see Shep's typical wankery and Axis Kast's mindless bullshit, I've yet to see a logical explanation for why the US should see Russia as a competitor and not a potential ally. After the Cold War the Russians should have been courted and befriended; instead they're preparing for war (hot or cold).

It was pretty ironic to read that Buchanan blames Clinton for Russia's frigidity toward the USA, as if in the 90's relations between our two countries weren't improving.

[Axis Kast]

I fail to see how prosperous democracy = avoid brain drain.

Where Russia is prosperous, there will be above-board jobs to attract these people.

Where Russia is democratic, there will be the intellectual and political atmosphere conducive to business ventures.

What's it to them? (Nevermind there's little evidence that's Russia's goal)

The U.S. has a vested interest that Russia not be strong. Simply so it cannot muscle in on U.S. activities in Central Asia, for example.

For Europe's sake? Again, why?

Because Western Europe is currently allied with the United States. Not to mention that they provide a clear counterbalance to Russia.

Originally, you tried to make out that Buchanan was saying that Russia was somehow blameless.

He writes as if that is true. It’s silly and does nothing to enhance his argument.

As for Russia being annoyed about Washington interference in what anyone understands is their "backyard", the point is, again, it's got nothing to do with America in the first place.

You’ve done nothing to prove that.

Who says it has not been properly secured? I've seen no evidence of some massive outflow of Russian NBC weapons or skill. Further, what has these professed interests in Russian behavior got to do with the above? Nothing.

Russian scientists have reported being solicited by the Iranians. Whether or not any have gone to date, the problem remains. Various biowarfare facilities remain off-limits to the West. The United States would be best served were Russia’s economy to become stronger and if jobs were guaranteed to individuals with certain (as in South Africa), as well as if there were more money (ironically) to finance better security at certain “problem” sites.

See, for example: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/ ... index.html

And American behavior is certainly not conducive to reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation with missile defence, is it?

Norms mean nothing. They are first of all difficult for nations to “read,” and second of all will be violated by those desperate enough to do so. There was supposed to be a new era of non-proliferation in 1991, South Africa proved that roll-back was possible in 1994, and Iraq proved that the international community could force deproliferation. And yet the march of time brings with it new nuclear powers.

An ABM shield testifies to the benefits of weapons that are already clearly in a league of their own. Nobody needs an ABM shield to know that nuclear weapons deter great power invasion, if not intrusion. Those who want nuclear weapons will get them irrespective of what the U.S. does. Avoiding construction of an ABM shield will not reduce demand for the bomb.

Free enterprise doesn't include robber barons.

It looked to me as if Pat Buchanan was saying, “Fuck the rich in Russia. Most of them are slime.” That’s throwing away the baby with the bath water. If you think he means only to implicate a select (guilty) few, then it’s an issue of interpretation.

It's our business because it's our business, in other words. You're not putting much particular effort into devising a justification for this behavior.

No, it’s our business because we have clear interest in helping Russia toward a more open, more competitive economy. Yes, there are contradictory tendencies at work (just as in every relationship); we don’t want them “too strong” either.

There's a difference between "forget it" and "get out of their face".

And our beliefs about the gap between those are what’s in question. Buchanan says, “No attempts to back certain parties in the Ukraine.” Why not? Buchanan says, “No ABM shield.” Why not? Russia can't (and won't) have another arms race with us. We are not actually improving the viability of a first strike in any manner.

[Darth Wong]

Oh for fuck's sake, after the catastrophe of the Iraq War, Kast still thinks that it makes sense for Americans to consider it a "national interest" to try and transform the rest of the world into their image? All of your "national interest" arguments boil down to a desire to transform other countries to be more like America, Kast. You are confusing "national interest" with "global domination fantasies".

[Vympel]

Where Russia is prosperous, there will be above-board jobs to attract these people.

Where Russia is democratic, there will be the intellectual and political atmosphere conducive to business ventures.

Can you point to brain drain in the non-prosperous, non-democratic USSR?

The U.S. has a vested interest that Russia not be strong. Simply so it cannot muscle in on U.S. activities in Central Asia, for example.

And the US has activities in Central Asia, why? As I recall, Buchanan has also argued before that it is a fool's errand to have activities so close to Russia in Central Asia to which Russia will take umbrage, as the US cannot compete and is merely taking advantage of temporary Russian weakness for little long term gain. But anyway.

Because Western Europe is currently allied with the United States. Not to mention that they provide a clear counterbalance to Russia.

Fair enough.

He writes as if that is true. It’s silly and does nothing to enhance his argument.

He does not, I pointed out why he does not. Again:

We appear to be headed for a second Cold War – and, if we are, responsibility will not fully rest with the Kremlin.

You’ve done nothing to prove that.

I believe your attempts to justify it with "it is because it is" arguments help in that regard. I do not see American interests as being pan-global, and think that those who do are hastening America's fall from power with overstretch.

Russian scientists have reported being solicited by the Iranians. Whether or not any have gone to date, the problem remains. Various biowarfare facilities remain off-limits to the West. The United States would be best served were Russia’s economy to become stronger and if jobs were guaranteed to individuals with certain (as in South Africa), as well as if there were more money (ironically) to finance better security at certain “problem” sites.

See, for example: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/ ... index.html

Do you really think that if Russia's economy were to become stronger, this would somehow result in Russia's BW labs subordinated under the MOD would open their doors to the West?

I will note, again, that there is no indication of any significant brain drain to places like Iran.

Norms mean nothing. They are first of all difficult for nations to “read,” and second of all will be violated by those desperate enough to do so. There was supposed to be a new era of non-proliferation in 1991, South Africa proved that roll-back was possible in 1994, and Iraq proved that the international community could force deproliferation. And yet the march of time brings with it new nuclear powers.

An ABM shield testifies to the benefits of weapons that are already clearly in a league of their own. Nobody needs an ABM shield to know that nuclear weapons deter great power invasion, if not intrusion. Those who want nuclear weapons will get them irrespective of what the U.S. does. Avoiding construction of an ABM shield will not reduce demand for the bomb.

Meanwhile, Russia threatens to re-aim nuclear weapons at Europe and threatens to tear up INF.

It looked to me as if Pat Buchanan was saying, “Fuck the rich in Russia. Most of them are slime.” That’s throwing away the baby with the bath water. If you think he means only to implicate a select (guilty) few, then it’s an issue of interpretation.

He's specifically referring to mega-rich oligarchs, not the rich in general.

No, it’s our business because we have clear interest in helping Russia toward a more open, more competitive economy. Yes, there are contradictory tendencies at work (just as in every relationship); we don’t want them “too strong” either.

And our beliefs about the gap between those are what’s in question. Buchanan says, “No attempts to back certain parties in the Ukraine.” Why not? Buchanan says, “No ABM shield.” Why not? Russia can't (and won't) have another arms race with us. We are not actually improving the viability of a first strike in any manner.

Well, some would disagree (including some on this board). The Russians are certainly behaving as though it will.

[Axis Kast]

Can you point to brain drain in the non-prosperous, non-democratic USSR?

I’d be glad to – and in areas relevant to the subject matter at hand.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=109422

And the US has activities in Central Asia, why?

First of all, the U.S. is interested in concluding deals with Central Asian nations for their oil, or exploitation thereof. Russian influence is unlikely to be salutary to those objectives.

Secondly, the U.S. has obvious interests within the scope of the long-term War on Terror. That goes beyond immediate tactical needs; bases go a long way toward developing political capital in a country.

Oh for fuck's sake, after the catastrophe of the Iraq War, Kast still thinks that it makes sense for Americans to consider it a "national interest" to try and transform the rest of the world into their image? All of your "national interest" arguments boil down to a desire to transform other countries to be more like America, Kast. You are confusing "national interest" with "global domination fantasies".

No, this is you imposing a neo-conservative framework over me because you don’t actually bother to read what I write, Mike.

Neo-conservatives aren’t wrong to argue that democracy has utility to the United States. Just as socialism and Communism had utility to the U.S.S.R. where it was in vogue before 1991. I disagree that we should push hard to export it at the barrel of a gun. I didn’t favor intervention in Iraq simply to oust Saddam because he was a dictator, for example. And I’m not arguing that we need to stare down Russia over the Ukraine. I am arguing that it’s stupid to suggest that we should do nothing to try and achieve favorable outcomes.

I do not see American interests as being pan-global, and think that those who do are hastening America's fall from power with overstretch.

America’s interests will be pan-global because they have been pan-global. September 11th would have taken place even had Bush adhered strictly to isolationism.

Do you really think that if Russia's economy were to become stronger, this would somehow result in Russia's BW labs subordinated under the MOD would open their doors to the West?

No, but I presume that Russia wouldn’t short-change security and dismantlement if it had more money.

Meanwhile, Russia threatens to re-aim nuclear weapons at Europe and threatens to tear up INF.

Prove that these are directly in response to the ABM system that has been ridiculed as a failure time and time again on this board alone.

He's specifically referring to mega-rich oligarchs, not the rich in general.

Either your word choice is awful, or you misunderstand my point. I don’t care about wealthy Russians for their own sake. But I think it does smack of callousness to justify Putin’s draconian measures simply because some businessmen are slime.

Well, some would disagree (including some on this board). The Russians are certainly behaving as though it will.

The Russians are blustering to get what they can get. Putin’s no dope.

[Darth Wong]

Oh for fuck's sake, after the catastrophe of the Iraq War, Kast still thinks that it makes sense for Americans to consider it a "national interest" to try and transform the rest of the world into their image? All of your "national interest" arguments boil down to a desire to transform other countries to be more like America, Kast. You are confusing "national interest" with "global domination fantasies".

No, this is you imposing a neo-conservative framework over me because you don’t actually bother to read what I write, Mike.

Neo-conservatives aren’t wrong to argue that democracy has utility to the United States. Just as socialism and Communism had utility to the U.S.S.R. where it was in vogue before 1991. I disagree that we should push hard to export it at the barrel of a gun. I didn’t favor intervention in Iraq simply to oust Saddam because he was a dictator, for example. And I’m not arguing that we need to stare down Russia over the Ukraine. I am arguing that it’s stupid to suggest that we should do nothing to try and achieve favorable outcomes.

I love the way you accuse me of attempting to falsely paint you as a neo-conservative, and then, immediately afterwards, you try to convince me that neo-conservatism is correct

The fact that something would "have utility" to you does not mean it is a compelling national interest to try and make it happen. Since the point about Iraq obviously flew over your head, it would "have utility" to you if the entire Middle East suddenly became pro-American and pro-Israeli too, but that doesn't mean you had a compelling national interest to blunder about in the region trying to make it happen.

[Sea Skimmer]

The whole idea of missile targeting is nonsense anyway; as it is absurdly unlikely that Russia doesn’t already have nuclear missiles aimed at French and British nuclear forces, and NATO bases which store US tactical nuclear bombs. Not to mention you can rather quickly retarget missiles, since you never know what attack plan will be used.

[Axis Kast]

I love the way you accuse me of attempting to falsely paint you as a neo-conservative, and then, immediately afterwards, you try to convince me that neo-conservatism is correct.

Arguing that neo-conservatives make valid points some of the time is not arguing that neo-conservatism is correct.

The fact that something would "have utility" to you does not mean it is a compelling national interest to try and make it happen. Since the point about Iraq obviously flew over your head, it would "have utility" to you if the entire Middle East suddenly became pro-American and pro-Israeli too, but that doesn't mean you had a compelling national interest to blunder about in the region trying to make it happen.

I argue that the United States did not incur unacceptable costs in terms of Russian ire when bringing influence to bear in the Ukrainian elections.

The fact of the matter, however, is that you are going to attempt to portray any general statement I make about interests and policy as an attempt to justify extreme forms of implementation. Nobody said that we should “blunder about” trying to antagonize anybody. Arguing that a particular proposition about constructing the future has credibility is not arguing that we ought to stomp around like an elephant pursuing that future. In Russia’s case, however, the United States has obvious compelling reasons to criticize political developments antagonistic to democracy, compelling reasons to preserve the political independence of Eastern Europe (particularly because a condominium isn’t now necessary with Russia), and compelling reasons to build an ABM shield.

You haven’t actually weighed in on any particular issue in this thread, Mike. All you’ve done is to come in and accuse me of being a neo-conservative, arguing that a quest to democratize is a license to another Iraq. Except that I haven’t said that we should pursue democracy at any cost elsewhere in the world. This is amusing, since I'm on record complaining about Carter's treatment of the South Africans and Iranians.

[Vympel]

I’d be glad to – and in areas relevant to the subject matter at hand.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=109422

That link is this topic.

First of all, the U.S. is interested in concluding deals with Central Asian nations for their oil, or exploitation thereof. Russian influence is unlikely to be salutary to those objectives.

Secondly, the U.S. has obvious interests within the scope of the long-term War on Terror. That goes beyond immediate tactical needs; bases go a long way toward developing political capital in a country.

The point is that even if one were to accept these objectives as desireable (and I don't) for the United States, there is the small question of the cost down the line.

America’s interests will be pan-global because they have been pan-global. September 11th would have taken place even had Bush adhered strictly to isolationism.

That assumes Buchanan is arguing it's some sort of Bush phenommenon. It's not- the foreign policy establishment as a whole thinks along broadly these lines. It's a bipartisan issue, not solely Republican or even Bush 43.

No, but I presume that Russia wouldn’t short-change security and dismantlement if it had more money.

They've always managed to find cash for securing their nuclear deterrent and similar facilities. So far, I've seen precious little to indicate anything serious coming as a result of lack of money.

I also find it doubtful that America wants Russia to be prosperous, given that directly correlates to power.

Prove that these are directly in response to the ABM system that has been ridiculed as a failure time and time again on this board alone.

Easily done-

Link

As to the missile shield's efficacy, I am (to my surprise) in your camp in terms of it's effectivenes (I'm not convinced at this stage) but it is the precedent and aims of same that are more important.

Either your word choice is awful, or you misunderstand my point. I don’t care about wealthy Russians for their own sake. But I think it does smack of callousness to justify Putin’s draconian measures simply because some businessmen are slime.

His draconian measures AFAIK have been against oligarchs whoose record of criminality is a matter of uncontroversial fact. How is Russia persecuting wealthy Russians in total? And further, are US interests served by commenting on such obviously Russian internal affairs that have very little effect on any vital US interests whatsoever.

[Axis Kast]

That link is this topic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2055571.stm

The point is that even if one were to accept these objectives as desireable (and I don't) for the United States, there is the small question of the cost down the line.

You disagree that the United States has an interest in access to Central Asian oil, or in opening new markets for American investment?

You believe that American competition with Russia in Uzbekistan, Khazakstan, and elsewhere will actually result in another Cold War?

That assumes Buchanan is arguing it's some sort of Bush phenommenon. It's not- the foreign policy establishment as a whole thinks along broadly these lines. It's a bipartisan issue, not solely Republican or even Bush 43.

No. I am arguing that we cannot disengage from a past of pan-global activity. September 11th occurred irrespective of contemporary policy. For decades after the United States formally absolves itself of responsibility in far-flung areas of the world – which seems highly unlikely, given our dependence on foreign raw materials – there will be “blowback”. And that ignores destabilization resulting from purely economic factors. We’re too big to go back to a situation where policy stops “at the water’s edge”. That we need smarter, more restrained policy is not in question. But we cannot simply step back from engagement with the rest of the world.

They've always managed to find cash for securing their nuclear deterrent and similar facilities. So far, I've seen precious little to indicate anything serious coming as a result of lack of money.

We’d sooner they finance that sort of thing themselves. Or finance it better. Do you disagree?

I also find it doubtful that America wants Russia to be prosperous, given that directly correlates to power

I already affirmed the contradictory nature of that aim.

Easily done-

This is not credible; it consists of a public statement by a Russia that has a vested interest in “milking” the situation. Why not complain about the ABM shield to back out of constraining treaties at a time when an arms race is not actually in the cards? Moscow gains if it stops the U.S. with such rhetoric, and loses nothing by rattling sabers.

As to the missile shield's efficacy, I am (to my surprise) in your camp in terms of it's effectivenes (I'm not convinced at this stage) but it is the precedent and aims of same that are more important.

First of all, since missiles will probably always be cheaper than countermeasures, Russia has no cause for concern.

Second, even if it was actually provocative, ABM is a necessity down the line.

His draconian measures AFAIK have been against oligarchs whoose record of criminality is a matter of uncontroversial fact. How is Russia persecuting wealthy Russians in total? And further, are US interests served by commenting on such obviously Russian internal affairs that have very little effect on any vital US interests whatsoever.

That was not at all clear from Buchanan’s wording.

And the U.S. does have interests in Russian internal affairs because it seeks to have a more stable, more open Russia.

[Vympel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2055571.stm

I said USSR. (nevermind such brain drain is quite benign from a security standpoint)

You disagree that the United States has an interest in access to Central Asian oil, or in opening new markets for American investment?

No, I disagree that pursuing those objectives with military bases ringed around Russia is wise.

You believe that American competition with Russia in Uzbekistan, Khazakstan, and elsewhere will actually result in another Cold War?

It needlessly harms relations and is merely taking advantage of temporary Russian weakness that they cannot hope to keep taking advantage of in the long term, yes. It alone won't result in a Cold War.

No. I am arguing that we cannot disengage from a past of pan-global activity.

You referred to 9/11 happening even if Bush had been an isolationist. Hence my response.

September 11th occurred irrespective of contemporary policy. For decades after the United States formally absolves itself of responsibility in far-flung areas of the world – which seems highly unlikely, given our dependence on foreign raw materials – there will be “blowback”. And that ignores destabilization resulting from purely economic factors. We’re too big to go back to a situation where policy stops “at the water’s edge”. That we need smarter, more restrained policy is not in question. But we cannot simply step back from engagement with the rest of the world.

Building military bases in Central Asia and expanding military alliances towards Russia's borders is not "engagement". As for being engaged in such a manner worldwide like it's some sort of suicide pact that can't be stopped (never mind that 9/11 has nothing to do with the topic of Russia), I don't see why that's the case.

We’d sooner they finance that sort of thing themselves. Or finance it better. Do you disagree?

I'd prefer they'd dismantle their BW programs completely. I would like to see evidence that the security of same is somehow woefully inadequate before I say it should be funded better.

This is not credible; it consists of a public statement by a Russia that has a vested interest in “milking” the situation.

So you'd prefer a private statement from a non-Russian? Eh? It's straight from the horse's mouth.

Why not complain about the ABM shield to back out of constraining treaties at a time when an arms race is not actually in the cards? Moscow gains if it stops the U.S. with such rhetoric, and loses nothing by rattling sabers.

How does this change the effect? Unless you're argung that they won't pull out of INF.

First of all, since missiles will probably always be cheaper than countermeasures, Russia has no cause for concern.

Second, even if it was actually provocative, ABM is a necessity down the line.

Except that they need to waste money on same.

That was not at all clear from Buchanan’s wording.

How is it not clear?

If we don't like the way Putin treats Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Boris Berezovsky, and the other "oligarchs" who robbed Russia blind in the 1990s, maybe Putin doesn't like how we treated Martha Stewart.

He's not referring to the rich in general. That's obvious. He's referring to criminals.

And the U.S. does have interests in Russian internal affairs because it seeks to have a more stable, more open Russia.

Seems like a hogwash reason to me, given the contradictions in their behavior. And I hardly think sticking one's nose into Russian internal affiars is a way to win friends with the government.

[Axis Kast]

I said USSR. (nevermind such brain drain is quite benign from a security standpoint)

The non-prosperous, non-democratic U.S.S.R. heavily regulated who went in and out of the country, particularly where professionals were concerned. It also dumped inordinate amounts of money into the defense and defense-related technologies sectors, keeping people in jobs and livelihoods.

No, I disagree that pursuing those objectives with military bases ringed around Russia is wise

The United States is not pursuing opportunity in the C.I.S. states through military basing; it is reaping tangential benefits from those bases while they serve as staging points for military and intelligence operations in the Middle East and Central Asia.

It needlessly harms relations and is merely taking advantage of temporary Russian weakness that they cannot hope to keep taking advantage of in the long term, yes. It alone won't result in a Cold War.

Where, exactly, do you predict Russia will go in the near future? While it is true that one can reasonably expect a “renaissance” of sorts on the back of mineral extraction and land development, the country has a declining population, a Far East being increasingly dominated by Chinese economic interests, and a decrepit infrastructure. Not to mention a leader whose government frequently stifles freedom of expression.

Building military bases in Central Asia and expanding military alliances towards Russia's borders is not "engagement".

Not with Russia. Although I find it interesting that you defend Russia’s right to ersatz empire while decrying American presumptuousness about spheres of influence.

And September 11th has everything to do with the future of security politics around the world. It’s something that many people that post on this board seem to have a hard time coming to grips with – perhaps because it is often bandied about in relation to the policies of George Bush and neo-conservatives.

September 11th was a spectacular example of blowback. It would have occurred even after several years of disengagement with the rest of the world. Not to mention that complete, “sanitary” isolation is actually impossible; somewhere, sometime, we will step on somebody’s toes. Even if we presume we are acting with kid gloves. See: China, 1930s. The United States perceived that it had interests there, but relatively minor ones. Japan interpreted Washington’s interest and influence in the region was unacceptable.

I would like to see evidence that the security of same is somehow woefully inadequate before I say it should be funded better.

They are obviously inadequate if the United States must dole out funds to help dismantle them.

So you'd prefer a private statement from a non-Russian? Eh? It's straight from the horse's mouth.

Don’t play these games. You don’t trust what the United States Government tells you. Do you honestly expect me to trust the Russian Government?

How does this change the effect? Unless you're argung that they won't pull out of INF.

It does not change the effect. But it does change the context in which it can be understood. It means the ABM Shield isn’t changing Russia’s priorities; it is merely speeding along their unmasking. Not that it matters, since Russia lacks the money to actually provoke an arms race and win. Putin will do what he can to free his hands; he will not engage in a wrestling match. Deterrence will still work.

Except that they need to waste money on same.

Much less money than the U.S. would need to waste, which should put them at ease.

How is it not clear?

I found it confusing.

Seems like a hogwash reason to me, given the contradictions in their behavior. And I hardly think sticking one's nose into Russian internal affiars is a way to win friends with the government.

Your definition of “Russian internal affairs” interestingly includes those of the Ukraine, huh?

I might be inclined to suggest that we should treat Russia with deference if I actually thought that they would cause more problems than they otherwise would in return for U.S. toe-stomping. But you haven't proved that at all.

[Vympel]

The non-prosperous, non-democratic U.S.S.R. heavily regulated who went in and out of the country, particularly where professionals were concerned. It also dumped inordinate amounts of money into the defense and defense-related technologies sectors, keeping people in jobs and livelihoods.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the point.

The United States is not pursuing opportunity in the C.I.S. states through military basing; it is reaping tangential benefits from those bases while they serve as staging points for military and intelligence operations in the Middle East and Central Asia.

What's the difference?

Where, exactly, do you predict Russia will go in the near future? While it is true that one can reasonably expect a “renaissance” of sorts on the back of mineral extraction and land development, the country has a declining population, a Far East being increasingly dominated by Chinese economic interests and a decrepit infrastructure. Not to mention a leader whose government frequently stifles freedom of expression.

I fail to see how these observations somehow lead to, as you imply, Russia getting weaker in the future as opposed to getting stronger (China stifles freedom of expression too. Any question of their being in decline? Erm- no). The period of weakness was the 1990s. I also don't think declining population will be an irreversible trend, or that a Far East "dominated by Chinese economic interests" (if that's even the case) would lead to that either.

Not with Russia. Although I find it interesting that you defend Russia’s right to ersatz empire while decrying American presumptuousness about spheres of influence.

Because of course, spheres of influence across an ocean into Central Asia from the United States and spheres of influence over countries with whom you used to form the USSR is entirely the same.

(nevermind the strawman that I defended Russia's right to "ersataz empire" anywhere ...)

And September 11th has everything to do with the future of security politics around the world. It’s something that many people that post on this board seem to have a hard time coming to grips with – perhaps because it is often bandied about in relation to the policies of George Bush and neo-conservatives.

September 11th was a spectacular example of blowback. It would have occurred even after several years of disengagement with the rest of the world. Not to mention that complete, “sanitary” isolation is actually impossible; somewhere, sometime, we will step on somebody’s toes. Even if we presume we are acting with kid gloves. See: China, 1930s. The United States perceived that it had interests there, but relatively minor ones. Japan interpreted Washington’s interest and influence in the region was unacceptable.

So instead of minimizing behavior that will result in blowback down the line, let's go all out and do the opposite?

They are obviously inadequate if the United States must dole out funds to help dismantle them.

I thought we were talking about security.

Don’t play these games. You don’t trust what the United States Government tells you. Do you honestly expect me to trust the Russian Government?

And your reasoning for them being dishonest is what? I don't trust what a government says if I can think of a good reason as to why it'd be a lie or I have evidence that says they're lying.

It does not change the effect.

Then who cares?

But it does change the context in which it can be understood. It means the ABM Shield isn’t changing Russia’s priorities; it is merely speeding along their unmasking. Not that it matters, since Russia lacks the money to actually provoke an arms race and win. Putin will do what he can to free his hands; he will not engage in a wrestling match. Deterrence will still work.

Just because x or y will not provoke an arms race doesn't mean it is not a concern, never mind destabilizing.

Much less money than the U.S. would need to waste, which should put them at ease.

Possibly. I'm unsure as to how much 4x (or whatever the shoot-shoot-look formula is currently) GBIs per warhead (assuming they don't deploy an interceptor which can hit a warhead bus) cost compared to an ICBM.

Your definition of “Russian internal affairs” interestingly includes those of the Ukraine, huh?

Don't be fucking dishonest. We were talking about oligarchs in this context, remember? And I don't see anything about Ukraine in the paragraph of yours I made that comment in, do you?

I might be inclined to suggest that we should treat Russia with deference if I actually thought that they would cause more problems than they otherwise would in return for U.S. toe-stomping. But you haven't proved that at all.

Such a thing would be impossible to "prove" to your satisfaction if you're convinced they'll act how they want to act and their relations with the US make no difference in that regard.

[Patrick Degan]

And September 11th has everything to do with the future of security politics around the world. It’s something that many people that post on this board seem to have a hard time coming to grips with – perhaps because it is often bandied about in relation to the policies of George Bush and neo-conservatives.

People "have a hard time coming to grips" with your theory because it's a bullshit argument as well as an Appeal to Motive Fallacy. You yammer at every opportunity the mantra that "September 11th changed everything". The only thing it changed was the skyline of Manhattan. The rest of the world has been grappling with terrorism for decades.

September 11th was a spectacular example of blowback. It would have occurred even after several years of disengagement with the rest of the world.

No, September 11th was a spectacular example of incompetence on our part in ignoring every warning sign offered up that the particular plot was in progress.

Not to mention that complete, “sanitary” isolation is actually impossible;

Which nobody on this board is arguing for, actually.

See: China, 1930s. The United States perceived that it had interests there, but relatively minor ones. Japan interpreted Washington’s interest and influence in the region was unacceptable.

Talk about a misreading of history. Japan invaded China. The United States imposed an embargo on oil and all materials which could be used for warmaking purposes and that was the basis of Japan's decision to attack the United States.

[Axis Kast]

Which is entirely irrelevant to the point.

Non-economic characteristics accounted for the Soviet Union’s “retention” of skilled technical personnel.

Prosperous, non-democratic countries experience some level of “brain drain” – i.e., China. Non-prosperous, democratic countries do as well – i.e., South Africa. The latter country has had a particular problem in dealing with those now put out of work after the abolition of activities like Project Coast, the apartheid government’s bid for bio-war capability.

What's the difference?

The U.S. would have reason to base troops in the C.I.S. states irrespective of whether or not they had oil.

I fail to see how these observations somehow lead to, as you imply, Russia getting weaker in the future as opposed to getting stronger (China stifles freedom of expression too. Any question of their being in decline? Erm- no). The period of weakness was the 1990s. I also don't think declining population will be an irreversible trend, or that a Far East "dominated by Chinese economic interests" (if that's even the case) would lead to that either.

The problem is that all of Russia’s problems will have to be dealt with in tandem. China’s future, at least, is brighter. Russia’s problems are likely to require decades to solve or ameliorate. Particularly any positive change in demography (which I agree can be expected), and replacement of old Soviet-era infrastructure.

Because of course, spheres of influence across an ocean into Central Asia from the United States and spheres of influence over countries with whom you used to form the USSR is entirely the same.

Why should we acknowledge Russian spheres of influence? Because we wish to cow the sleeping bear? Hardly. Russia and the United States will compete economically no matter what. Russia cannot afford to engage in saber-rattling with the United States. Now, or in thirty years. Do you disagree with that? If not, then what the United States is doing is not dangerous.

So instead of minimizing behavior that will result in blowback down the line, let's go all out and do the opposite?

I am all for minimizing unnecessary behavior that will result in blowback down the line, and handling necessary infringement on the interests of others with far more discretion and tact than we do now. I am simply a critic of isolationist sentiment, or the proposition that the United States can successfully extract itself from wielding power in places like the Middle East. We shouldn’t have invaded Iraq; that much is clear. But we would still have been conducting military operations against al-Qaeda, for example. And dealing with the fall-out of containing Saddam via sanctions.

I thought we were talking about security.

Dismantlement is the ideal form of security.

And your reasoning for them being dishonest is what? I don't trust what a government says if I can think of a good reason as to why it'd be a lie or I have evidence that says they're lying.

Because, as I pointed out before, the ABM is years – if not decades - from achieving success even as a limited interception system capable of shooting down one missile with anything approaching reliability. It will almost certainly never be capable of dealing with the missiles Russia has in its arsenal at this present moment, nevermind in the future. Certainly the United States would not be stupid enough to sustain a total ABM effort, because Russia could negate it by building more missiles much, much more cheaply.

Just because x or y will not provoke an arms race doesn't mean it is not a concern, never mind destabilizing.

Concerns that won’t boil over into problems not worth the cost.

I'm unsure as to how much 4x (or whatever the shoot-shoot-look formula is currently) GBIs per warhead (assuming they don't deploy an interceptor which can hit a warhead bus) cost compared to an ICBM.

It is extreme.

Don't be fucking dishonest. We were talking about oligarchs in this context, remember? And I don't see anything about Ukraine in the paragraph of yours I made that comment in, do you?

You just defended Russia’s ambitions as legitimate implicitly because the Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union.

You backed Buchanan’s argument that the U.S. should “back off” the Ukraine because it would upset Russia. And do nothing when Russia meddles in local politics there. But why? That’s ceding Russia a free hand in the area. I can only assume you’re saying we should have a condominium with them to avoid a future showdown. But what showdown?

You yammer at every opportunity the mantra that "September 11th changed everything". The only thing it changed was the skyline of Manhattan. The rest of the world has been grappling with terrorism for decades.

There was never the sense of urgency – especially in the United States – that was felt after 9/11. It provoked a conceptual revolution. Before 9/11, the big problem was humanitarian missions. Afterward, it was terrorism.

No, September 11th was a spectacular example of incompetence on our part in ignoring every warning sign offered up that the particular plot was in progress.

Red herring. You do not actually deny that September 11th was a spectacular example of blowback. You are merely trying to dishonestly make it seem as if I somehow said something wrong or incorrect.

Which nobody on this board is arguing for, actually.

It sure sounds like what people are advocating, when they sing the praises of Ron Paul and pontificate about how the world would be a so-much-more-peaceful place if only we didn’t do this or that particular thing that’s so insulting or degrading or upsetting to somebody somewhere.

I agree that the United States needs to revamp its public diplomacy. I agree that it needs to reconsider its priorities and restate them. I disagree that we can ultimately avoid policies that will have severe blowback.

Talk about a misreading of history. Japan invaded China. The United States imposed an embargo on oil and all materials which could be used for warmaking purposes and that was the basis of Japan's decision to attack the United States.

In the period before the embargo, Japan put much greater weight on American activity in China than did Americans themselves. What was a sideshow for Washington was an affront to Japan.

I also find it interesting that you yourself have just pointed to an example in which the United States took reasonable action in response to events occuring far from our shores that resulted in bringing an attack upon us.

[SirNitram]

Is Kast's 9/11 argument, literally, 'Americans are big stupid complacent retards, who couldn't notice the Oklahoma City Building being annihilated, and thus didn't think about terrorism'?

Because last I checked, terrorism was never just absent from the USA. There were attacks on the WTC before, even.

[Axis Kast]

Is Kast's 9/11 argument, literally, 'Americans are big stupid complacent retards, who couldn't notice the Oklahoma City Building being annihilated, and thus didn't think about terrorism'?

Is your argument (and those of others on this board) literally that the United States thought the same way about terrorism before 9/11 as they did after?

As I said, the largest recurring issue on the foreign policy agenda prior to 9/11 was humanitarian aid. We were concerned with failed states, civil wars close to Europe, and, to a much more limited extent, Saddam Hussein and the Rise of China. After 9/11, the United States became fixated on the Middle East to a much greater degree.