Those pesky Russkies

[Enzo]

SO COndoleeza Rice is in Russia trying to calm them down. Seems the USA plans to install missile defense systems in Europe, not far from Russia, despite vehement opposition by the Russians. She tells them that no one can tell us we can't do whatever it takes to protect our "security interests."

Apparently Ms Rice is not aware of the events of 45 years ago when the Russians protected their security interests with missile installations in Cuba, not far from the US of A. We seemed to have a different view of things then.


As far as I can tell it is not OK for the Russians to protect their interests with missiles if they are near us, but it is OK for us to protect our intetests with missiles near them.

This is typical of Bush administration diplomacy, wherein we tell some foreign entity that we will gladly discuss issues with them, as long as they acquiesce and do everything we ask them to do in the first place.

[Heid the Ba]

You're missing the point Enzo, this has nothing to do with the Russians. It is to defend against ICBMs from the middle east so building silos in Czech and Poland, to defend against a threat that doesn't exist, using a missile system that doesn't work, can't possibly be a cover for anything else.

It may well be a genuine system, but it doesn't look it, and given the US's current reputation Russia's response is only natural.

[Мастер]

This is typical of Bush administration diplomacy, wherein we tell some foreign entity that we will gladly discuss issues with them, as long as they acquiesce and do everything we ask them to do in the first place.

I would say it is typical of Bush administration diplomacy, Clinton administration diplomacy, Bush Sr. administration diplomacy, Reagan administration diplomacy, Carter administration diplomacy, Ford administration diplomacy, Nixon administration diplomacy, well, get the idea?

Do you think the Kennedy administration (which, incidentally, had missiles based in Turkey at the time) was right to act in the way it did?

[The Beer Slayer]

Except this time, the Russians are objecting to a missile defense system, not offensive missiles on their borders. The Russians are afraid that their decaying stockpile of strategic missiles just doesn't have the ability to intimidate people the way it used to. But it's not as if the very rudimentary defense we have would be able to stop all their missiles anyway. Mutually Assured Destruction is alive and well.

[Heid the Ba]

From the Russian point of view: The US says it is a defensive system, but why would anyone spend billions installing a defensive system that doesn't work, against a threat that isn't there. There has to be another reason for it.

Unfortunately neither Rice nor Bush understand that it is no longer us against them, it is much more complex than that.

[Dragon Star]

Mutually Assured Destruction is alive and well.

It's MAD, I tell you!

[Мастер]

From the Russian point of view: The US says it is a defensive system, but why would anyone spend billions installing a defensive system that doesn't work, against a threat that isn't there. There has to be another reason for it.

Regarding why anyone would spend billions installing a defensive system that doesn't work, I have no answer for that. But taking action against non-existent threats, I think I can point to a few examples of that. . .

[Enzo]

My point was not that JFK was right or wrong. In retrospect, they blinked, coulda been different. Too late to complain.

My point was that Condy is over there railing that it is OK for us to do what we risked going to war over when they did it.

Of course the US administrations going back to who knows when are hypocrites. What I see lacking in the Bush camp is diplomacy, or simple tact. Previous efferts at least played politely. He just comes out and says, "Unless you do what we want up front, we won't come and talk about whether you should do it or not." We won't discuss nuclear issues with you unless you dismantle your nuclear program.

Then there was the time Bush walked right past Yassir Arafat, ignoring him completely - actually shunned the man. I was embarassed for us. SOme statesman. No, I am or was no fan of Arafat, but if I were at a party of us all, and BT walked up, I would at least say hello. International relations is not a gradeschool playground.

I don't recall Nixon making everything an ultimatum of some sort.

[Мастер]

My point was not that JFK was right or wrong. In retrospect, they blinked, coulda been different. Too late to complain.

But it strikes me as relevant, for the reasons below.

My point was that Condy is over there railing that it is OK for us to do what we risked going to war over when they did it.

OK, but why not say the Russians are being hypocritical for complaining about this US weapons deployment, when 45 years ago they (treating Russia and the Soviet Union as the same entity) were attempting to deploy a weapons system (and a highly lethal one, clearly directed at the US) in Cuba, a short distance from the US? If the US is bound to consistency on this point, because they acted in a certain way 45 years ago, they must do they same now, why would you not impose the same requirement on the Russians?

Of course the US administrations going back to who knows when are hypocrites. What I see lacking in the Bush camp is diplomacy, or simple tact. Previous efferts at least played politely. He just comes out and says, "Unless you do what we want up front, we won't come and talk about whether you should do it or not." We won't discuss nuclear issues with you unless you dismantle your nuclear program.

Well, I don't think el Bush will win any awards for tact, although a certain amount of this might be explained by the imbalance of power between the two countries these days, rather than the attitudes of the leaders.

Then there was the time Bush walked right past Yassir Arafat, ignoring him completely - actually shunned the man.

I might do the same. But I would probably do the same to el Bush as well. Perhaps that's one the reasons I'm not an international diplomat :P

I don't recall Nixon making everything an ultimatum of some sort.

With respect to the Soviet Union? It was a vastly more powerful country than the Russia of today, I don't know it would have been wise to do so. He certainly wasn't too shy about the use of power on, for example, North Vietnam, considering the use of nuclear weapons, or Cambodia.

But I would have to agree, Nixon was a better diplomat than el Bush.

[Enzo]

While I am interested in the isues, in the context of my original post, my beef was with the style or lack thereof of the Bush team. Didn't mean to debate the merits of the actions taken and underlying scenarios.

Nixon may not have been shy about the use of power, but within international diplomacy, he didn't show up with a chip on his shoulder adn start drawung lines in the sand, bellowing "do it my way or we blow you up." it was sufficient that they already knew we COULD blow them up.

Just me saying the Bush administration is a clumsy incompetent bunch at diplomacy adn international relations.

[Мастер]

Just me saying the Bush administration is a clumsy incompetent bunch at diplomacy adn international relations.

Well, I would tend to agree with that. I might put it more diplomatically :P

When GWB made his first trip to Europe as president, The Economist had on its cover the headline, "Mr. Bush Goes to Europe," with a picture of the astronauts on the moon :D

ETA - it's a rather odd thing, I don't think many people voted for GWB in 2000 because of his foreign policy skill or experience, and yet events evolved in a way that that ended up being the major focus of his presidency. . .

[Enzo]

I think there were a lot of people who he convinced we were in an actual war, and they voted the don't change horses in the middle of the stream at wartime ticket.

I'll be more diplomatic when I am not among friends. Visiting the inlaws for example...

Oops, wife is watching.

[Bill EE]

When bringing up the Cuban Missile Event it should be remembered that the Russians "blinking" is a little short sighted. They were putting missiles into Cuba as a response to the US missile bases in Turkey. The conclusion was that the USSR did not place those missiles in Cuba and the US dismantled the missile bases in Turkey. It was a two-way diplomatic solution.

The USSR already had short range LUNA missile with nuclear warheads in Cuba before the IRBM launch site were started.

[troubleagain]

Oops, wife is watching.

She usually is. She knew I'd found you here without me saying a word to her.

[Heid the Ba]

I think today is the day this gets discussed at the G8 summit, I doubt anything will be agreed. Russia will keep sabrerattling and deny using economic sanctions and electronic attacks against eastern european countries. The US will continue to be mystified at the european and Russian reaction.