This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1timspalding
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/17/united.states.missile.shield/index....
Opinion: On the one hand it communicates we have and never will have any defensive options—which should put the Iranians on notice we care. It's Cortez burning his ships. On the other we we have and never will have any defensive options, which is having no ships when the Aztecs have the upper hand.
On the one hand, it communicates a terrible message to our allies in Eastern Europe, who see the project as countering Russia and were strongly in favor of it and the message of American commitment to common defense it sent. On the other, it hands a victory to Putin, and surely some good will come from making a belligerent and untrustworthy dictator happy.
Opinion: On the one hand it communicates we have and never will have any defensive options—which should put the Iranians on notice we care. It's Cortez burning his ships. On the other we we have and never will have any defensive options, which is having no ships when the Aztecs have the upper hand.
On the one hand, it communicates a terrible message to our allies in Eastern Europe, who see the project as countering Russia and were strongly in favor of it and the message of American commitment to common defense it sent. On the other, it hands a victory to Putin, and surely some good will come from making a belligerent and untrustworthy dictator happy.
2dchaikin
My question is: Does this really mean anything?
By which I mean:
1. How long would it have taken to develop?
2. How well would it have worked?
On wikipedia there is this comment:
An April 2000 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that “any country capable of deploying a long-range missile would also be able to deploy countermeasures that would defeat the planned NMD system.” Countermeasures studied in detail were bomblets containing biological or chemical agents, aluminized balloons to serve as decoys and to disguise warheads, and cooling warheads to reduce the kill vehicle’s ability to detect them.
3. How much would it have cost in $$, and did we have the resources?
By which I mean:
1. How long would it have taken to develop?
2. How well would it have worked?
On wikipedia there is this comment:
An April 2000 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Security Studies Program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that “any country capable of deploying a long-range missile would also be able to deploy countermeasures that would defeat the planned NMD system.” Countermeasures studied in detail were bomblets containing biological or chemical agents, aluminized balloons to serve as decoys and to disguise warheads, and cooling warheads to reduce the kill vehicle’s ability to detect them.
3. How much would it have cost in $$, and did we have the resources?
3theoria
"The Americans only cared about their interests. They used everybody else," said Lech Walesa, the former Polish president and revolutionary leader. "It wasn't that the shield was that important, but it's about the way, the way of treating us." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/17/poland-czech-missile-defence-shield
The proposed "shield" is too costly (would add to the debt problem bequeathed by G. W.) and is of questionable strategic value, unless one thinks Iran truly has designs on Poland. The shield's main value -- if one can identify a value -- would have been the nose-thumbing aimed at the Russkis: "look Vlady, we will build them in your neighborhood!". That sort of testosterone-based foreign policy is best left to another bygone era (of, say, the Wilhelmine Kaiserreich). Eastern European nations will have to seek coverture elsewhere (if they were seeking it at all). American conservatives will have to seek to re-create the cherished Cold war mentality and international relations (i.e., the "good old days") elsewhere: here's a hint for them: try Venezuela. Again. However, incoming salvos from Mssr. Cheney are forthcoming, for which one truly needs a shield. In the meantime, let's celebrate post-Huntingtonian international relations.
The proposed "shield" is too costly (would add to the debt problem bequeathed by G. W.) and is of questionable strategic value, unless one thinks Iran truly has designs on Poland. The shield's main value -- if one can identify a value -- would have been the nose-thumbing aimed at the Russkis: "look Vlady, we will build them in your neighborhood!". That sort of testosterone-based foreign policy is best left to another bygone era (of, say, the Wilhelmine Kaiserreich). Eastern European nations will have to seek coverture elsewhere (if they were seeking it at all). American conservatives will have to seek to re-create the cherished Cold war mentality and international relations (i.e., the "good old days") elsewhere: here's a hint for them: try Venezuela. Again. However, incoming salvos from Mssr. Cheney are forthcoming, for which one truly needs a shield. In the meantime, let's celebrate post-Huntingtonian international relations.
4klarusu
On the one hand, it communicates a terrible message to our allies in Eastern Europe, who see the project as countering Russia
Actually, the groundswell feeling amongst Poles I know was, in fact, that their government was pandering to the US yet again in the hope that it would buy them into America's 'club' of international buddies and doing something that in no way benefits at least Poland on a national level. It's an old perspective to think that Poland lives under Russian threat. Their politicians are desperate to be bumped up into what they see as the higher eschelons of the European political debate but are not viewed by many on the ground as having the interests of the country at heart, with corruption rife despite Tusk's anti-corruption stance at the last election. Many Poles saw this defence shield as opening Poland up as a target for terrorism at home and abroad for no benefit. The last time this kind of US-courting back-fired on them was post 9/11 when they stepped up to back the US and send troops to war zones in the hope of gaining political capital and a more relaxed immigration stance (once again against public groundswell) ... the US relaxed their immigration stance enough to give them an immigration clearance desk at Warszawa Okecie airport so they didn't have to be repatriated if their request for entry was refused.
Actually, the groundswell feeling amongst Poles I know was, in fact, that their government was pandering to the US yet again in the hope that it would buy them into America's 'club' of international buddies and doing something that in no way benefits at least Poland on a national level. It's an old perspective to think that Poland lives under Russian threat. Their politicians are desperate to be bumped up into what they see as the higher eschelons of the European political debate but are not viewed by many on the ground as having the interests of the country at heart, with corruption rife despite Tusk's anti-corruption stance at the last election. Many Poles saw this defence shield as opening Poland up as a target for terrorism at home and abroad for no benefit. The last time this kind of US-courting back-fired on them was post 9/11 when they stepped up to back the US and send troops to war zones in the hope of gaining political capital and a more relaxed immigration stance (once again against public groundswell) ... the US relaxed their immigration stance enough to give them an immigration clearance desk at Warszawa Okecie airport so they didn't have to be repatriated if their request for entry was refused.
5timspalding
Actually, the groundswell feeling amongst Poles I know was, in fact, that their government was pandering to the US yet again...
The poll numbers were in the 30s until the Georgia invasion. They doubled when Georgia was attacked. They apparently have gone down slowly after that.
CNN has big red letters update, "President Obama says U.S. is replacing plans for missile defense shield with "new missile defense architecture in Europe." Not sure if that means more details coming soon.
The poll numbers were in the 30s until the Georgia invasion. They doubled when Georgia was attacked. They apparently have gone down slowly after that.
CNN has big red letters update, "President Obama says U.S. is replacing plans for missile defense shield with "new missile defense architecture in Europe." Not sure if that means more details coming soon.
6GirlFromIpanema
#3, Theoria: Hear, hear! :-)
7krolik
>4 klarusu:, klarusu
The Poles I know have a decidedly different version--they are pissed off--and are less than convinced by Tusk's "anti-corruption" stance.
That said, speaking for myself, I was skeptical of this missile defense because of costs and the less-than-convincing evidence that the damn thing would work. I'm pleased with Obama's decision, but nervously so.
Theoria (>3 theoria:), although I share your impatience with testosterone swagger, I think we need to be careful and realistic about how fucking rough this neighborhood can be. Even if Obama was right, it is very plausible (based on many precedents) that the Russians will interpret this development as weakness and, instead of being more cooperative, will push. Where, it's hard to say. Maybe Sevastopol? It wouldn't surprise me. Or the energy situation for this winter could get very ugly.
In any case, even if Obama is right, as I hope he is, he's going to have to do some serious diplomacy here, to show the Poles that they're not getting screwed after their efforts for the misguided Iraq and Afghanistan adventures, and to show the Russians that he's not a pussy, a question which they are likely, very soon, to test.
The Poles I know have a decidedly different version--they are pissed off--and are less than convinced by Tusk's "anti-corruption" stance.
That said, speaking for myself, I was skeptical of this missile defense because of costs and the less-than-convincing evidence that the damn thing would work. I'm pleased with Obama's decision, but nervously so.
Theoria (>3 theoria:), although I share your impatience with testosterone swagger, I think we need to be careful and realistic about how fucking rough this neighborhood can be. Even if Obama was right, it is very plausible (based on many precedents) that the Russians will interpret this development as weakness and, instead of being more cooperative, will push. Where, it's hard to say. Maybe Sevastopol? It wouldn't surprise me. Or the energy situation for this winter could get very ugly.
In any case, even if Obama is right, as I hope he is, he's going to have to do some serious diplomacy here, to show the Poles that they're not getting screwed after their efforts for the misguided Iraq and Afghanistan adventures, and to show the Russians that he's not a pussy, a question which they are likely, very soon, to test.
8geneg
Russia's relationship to Georgia is similar, but not as intense as it has been with Poland. For criminently Stalin was from Georgia! Poland is the bubble that periodically pops up when Germany and Russia stop fighting.
Keeping up with their nuclear arsenal is a tremendous drain on their weak economy. They don't want loose nukes in the world any more than we do. They would like to get rid of a good part of their stockpile. It's much more beneficial to both us and the Rooskies to work toward disarmament altogether than to continue to maintain them. They can't afford them, much less use them to start a war in Europe. Putting missiles in Poland was a show of toughness for home consumption, but, as with many tough guy initiatives (Iraq, anyone) they seldom work out well.
If we really want to aim missiles at Iran, why don't we put them in Israel, after all they are the only ones who could conceivably benefit from it.
Have we, like, actually, hit another missile yet? I think we may have come close once or twice when we knew all the data about the target: launch particulars, planned trajectory and targeting information. What we must do is convince Iran to send us their missile information two weeks before they shoot them so we can successfully target the missiles when they are launched. Even then there is less than a 20% chance we'll actually, you know, like, shoot one down.
At present, deploying an ABM system anywhere is a fool's errand.
Keeping up with their nuclear arsenal is a tremendous drain on their weak economy. They don't want loose nukes in the world any more than we do. They would like to get rid of a good part of their stockpile. It's much more beneficial to both us and the Rooskies to work toward disarmament altogether than to continue to maintain them. They can't afford them, much less use them to start a war in Europe. Putting missiles in Poland was a show of toughness for home consumption, but, as with many tough guy initiatives (Iraq, anyone) they seldom work out well.
If we really want to aim missiles at Iran, why don't we put them in Israel, after all they are the only ones who could conceivably benefit from it.
Have we, like, actually, hit another missile yet? I think we may have come close once or twice when we knew all the data about the target: launch particulars, planned trajectory and targeting information. What we must do is convince Iran to send us their missile information two weeks before they shoot them so we can successfully target the missiles when they are launched. Even then there is less than a 20% chance we'll actually, you know, like, shoot one down.
At present, deploying an ABM system anywhere is a fool's errand.
9Makifat
The Times story suggests that the sky isn't falling as fast as some would like to think:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/europe/18shield.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/europe/18shield.html?hp
10theoria
Krolik: "I think we need to be careful and realistic about how fucking rough this neighborhood can be. Even if Obama was right, it is very plausible (based on many precedents) that the Russians will interpret this development as weakness and, instead of being more cooperative, will push. Where, it's hard to say. Maybe Sevastopol? It wouldn't surprise me. Or the energy situation for this winter could get very ugly."
This may be true. However, what did the USA gain from Bush's announcement of the defense shield? Did Putin cut back on his erosion of civil liberties in Russia? Did Putin/Medvedev offer strong support to curbing Iran's nuclear program? Did the proposed shield stop Russia from sending tanks into Georgia? In my view, nothing is being lost because nothing appears to have been gained from it. From my point of view, the proposed defense shield was a sign of ongoing weakness on the part of the USA (weakness having to do with the foreign policy incompetence of Cheney-Bush). Now that this one element of policy weakness has been removed, other strategies can be employed vis-a-vis Russia (surely, there are other "sticks" that can be waved about if necessary); adding by subtracting, or something like that. It portends a return to actual realism -- as opposed to the fake realism of the neocon idealists -- in American foreign policy.
This may be true. However, what did the USA gain from Bush's announcement of the defense shield? Did Putin cut back on his erosion of civil liberties in Russia? Did Putin/Medvedev offer strong support to curbing Iran's nuclear program? Did the proposed shield stop Russia from sending tanks into Georgia? In my view, nothing is being lost because nothing appears to have been gained from it. From my point of view, the proposed defense shield was a sign of ongoing weakness on the part of the USA (weakness having to do with the foreign policy incompetence of Cheney-Bush). Now that this one element of policy weakness has been removed, other strategies can be employed vis-a-vis Russia (surely, there are other "sticks" that can be waved about if necessary); adding by subtracting, or something like that. It portends a return to actual realism -- as opposed to the fake realism of the neocon idealists -- in American foreign policy.
11klarusu
The poll numbers were in the 30s until the Georgia invasion. They doubled when Georgia was attacked. They apparently have gone down slowly after that.
I guess it depends which polls (or Poles ... sorry, I couldn't resist). If you look at an aggregate of polls for '07, they were consistently against it (from about 40-60% depending on which poll). In '08 it did switch for one specific poll in the summer but the sample size questioned was only half that of a lot of other polls (read into that what you will ... that and the fact that it was an August poll with the 'holiday effect'). By March 09 it was back to about 22% in favour and 53% against (well, at least in the polls I've seen) so I wouldn't say that was a resounding peak or that they are resoundingly in favour of it now, especially if you couple it with the debate on Polish media and political boards on the web. The Czech Republic has, on the other hand, resoundingly polled against it at all times and strongly in favour of a countrywide referendum on the subject (usually a sign that a country doesn't particularly feel that their government is effectively voicing their opinions for them). I guess it depends how much weight you put on polls and the ability of 1000-odd people to effectively express a nations view (yeah, I'm a sceptic).
The Poles I know have a decidedly different version--they are pissed off--and are less than convinced by Tusk's "anti-corruption" stance.
On don't get me wrong krolik, I wasn't implying that people actually believed that Tusk's anti-corruption stance was anything more than a slightly hollow vote-grabber but certainly I haven't come across many pro-shielders at home in Poland (although I'm not implying that there aren't any, just that they are fewer than certain sections of the media and political structure with axes to grind in both languages would like to suggest) and there's a fair amount of intelligent commentary out there as to why they're not.
I guess it depends which polls (or Poles ... sorry, I couldn't resist). If you look at an aggregate of polls for '07, they were consistently against it (from about 40-60% depending on which poll). In '08 it did switch for one specific poll in the summer but the sample size questioned was only half that of a lot of other polls (read into that what you will ... that and the fact that it was an August poll with the 'holiday effect'). By March 09 it was back to about 22% in favour and 53% against (well, at least in the polls I've seen) so I wouldn't say that was a resounding peak or that they are resoundingly in favour of it now, especially if you couple it with the debate on Polish media and political boards on the web. The Czech Republic has, on the other hand, resoundingly polled against it at all times and strongly in favour of a countrywide referendum on the subject (usually a sign that a country doesn't particularly feel that their government is effectively voicing their opinions for them). I guess it depends how much weight you put on polls and the ability of 1000-odd people to effectively express a nations view (yeah, I'm a sceptic).
The Poles I know have a decidedly different version--they are pissed off--and are less than convinced by Tusk's "anti-corruption" stance.
On don't get me wrong krolik, I wasn't implying that people actually believed that Tusk's anti-corruption stance was anything more than a slightly hollow vote-grabber but certainly I haven't come across many pro-shielders at home in Poland (although I'm not implying that there aren't any, just that they are fewer than certain sections of the media and political structure with axes to grind in both languages would like to suggest) and there's a fair amount of intelligent commentary out there as to why they're not.
12klarusu
Or the energy situation for this winter could get very ugly.
You're not wrong there ... I'm just waiting for it to kick off again.
You're not wrong there ... I'm just waiting for it to kick off again.
13geneg
Russia may emotionally wish to be on a par in world politics with US but they aren't and they can't be at present. I don't think for a moment they wish to return to a cold war with US. China might win such a thing sometime in the future, but not Russia, not now or in the foreseeable future. They may wish to recoup lost territory (what would we do if the Apache decided they were going to use terror tactics on a large scale to reacquire the American southwest?) and maintain hegemony in their lost regions (once again, why are we building a whole slew of military bases in Colombia and Paraguay? To protect US? Or to maintain our hegemony in the Americas) but they can't really devote unlimited resources to a war with Europe that they don't want and have no desire to start. Another part of the puzzle: why are we building threatening missile sites when there is no threat?
Military fear of the Rooskies is for old farts like me who remember Stalin, but not for those who are trying to puzzle out the world today. The only thing the Rooskies have is Europe's gas spigot. That's Europe's problem, not Russia's.
Military fear of the Rooskies is for old farts like me who remember Stalin, but not for those who are trying to puzzle out the world today. The only thing the Rooskies have is Europe's gas spigot. That's Europe's problem, not Russia's.
14Carnophile
>1 timspalding:
some good will come from making a belligerent and untrustworthy dictator happy
What a weird statement.
some good will come from making a belligerent and untrustworthy dictator happy
What a weird statement.
15jjwilson61
I think it was sarcasm.
16geneg
I guess I'm missing something. Explain to me how Putin is belligerent. Untrustworthy I can take, all leaders are untrustworthy, belligerent, not so much.
There are lots of reasons why Putin should not trust US. Not the least is the example of Iraq and the desire to shoot missiles at Iran.
There are lots of reasons why Putin should not trust US. Not the least is the example of Iraq and the desire to shoot missiles at Iran.
17Carnophile
>15 jjwilson61: That would make more sense, now that you mention it. I hope it was sarcasm!
18dchaikin
#16 Explain to me how Putin is belligerent.
Go look up Chechnya, Georgia (the country) and Europe's issues with natural gas last winter...
Go look up Chechnya, Georgia (the country) and Europe's issues with natural gas last winter...
19timspalding
and the desire to shoot missiles at Iran
Missile defense for Iran—a plan you can behind!
Missile defense for Iran—a plan you can behind!
20geneg
#18, I covered Chechnya and Georgia in my comments about what US would do if the Apache decided to use terror to restore their possession of the southwest. As I said, Europe's issues with natural gas is Europe's problem, not Russia's. Gosh, US has never threatened or carried out any kind of embargo against people who have political disagreements with US, now have we? I guess if that makes Putin belligerent it makes us just as belligerent if not moreso.
Once again, why are we building military bases in Central and South America? to "protect" them from the likes of Castro and Chavez? How would you feel if Venezuela decided Bush was bad for them and got rid of him, either by a coup or assassination? My guess is the people of Venezuela want to deal with Chavez themselves, they don't need our meddling.
Take a step back when considering other lands. There is nothing exceptional about US. We're just as belligerent as the next guy. Calling the kettle black is a poor strategy for the pot.
Once again, why are we building military bases in Central and South America? to "protect" them from the likes of Castro and Chavez? How would you feel if Venezuela decided Bush was bad for them and got rid of him, either by a coup or assassination? My guess is the people of Venezuela want to deal with Chavez themselves, they don't need our meddling.
Take a step back when considering other lands. There is nothing exceptional about US. We're just as belligerent as the next guy. Calling the kettle black is a poor strategy for the pot.
21dchaikin
#20 ??
I'm afraid I fail to see how the Apaches are a good analogy for Chechnya. You kidding, right?
I also fail to see how a possible military invasion into Georgia is analogous with an attempted coup in Venezuela. Those are very different animals.
Finally, saying the gas is Europe's problem makes no sense to me. First - that's not a comment on belligerence. Second, the Russian government owns the gas. They made a point that Europe is dependent on Russian gas and that Russia won't hesitate to turn it off. How is that not belligerent? It's a clear-cut threat. Finally, how does a gas-cut-off threat on Europe not hinder the US diplomatically...It's not just Europe's problem.
I'm afraid I fail to see how the Apaches are a good analogy for Chechnya. You kidding, right?
I also fail to see how a possible military invasion into Georgia is analogous with an attempted coup in Venezuela. Those are very different animals.
Finally, saying the gas is Europe's problem makes no sense to me. First - that's not a comment on belligerence. Second, the Russian government owns the gas. They made a point that Europe is dependent on Russian gas and that Russia won't hesitate to turn it off. How is that not belligerent? It's a clear-cut threat. Finally, how does a gas-cut-off threat on Europe not hinder the US diplomatically...It's not just Europe's problem.
22timspalding
As I said, Europe's issues with natural gas is Europe's problem, not Russia's.
How exactly does that follow? If I snip the electrical wires to your house, it's your problem alone?
How exactly does that follow? If I snip the electrical wires to your house, it's your problem alone?
23geneg
The area that is now Chechnya has been a part of the Russian empire since the eighteenth century. Just like the area that was occupied by the Apache is now a part of US (and Mexico). The Chechyns want their country back and use terror, war and so on to effect that. The Russians see it as their territory by right of conquest (sort of like how US acquired the Southwest) and don't want to lose it (why, I don't know, probably to protect the Russian population). Will it help if I change my analogy to say the Hispanic population wants to give Texas back to Mexico? Will you understand the point then? Countries don't give up territory lightly. Same with Georgia. What would our reaction be if the Chamorro decided they were going to kick America off Guam? How would any of those scenarios be different than what's happening in Chechnya? Protecting the borders of a nation are part of its charter and is not belligerence. The belligerents in this particular battle are the Chechyns. Come on, this isn't rocket science.
Georgia has been a part of Russia for over a hundred years. Same deal.
Tim, if you clip the wires to my house, that's my problem. If the cops owned the wires they might decide to do that themselves just because they can, but not having electricity is not one of your problems. Were I smart, I would build my house off grid, generating my own electricity. Europe might want to reconsider natural gas as an energy source. The issue of fossil fuel distribution creates problems for many nations. Is it belligerence to turn off the spigot? Is it belligerence to isolate countries like Cuba and Iran?
I've said what I have to say on this particular topic, you agree with me or you don't. That's your business. I laid out what I mean and that's it.
Georgia has been a part of Russia for over a hundred years. Same deal.
Tim, if you clip the wires to my house, that's my problem. If the cops owned the wires they might decide to do that themselves just because they can, but not having electricity is not one of your problems. Were I smart, I would build my house off grid, generating my own electricity. Europe might want to reconsider natural gas as an energy source. The issue of fossil fuel distribution creates problems for many nations. Is it belligerence to turn off the spigot? Is it belligerence to isolate countries like Cuba and Iran?
I've said what I have to say on this particular topic, you agree with me or you don't. That's your business. I laid out what I mean and that's it.
24dchaikin
Right - so your saying that Chechnya's history is kind of like that of Texas? Sometimes I don't know when you are being serious.
OK - what % of the population of Texas identifies themselves as under American occupation (Perry-like secessionists not included)
what % of the population of Chechnya identifies themselves as under Russian occupation?
What % of the population of Georgia considers themselves Russian under some other occupation?
How similar do you think those numbers will be?
;)
OK - what % of the population of Texas identifies themselves as under American occupation (Perry-like secessionists not included)
what % of the population of Chechnya identifies themselves as under Russian occupation?
What % of the population of Georgia considers themselves Russian under some other occupation?
How similar do you think those numbers will be?
;)
25gregstevenstx
Bavaria, Texas and Chechnya should all cecede.
26theoria
21>
These are all concerns one might have about Putin/Medvedev. However, the question one can ask is what would be an effective deterrent. I doubt a US missile shield would do the trick (i.e., unilateral American action staged from the Czech Republic or Poland).
23>
Russia/USSR may have "owned" Georgia in the past but the "facts on the ground" today are different. As you know, one idea attached to the brilliant idea of the nation state is the expectation that independent states will treat other independent states as "sovereign." The opening for Putin to violate this principle is the presence of "Russians" within Georgia. However, in this case it appears that both Putin and Saakashvili are willing to play games that ultimately put their citizens at risk using old fashioned testosterone-driven foreign policy
I'm less clear about Chechnya. But in general (again thinking "with" a theory of national sovereignty rather than "against" it), any region that declares or seeks independence should probably have the means to carry this through from the beginning and not count on international intervention to help it out (e.g., things didn't work out so well for the Confederacy). Of course, in the long duree, the USA is in no strong position to cry foul on moral grounds: our imagined and literal ancestors' Lockean "lawful takings" stretched across an entire continent over the course of a couple of centuries.
These are all concerns one might have about Putin/Medvedev. However, the question one can ask is what would be an effective deterrent. I doubt a US missile shield would do the trick (i.e., unilateral American action staged from the Czech Republic or Poland).
23>
Russia/USSR may have "owned" Georgia in the past but the "facts on the ground" today are different. As you know, one idea attached to the brilliant idea of the nation state is the expectation that independent states will treat other independent states as "sovereign." The opening for Putin to violate this principle is the presence of "Russians" within Georgia. However, in this case it appears that both Putin and Saakashvili are willing to play games that ultimately put their citizens at risk using old fashioned testosterone-driven foreign policy
I'm less clear about Chechnya. But in general (again thinking "with" a theory of national sovereignty rather than "against" it), any region that declares or seeks independence should probably have the means to carry this through from the beginning and not count on international intervention to help it out (e.g., things didn't work out so well for the Confederacy). Of course, in the long duree, the USA is in no strong position to cry foul on moral grounds: our imagined and literal ancestors' Lockean "lawful takings" stretched across an entire continent over the course of a couple of centuries.
27krolik
>23 geneg:
Generally speaking, it's true that competing nationalistic and ethnic identities are often convoluted and irreconciliable. But you yourself use the word "empire".
And of course, the Americans have an empire, and there are dark and embarrassing chapters.
But that doesn't reduce everything to the pot and the kettle. Although I share much of your exasperation with BushCo, and some of your skepticism about empire, we have to relativize here. That's part of the liberal schtick, isn't it? (Or at least it's part of mine.) And it's nothing to apologize for, I think.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm hard put to find in even the most parochial dumbass neocon American triumphalism the equivalent of Putin's rehabilitation of Stalin and the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, equating it (just days ago) with the Munich Accords, and glossing the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland as "liberation" (with a million Poles deported to the gulag, the Katyn massacre, etc.). All this, pre Cold War, of course.
And as for the Cold War, I've never believed that it ended. We've just entered some new chapters. It's not pretty but it's in everybody's interest to keep it cold, and not hot.
Generally speaking, it's true that competing nationalistic and ethnic identities are often convoluted and irreconciliable. But you yourself use the word "empire".
And of course, the Americans have an empire, and there are dark and embarrassing chapters.
But that doesn't reduce everything to the pot and the kettle. Although I share much of your exasperation with BushCo, and some of your skepticism about empire, we have to relativize here. That's part of the liberal schtick, isn't it? (Or at least it's part of mine.) And it's nothing to apologize for, I think.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm hard put to find in even the most parochial dumbass neocon American triumphalism the equivalent of Putin's rehabilitation of Stalin and the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, equating it (just days ago) with the Munich Accords, and glossing the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland as "liberation" (with a million Poles deported to the gulag, the Katyn massacre, etc.). All this, pre Cold War, of course.
And as for the Cold War, I've never believed that it ended. We've just entered some new chapters. It's not pretty but it's in everybody's interest to keep it cold, and not hot.
28jmcgarve
OK, let's get this straight. Bush declared US withdrawal from the antiballistic missile treaty in 2001 ... nominally so that a defense could be created against terrorists rogue nations like North Korea. And then, he declares that he's creating such a defense, against Iran, and putting it ... In POLAND. Yeah right.
The whole idea was to escalate the nuclear arms race once more so as to further establish US dominance of the world. See http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm .
If Iran gets the bomb, they will still be a long way from having missiles that could hit the US. And an ABM system in Poland, which is technically useless to defend against anything, sure wouldn't help Israel if Iran lobbed missiles their way. And if Iran gets the bomb, the LEAST likely way they are to try to deliver it is via an ICBM. For one thing, everyone knows immediately who fired the ICBM. If a bomb is smuggled in on a container ship, a much more likely course, the ABM installation in Poland is going to offer less protection than a rusty screen door. And the Czech and Polish people were consistently against it as an unnecessary and pointless provocation. It sure wouldn't have protected them.
So yeah, Putin's agressive. But the ABM system in Poland and Czechoslovakia was utter stupidity.
The whole idea was to escalate the nuclear arms race once more so as to further establish US dominance of the world. See http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm .
If Iran gets the bomb, they will still be a long way from having missiles that could hit the US. And an ABM system in Poland, which is technically useless to defend against anything, sure wouldn't help Israel if Iran lobbed missiles their way. And if Iran gets the bomb, the LEAST likely way they are to try to deliver it is via an ICBM. For one thing, everyone knows immediately who fired the ICBM. If a bomb is smuggled in on a container ship, a much more likely course, the ABM installation in Poland is going to offer less protection than a rusty screen door. And the Czech and Polish people were consistently against it as an unnecessary and pointless provocation. It sure wouldn't have protected them.
So yeah, Putin's agressive. But the ABM system in Poland and Czechoslovakia was utter stupidity.
30codyed
Since Obama scrapped the ballistic missile program for Eastern Europe, Russia has plowed through Warsaw and Prague, crushing homes and cars with T-72 tanks. Ugh. Thanks, Obama.
31geneg
As I said earlier, Poland is only allowed to be an independent country when Germany and Russia are not at war. Poland is the DMZ and the first country to go when the guns get hot.
33koshkoro 
This message has been flagged by multiple users and is no longer displayed (show)
America is facing an aggressive Russia, while considering how best to deal with Iran. By agreeing not to station missiles in Eastern Europe, America has satisfied Russia's desire for security, and made them an ally in dealing with Iran. Considering it will cost our country much less by not deploying a missile shield, I think we're all better off.
Joe
California Home Loans
Joe
California Home Loans
34GirlFromIpanema
"That Russia still claims full sovereignty over "Kaliningrad", an originally German city, "
Oakes, you might want to read up on the Two plus Four Agreement of 1990: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germ...
http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/2plusfour8994e.htm
Especially Art. 1, no. (2) and (3).
Oakes, you might want to read up on the Two plus Four Agreement of 1990: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germ...
http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/2plusfour8994e.htm
Especially Art. 1, no. (2) and (3).
36dchaikin
#35 - the population is 0.6% German. (source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad )
I'm not sure what that means in terms of your argument however. This is the first I heard of the region.
I'm not sure what that means in terms of your argument however. This is the first I heard of the region.
37GirlFromIpanema
#35: Well, that is an academic position (academic in the sense of "thought out at the desk", not in the sense of "well thought-out"). The fact is, that once you start redrawing borders in Europe and disregard internationally binding agreements, you send us all back to 1914. Thank you, but no thank you.
And, just sayin'...: I don't think you want to associate yourself with revisionist types --which you are doing, in fact, by holding the opinion that those borders are not definitive.
Sorry, but I take a dim view of such arguments even if they are just made for the sake of stirring up things a bit.
And, just sayin'...: I don't think you want to associate yourself with revisionist types --which you are doing, in fact, by holding the opinion that those borders are not definitive.
Sorry, but I take a dim view of such arguments even if they are just made for the sake of stirring up things a bit.
38theoria
>37 GirlFromIpanema:
Indeed, 1914 or 1648. States claim authority over territory (and the people and resources within this territory) based on sovereign right, for better or worse. The Westphalian system of States continues to flourish in today's United Nations (in which even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights grounds such rights within the structure of nation states -- so much for universality). States trump "peoples," which is why some political philosophers and political theorists have argued for a "Law of Peoples" or have sought to imagine a post-national political order (The Postnational Constellation).
Indeed, 1914 or 1648. States claim authority over territory (and the people and resources within this territory) based on sovereign right, for better or worse. The Westphalian system of States continues to flourish in today's United Nations (in which even the Universal Declaration of Human Rights grounds such rights within the structure of nation states -- so much for universality). States trump "peoples," which is why some political philosophers and political theorists have argued for a "Law of Peoples" or have sought to imagine a post-national political order (The Postnational Constellation).
39geneg
So, Oakes, should I turn my home over to the indigenous peoples in my town because it was built on stolen land?
Rights, (Jeez, do I have to say this again?) proceed from the barrel of a gun. We, as a culture, have agreed on a set of human "rights". Having agreed to them, guns are not necessary to enforce them. If, as time goes by, we decide to renege on these "rights", the guns will come into play. Rights are initially established through struggle, they aren't some kind of birthright. What do we do with cultures who demand the "right" to circumcise their girls? Is that a God given right? For them, yes. For US not so much.
Rights, (Jeez, do I have to say this again?) proceed from the barrel of a gun. We, as a culture, have agreed on a set of human "rights". Having agreed to them, guns are not necessary to enforce them. If, as time goes by, we decide to renege on these "rights", the guns will come into play. Rights are initially established through struggle, they aren't some kind of birthright. What do we do with cultures who demand the "right" to circumcise their girls? Is that a God given right? For them, yes. For US not so much.
40timspalding
Should I turn my home over to the indigenous peoples in my town because it was built on stolen land?
I'd argue that property rights last a long time, inhabitation rights shorter and political rights the shortest. So, no, you don't have to turn over your property to the Mohawk, but yes, the government that took their lands away owes them something.
I'd argue that property rights last a long time, inhabitation rights shorter and political rights the shortest. So, no, you don't have to turn over your property to the Mohawk, but yes, the government that took their lands away owes them something.
41jmcgarve
>40 timspalding: It would be interesting to figure out what those time horizons should be. Which of them extend back to 1967? to 1948? or to 70 C.E.?
42timspalding
I think it's an interesting question. I don't have an answer.
