![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
khylko.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsMost popular versions are the follows: 1) Putin want to avoid criticism for the oppression of democracy (eg, see: National Review); 2) Putin makes it clear to Washington of his unwillingness to continue the policy of “reset” and even the willingness to return to the level of relations of the “Cold War” times. The Christian Science Monitor even quoted an expert of Moscow think tank “The Council on Foreign and Defense Policies” Dmitry Suslov that perhaps Putin is “sending the message that the Kremlin would actually prefer a Mitt Romney presidency,” who called Russia “a geopolitical foe”.
In my opinion, the assumption that Putin may be scared of criticism, do not stand any criticism itself 
Even relatively mild Medvedev at the EU-Russia summit in December 2011 severely cut off European attempts to assess the Russian State Duma elections, saying that it was Russian internal matter. Therefore, a possible response of a harsh Putin certainly could eclipse even Khrushchev’s historic speech at the United Nations General Assembly in 1960 when he threatened “to show Kuzma’s mother” to the West (that Russian idiom means strong threat, like “We’ll bury you”). And still it is hardly realistic that G8 leaders planned to strongly criticize Putin – since the beginning of the economic crisis, they reserved democracy issues for the less powerful foreign partners, such as Belarus and Ukraine.
So, I think that the causes of mutual Putin-Obama summits disregard may be the following:
1. Due to high oil prices, Russia is not in need of G8 assistance, therefore, it sees no vital need for this meeting. Especially since the geopolitical and economic weight of G8 is no longer what it was several years ago: the world is undergoing structurization by regions, therefore for all participants of the summit of more important are decisions made in such organizations as the EU, BRICS, APEC, etc.
2. Russia and the U.S. have different vision of the Pacific region future (see “Are Russia and Europe Ready for a New Pacific World Order?”), so Obama has no reason to visit the APEC summit organized by the Moscow. And Putin certainly wants to be the sole host of the summit, so he don’t need the presence of a leader of still the most powerful nation.
3. Putin wants Obama to re-elected because Russia has not yet regained enough strength to enter into a new “cold war”. That is why Putin allows Obama to save face and avoid meetings, for which Obama would certainly receive a new portion of criticism from the Republicans. Mitt Romney is waiting for the occasion to ask Obama why did not he criticize Putin for the oppression of democracy. By ignoring the summits Putin and Obama deprive the Republican’s leader of such possibility.
And by the way, all he needs to tell Putin, Obama is always able to transmit through Medvedev
(no subject)
Date: 16/5/12 21:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/5/12 21:14 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/5/12 21:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/5/12 21:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/5/12 21:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/5/12 22:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/5/12 22:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/5/12 22:43 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/5/12 07:25 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/5/12 02:15 (UTC)I think the US has more or less stayed on even keel in the Middle East. Despite the continued drag of our long engagements there, we got out of Iraq and we got into Libya, both of which have had helped to balance the boat both at the top and the bottom. I don't think the US is any worse in the Middle East then it was during the beginning. And there's very little that the US can do for the Middle East, with the possible exception of Turkey, which is confused enough as it is. The US could have committed to the Egyptian revolution earlier, but I don't see the US in a position to lead a wave of democratization in the Middle East over the bodies of its former clients.
The US has done better in the Pacific, especially in ASEAN, then they had been doing, and it's taken advantage of China's absolutely disastrous diplomacy in 2010. I think the US posture there has been strengthened, although how much of that is Obama's more diplomatic approach and how much is China's blundering is hard to tell. I think the strategy of the US has made a good turn, we're waiting for other people to make blunders rather than making them ourselves, but it's hard to tell whose idea that was. It could be accidental.
The main difference has been that the US has withdrawn from a direct role in a few places to an indirect role over a larger area. That in my mind is a good thing - getting too involved in one area is the sort of thing that costs you when the game is being played all over the world. Better to spread your resources to where they can give you the most bang for the buck.
The thing that is costing the US is the descent of Central Asia into a complete crapshoot, much faster than expected. I think the US should disengage there, but clearly there are people with different ideas and the Obama administration is listening to them in part. The sooner we can get out of Central and Central-West Asia, the better for us. There's a place where the US is still being drawn in and distracting us from the real game in Asia-Pacific.
(no subject)
Date: 17/5/12 09:41 (UTC)As for the "playing cards close to their chest and waiting for the highest bidder" - believe me that at least Poles, Czechs and Hungarians don't want any bid from the Kremlin as they still remember Soviet tanks on their streets and the bloody suppression of of uprisings.
As for the Middle East - I don't mean that the U.S. had to support more activle the "wave of democratization" (by the way I don't believe it was really "wave of democratization"). I mean the U.S. lost most part of it's influence in the region and irritated Turkey who expected that its position concerning "Arab spring" events will be taken into consideration.
As for the Pacific - I agree that Omaba got some progress and his politics in the region in general is prospective. I just meant that the game in Pacific is far from the winning, therefore it's risky to do all bets on this region at the expense of Europe and Middle East.
I also agree that the main game for the U.S. may be in Asia-Pacific, but I consider that only global power will win that game. So America will have to find the way how to concentrate on Asia-Pacific while still maintaining its presence in other key regions and not betraying its allies.
But its just my personal opinion and Americans surely can have other priorities.
(no subject)
Date: 17/5/12 13:55 (UTC)The problem with dealing with Russia directly is that Russia is so overbalanced, in a military sense, by the Europeans alone that it's hard for most of the world to see them as a credible threat. The EU can handle Russia, even if Russia does learn its lessons from the Georgia war, and that makes the US presence largely superfluous. The US only has so much hard power to spread around, and with Asia-Pacific becoming the key region, it does no good to try putting military power, or other symbols of US authority, somewhere it does us no good. The EU is closer, is willing to do our job for us, and is much more likely to get cooperation from the Poles and Czechs than we are. It's not like Poland is so desperate that they'll do anything we say in return for some economic or military back-scratching.
In this day and age, the US has to be parsimonious about where it spends its effort. Every one of the BRICs (or the BRIICS, or whoever) has more money to spend relative to the US than they did ten years ago. The US needs to get as much bang for the buck as they can. For now I think letting the Middle East go its own way (we do tend to fumble that one a lot), and letting the EU take care of what we would do anyway is probably the best option.
(no subject)
Date: 17/5/12 21:34 (UTC)I can't agree that "the EU can handle Russia". The EU even couldn't handle small Libya without the U.S. help.
And I don't agree that "the EU is willing to do the U.S. job". The EU states have their own interests, so don't expect that someone will do your job instead of you :)
(no subject)
Date: 18/5/12 02:17 (UTC)And just because the EU had problems with Libya (partially due to lackluster participation) doesn't mean that the Russians would do any better. The Russian military is at this point woefully behind their European neighbor, a state of affairs that does not seem likely to turn around no matter how many new development plans the Russians release. That isn't to say that the Russians are insignificant, it's just that Russia is a much smaller power than it once was, and even with the recession the Europeans are comparatively richer. They're also a lot more numerous, which helps.
Basically, for the foreseeable future Russia presents very little in the way of direct military or economic threat to any country that doesn't share a border with her. Since the US has very little interest in most of the countries that share a border (except the one that can fight back), the US is more interested in other parts of the world. If the Soviet Union couldn't force its members into a coherent whole, it's unlikely a depowered Russia will be able to overcome the same ethnic and cultural barriers. While they try the US has better things to do with its time.
(no subject)
Date: 18/5/12 15:47 (UTC)Eastern European states are not interested in American, Russian, German or someone else hegemony in the region, but we need some balance of powers that can give us a chance to be independent - at least to some extend.
As for the Europeans being strong and rich - in 1939-1941 they also were "strong and rich", while the USSR was "weak and poor"... Remember the result? European states lack willingness to victory that's why doesn't matter how rich they are. Russian army may have worst equipment but they have fatal advantage: Moscow never cared for the price of the victory.
Anyway it's your business to take care about your future. Just take into account that your chances to win the Asia-Pacific is nearly fifty-fifty (in the best case for you). And if you will lose - you will not have the way for the retreat, because by that time you will be thrown out from the Europe and from Middle East - by your own hands.
(no subject)
Date: 19/5/12 01:51 (UTC)Nobody is going to "win" the Asia-Pacific, it's too big and filled with too many independent powers. More likely both sides will jockey for influence, but it's so much bigger that even a slice of it is preferable to almost anything in Eastern Europe (which is also likely to remain independent). No state that is small enough to become a client state is worth having - everyone who is worth allying with has their own goals and nobody is going to "win" them permanently.
As to not caring about the price of victory, maybe, but who cares? In WWII the Soviet Union was able to make due with its defensive depth, its superior population, and a lot of supplies from the Allies. It's smaller now, it no longer has many allies, and it's got much less in the way of people. The idea that every other country is just going to roll over because of Russian determination is pretty much a fallacy, they're not and everyone knows it. At a certain point military capability has to become the key factor, and Russia just doesn't have it anymore. Not, at least, in the quantities necessary to invade, or possibly even survive, a war with the EU.
The state of the Russian military is pretty much an open secret. Despite all the advantages that being uncaring as to the casualties you suffer can bring you, it's hard to maintain an offensive like that. And no matter how many people you throw into machine guns, the machine guns tend to get the better end of the deal. Don't forget that the Tsar didn't care about how many casualties he suffered either - it didn't help him win World War I.
(no subject)
Date: 22/5/12 00:29 (UTC)As for your mention of the World War I - Tsar Russia couldn't win it because after the revolutions of 1917 (February and October) Tsar Russia ceased its existance in anarchy and civil war. Before 1917 Russia fought not bad as a whole.
As for nowadays Russian army strength - I didn't have any intention to discuss who may win in case of almost impossible Russia-EU conflict. You have written that "the EU can handle Russia", and I just insist that it can not because of many reasons, among which: dependence on Russian gas, unwillingness to support the U.S. in its tensions with Russian, absence of unity and irresolute of the EU leaders.
But if you prefer to overestimate your allies and to underestimate your competitors - its your right :)
(no subject)
Date: 16/5/12 23:17 (UTC)Now what were you saying again?
(no subject)
Date: 17/5/12 09:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/5/12 04:47 (UTC)The prime minister Dmitry Medvedev will visit the G8 instead of Putin, while Obama will be on summit of his party and cannot attend the APEC.
(no subject)
Date: 17/5/12 09:44 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/5/12 09:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/5/12 16:57 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/5/12 17:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 17/5/12 22:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 18/5/12 20:49 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/5/12 00:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/5/12 15:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/5/12 19:53 (UTC)