Cold War II. Russia to play next

[theprestige]

Not because Bush II gazed into his eyes and saw a good man?

If Obama thought the cold war was over because Bush II mistakenly thought Putin was a good man, then Obama's an idiot.

Not because Bush I reneged on the agreement not to expand NATO?

If Obama thought the cold war was over because Bush I expanded NATO, then Obama's a double idiot.

But okay, you tell me: Why did Obama say that the Cold War was over? Even if we adopt The Atheist's interpretation that it ended in the early 90s and a new one started up again more recently, Putin was already in power, and we were already laughing at Dubya's naivete about the man, by October of 2012. I'd say that's far too late a date for Obama to still be thinking that as President he wouldn't have to address classic cold war issues in his dealings with Russia.

 

[Blaster]

Not because Bush II gazed into his eyes and saw a good man?

Not because Bush I reneged on the agreement not to expand NATO?

There exists a reality in which both posts are relevant and applicable to the problem.

 

[uke2se]

Is this the thread where we bash Obama for what he said in 2012? If so, we ought to change the title.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It's not up to Bush I to agree not to expand NATO. It's up to NATO.

 

[theprestige]

Is this the thread where we bash Obama for what he said in 2012? If so, we ought to change the title.

What Obama said in 2012 was brought up to support the argument that the Cold War ended. Responding that Obama was wrong in 2012, even bashing him for it, is an appropriately on-topic counter-argument.

If you think that Obama was right to say, in 2012, that the cold war was over and that its foreign policies were no longer applicable, then make your case. Not only will you be on-topic, but you will also be silencing the bashers that disagree with what he said.

 

[uke2se]

What Obama said in 2012 was brought up to support the argument that the Cold War ended.

No, it was brought up by Giz in order to bash Obama.

 

[theprestige]

No, it was brought up by Giz in order to bash Obama.

Ah, so it was. Thank you for the correction.

Anyway, the MA prohibits us from bashing The Atheist for thinking the Cold War was over.

President "Reset Button" Obama, however, is fair game, and his opinion is entirely on-topic. If you don't like seeing the US president bashed in foreign policy discussions that cover the period of his presidency, then I recommend getting yourself a US president who doesn't get things wrong on foreign policy matters that are relevant to the discussion.

 

[caveman1917]

Russia opposes arms race.

Sorry, doesn't look like the Russians want to play along this time. I'm sure you can still have fun with it on your own, no better way to distract from domestic issues than imagining external enemies.

 

[magellan]

It's not up to Bush I to agree not to expand NATO. It's up to NATO.

And the US voice in Nato is just one among many, just like USSR was just one voice among many in the warshaw pact.

 

[Childlike Empress]

I think that viewing the rollback of the Soviet Union as an end to the Cold War makes the mistake of dangerously underestimating Russia's essential nature and interests. Putin didn't make the Russia we're dealing with today; rather, the Russia that has always existed made the Putin we're dealing with today.

Ah, the eternal Jew Rus.

 

[theprestige]

Russia opposes arms race.

Sorry, doesn't look like the Russians want to play along this time. I'm sure you can still have fun with it on your own, no better way to distract from domestic issues than imagining external enemies.

Russia opposes an arms race because its economy is in shambles and it can't afford to compete militarily with the other powers. The best strategy for them to follow right now is to deprecate the idea of an arms race and hope that enough people in the West buy into their narrative to pressure their governments to fight the Cold War on terms more favorable to Russia.

Russia isn't opposing an arms race out of the goodness of its heart or concern for global welfare. It's opposing an arms race in order to keep the playing field level for the conflicts it's engaged in.

It should be obvious from Russia's activities in the Ukraine that it absolutely does want to "play along" with the Cold War--including an all-aspect propaganda campaign to undermine opposition and support its strategic objectives.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Russia opposes arms race.

Sorry, doesn't look like the Russians want to play along this time. I'm sure you can still have fun with it on your own, no better way to distract from domestic issues than imagining external enemies.

Russian Non-Invasion Causing Concern in European Capitals

 

[Pope130]

Russia isn't opposing an arms race out of the goodness of its heart or concern for global welfare. It's opposing an arms race in order to keep the playing field level for the conflicts it's engaged in.

This puts me in mind of Russia's unilateral nuclear test ban in the early sixties, which lead to the US test ban. The Russians stuck to the ban right up until they were ready for more testing, set off a series of test shots, then declared another voluntary ban.

 

[caveman1917]

Russia isn't opposing an arms race out of the goodness of its heart or concern for global welfare. It's opposing an arms race in order to keep the playing field level for the conflicts it's engaged in.

It could also simply be because of the reasons they are giving, that they've learned their lesson last time and won't go along with it again, but rather invest in their economy instead of a new arms race.

 

[caveman1917]

It should be obvious from Russia's activities in the Ukraine that it absolutely does want to "play along" with the Cold War--including an all-aspect propaganda campaign to undermine opposition and support its strategic objectives.

I said play along with the arms race. Propaganda campaigns have been applied throughout the Ukraine conflict from all sides from the start.

 

[magellan]

It should be obvious from Russia's activities in the Ukraine that it absolutely does want to "play along" with the Cold War--including an all-aspect propaganda campaign to undermine opposition and support its strategic objectives.

Russia is active in ukraine?
I've been hearing this for quite some time now, do you think we might get some evidence for this any time soon?
I mean I have seen the "evidence" but the WMD claims of 2002/2003 where actually more believable with more meat on their bones.

(Sidenote: Romney also claimed there was a UN resolution authorizing the US to attack Iraq.)

 

[dudalb]

I think it was nice to imagine that the Cold War ended with the Soviet Union, but in hindsight I think it's pretty clear that the existential differences between Russia and the West were never really resolved, and the Cold War detente never really thawed completely.

Certainly post-Soviet Russia had to play nice for a while, at least until it got its new borders, responsibilities, and sovereignty sorted out (especially the nuclear arsenals). But the underlying geographical, cultural, and even ideological conflicts were never really resolved.

I think that viewing the rollback of the Soviet Union as an end to the Cold War makes the mistake of dangerously underestimating Russia's essential nature and interests. Putin didn't make the Russia we're dealing with today; rather, the Russia that has always existed made the Putin we're dealing with today.

Historians have pointed out that take away the Marxist rhetoric,the foreign Policy of the USSR was little different then that of Czarist Russia.

 

[caveman1917]

Russia is active in ukraine?

The evidence in the Ukraine thread that passed basic sanity checks is a dozen Russian paratroopers just inside the Ukrainian border who immediately surrendered and a short youtube video of 3 tanks. So yes, they are active in Ukraine but that would be doing the word "active" injustice.

 

[dudalb]

Russia is active in ukraine?
I've been hearing this for quite some time now, do you think we might get some evidence for this any time soon?
I mean I have seen the "evidence" but the WMD claims of 2002/2003 where actually more believable with more meat on their bones.

(Sidenote: Romney also claimed there was a UN resolution authorizing the US to attack Iraq.)

 

[theprestige]

It could also simply be because of the reasons they are giving, that they've learned their lesson last time and won't go along with it again, but rather invest in their economy instead of a new arms race.

The lesson from last time is that a strong economy is required in order to compete in an arms race.

Right now, they pretty much have to invest in their economy--they can't afford an arms race even if they wanted to.

My view is that they do want to invest in an arms race--if they can win it--and if they had an economy that supported such investment they would absolutely make that investment. Their rhetoric probably wouldn't change much, though.