Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Knight to queen's bishop 3 - Snowden charged with espionage.

<< < (57/139) > >>

wraith808:
It is already known that there was no concrete agenda, and nothing that they were close on.  This isn't the G20- it was to discuss the tangential affairs.  And what else were the Russians going to say?  I mean, they weren't going to say they were sorry.  They did say they were disappointed, which I think comes pretty close to saying, "We expected it, but what were the other moves to be made?"

Russia responded by saying it is “disappointed” by the move, with Putin’s aide Yury Ushakov adding that the situation showed the US “is still not ready to build relations with Russia on an equal footing.” It is “clear” that the decision is related to Snowden, he said, reminding that the US for its part has repeatedly refused Russia’s past extradition requests.

--- End quote ---

And this shows that the decision was basically tit-for-tat- not any progressive agenda on the part of Russia.  They knew that this was going to happen, and had prepared for it and evaluated the outcome.  I don't think that there was any other way that this was going to go down, and doesn't really show diplomatic weakness... just expected outcomes.

40hz:
As for Obama cancelling a trip because he feels uncomfortable talking to Putin or that there is nothing to agree on - I don't buy it. There is Syria, there is Iran, there is Afganistan, nuclear disarmament etc., etc. Loads of very urgent issues on which Obama can only make progress if he talks to Putin.
-dr_andus (August 11, 2013, 03:55 AM)
--- End quote ---

I think the actual problem is that all the prefatory private conversations where the agreements really get hammered out (and are only announced at the choreographed conclusion of public 'talks') is what got stalled. The US and Russia are still miles apart on what to do about Syria, and will likely remain that way. Russia is stonewalling on Iran. The US is stonewalling on Afghanistan. And both sides have basically taken disarmament as far as they can without provoking a major confrontation with the conservative blocs within their own governments. Besides, as long as ballistic submarine based nuclear weapons remain conspicuously absent from any arms reduction discussions, it's all for show.

The modern, highly mobile, and heavily concealed nuclear arsenals (i.e. the ones that do serve as a genuine deterrent) are handled by the Russian and American navies. Elimination of the antiquated, highly vulnerable, and expensive to maintain land-based launch sites is something both sides would love to make happen - as long as it could be done without creating the appearance of capitulation or "leaving the country defenseless" since Obama and Putin both have their 'hawks' to deal with - and appease.



So this is all puppet theater. Since there is no breakthrough they can announce, it's better to not have a public get together at all, rather than announce the meeting was a failure and yielded nothing.

Every politician knows you can often get away with appearing to be temperamental or arrogant. Because half the time the public will see that as a show of strength or moral character. However, the one thing you can never risk is being linked to an initiative that failed. Even if its something as simple as a' talk.'

dr_andus:

So this is all puppet theater. Since there is no breakthrough they can announce, it's better to not have a public get together at all, rather than announce the meeting was a failure and yielded nothing.

-40hz (August 11, 2013, 11:09 AM)
--- End quote ---

I agree with that to a certain extent. However, I wouldn't completely discount the agency of the top leaders. In the case of Russia, Putin is a quasi absolutist monarch. If he does not want something happening within his apparatus, it probably won't happen. So you can get things done, can speed things up, by talking to him directly, face to face.

On the other hand, Obama is a much weaker leader domestically (not having a control over congress). He was supposed to have much bigger sway internationally, but it doesn't seem to be happening, especially by not being able to communicate with another major powerful leader directly.

Vurbal:
On the other hand, Obama is a much weaker leader domestically (not having a control over congress). He was supposed to have much bigger sway internationally, but it doesn't seem to be happening, especially by not being able to communicate with another major powerful leader directly.
-dr_andus (August 11, 2013, 11:22 AM)
--- End quote ---
This is exactly what I consider the big problem with Obama. It's not a question of his intentions so much as his lack of experience playing DC politics and inclination to avoid rocking the boat. I tend to believe he has a lot of good ideas but lacks the temperament for leadership necessary to turn them into policy. In fact I would go so far as to say people like James Clapper, Eric Holder, and Joe Biden are actually the primary policy makers in the Obama administration.

That's too bad because I think he actually believes in the rhetoric of change that got him elected. I just think his history, up to and including his tenure as POTUS, consistently paints a picture of someone who fears failure too much to push his own agenda effectively. It's a shame too because I think he has a lot of good ideas. If he had the courage of his convictions I think he would do a lot of good.

For a pretty good overview of his history I recommend the piece Frontline aired during the 2008 election:



Since I can't seem to get the embedding code correct (maybe just my browser) here's a direct link to the Frontline page:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/view/

Renegade:
The PBS video is restricted. :(

Since I can't seem to get the embedding code correct (maybe just my browser) here's a direct link to the Frontline page:
-Vurbal (August 11, 2013, 02:15 PM)
--- End quote ---

It doesn't handle the "youtu.be" domain. I've fixed that here:

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page