Russia Articulates Its Foreign Policy Doctrine

donsutherland1 · Sep 2, 2008

On August 31, 2008, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev set forth the principles behind Russia’s foreign policy in an interview aired on Channel One, Rossia, and NTV. President Medvedev declared:

I will make five principles the foundation for my work in carrying out Russia’s foreign policy.

First, Russia recognizes the primacy of the fundamental principles of international law, which define the relations between civilized peoples. We will build our relations with other countries within the framework of these principles and this concept of international law.

Second, the world should be multi-polar. A single-pole world is unacceptable. Domination is something we cannot allow. We cannot accept a world order in which one country makes all the decisions, even as serious and influential a country as the United States of America. Such a world is unstable and threatened by conflict.

Third, Russia does not want confrontation with any other country. Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop friendly relations with Europe, the United States, and other countries, as much as is possible.

Fourth, protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country. Our foreign policy decisions will be based on this need. We will also protect the interests of our business community abroad. It should be clear to all that we will respond to any aggressive acts committed against us.

Finally, fifth, as is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests. These regions are home to countries with which we share special historical relations and are bound together as friends and good neighbors. We will pay particular attention to our work in these regions and build friendly ties with these countries, our close neighbors.

These are the principles I will follow in carrying out our foreign policy.

President Medvedev’s rejection of the Krauthammer “Unipolar World” thesis is consistent with former Russian President Putin’s repudiation of that model. On February 10, 2007, President Putin proclaimed at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, “I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s—and precisely in today’s—world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization.”

What President Medvedev’s formulation does is that it asserts that:

• Russia recognizes the value international law can play in establishing agreed principles of conduct.

• Russia sees a multi-polar world. As a consequence, the balance of power remains highly relevant in its conception of 21st century foreign policy doctrine.

• Russia remains open to cooperation and partnership with the West. The extent of partnership and cooperation will be constrained by the national interests of the parties.

• Russia, like the rest of the world’s major powers, has interests that extend beyond its borders. Its critical overseas interests will need to be taken into consideration by the rest of the world. Russia is prepared to defend those critical interests.

In sum, Russia reaffirms the kind of world that is familiar to the pragmatic Realist approach to foreign policy. In that world, the balance of power is seen as a necessary foundation for reducing the risk of major international conflict. Moral principles are helpful, but not a substitute for the balance of power. Collective security, by itself, is a flawed instrument for promoting international peace and stability, as nations’ interests are not universal and the world’s nations’ desire to run risks is not equal. Effective foreign policy is anchored in national interests. Such policy recognizes the differences in national interests that exist among nations and seeks a balancing of such interests so as to accommodate the needs (though not maximum demands) of the world’s nations. Such a policy recognizes that spheres of influence still matter and must be considered, as no single nation can outlaw that reality by itself.

In an insightful op-ed piece in The Times, former British Ambassador to the United States, Christopher Meyer articulates the need for a foreign policy approach based on pragmatic Realism. He writes:

It is useless to say that nationalism and ethnic tribalism have no place in the international relations of the 21st century. If anything the spread of Western-style democracy has amplified their appeal and resonance. The supreme fallacy in foreign policy is to take the world as we would wish it to be and not as it actually is…

Most important of all, Russia and the West need to draw up rules of the road for the 21st century… Something similar [to the arrangement based on recognition of spheres of influence that followed the Congress of Vienna of 1815] is needed today, based again on spheres of influence. Nato must renounce the provocative folly of being open to Georgian or, worse, Ukrainian membership. This strikes at the heart of the Russian national interest and offers no enhanced security to either Tbilisi or Kiev. As for Russia, it must be made unambiguously clear where any revanchist lunge westwards would provoke a military response by Nato.

Ambassador Meyer notes that many today would find such an approach unpalatable. Yet, he explains, “there is no other way to remove the scope for miscalculation, the mother of far too many wars.”

How might that work with respect to Georgia and larger U.S./NATO-Russia relations?

Following the development and implementation of an agreed political process that resolves the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia’s borders could be guaranteed in what would amount to a tri-party security framework that would be accepted by Georgia, Russia, and the nations that comprise the NATO alliance. While Georgia would remain outside the NATO alliance, its boundaries would be assured by the relevant major powers, including NATO’s members.

That way, Russia’s needs would be respected and Georgia’s territorial integrity that would arise following the agreed political process to settle Abkhazia’s and South Ossetia’s status would also be safeguarded. Under such an arrangement, Georgia would remain free to pursue deeper political and economic relations with the West. At the same time, it would no longer be perceived along lines of Russia’s historic nightmare as an emerging component of a potentially hostile ring of nations that could collectively pose a threat of strangling Russia. That is Russia’s historic nightmare and that historic fear needs to be considered in diplomatic arrangements that aim to enhance the security and stability of the Caucasus region. Words alone toward the effect that NATO is not hostile to Russia’s interests will not suffice. There is too much historical baggage that needs to be addressed. Later, the tri-party arrangement between Russia, the NATO alliance, and Georgia could serve as a viable model for Ukraine, not to mention other former Soviet states who might desire it.

justone · Sep 2, 2008

donsutherland1 said:
I will make five principles the foundation for my work in carrying out Russia’s foreign policy.

First, Russia recognizes the primacy of the fundamental principles of international law, which define the relations between civilized peoples. We will build our relations with other countries within the framework of these principles and this concept of international law.

Second, the world should be multi-polar. A single-pole world is unacceptable. Domination is something we cannot allow. We cannot accept a world order in which one country makes all the decisions, even as serious and influential a country as the United States of America. Such a world is unstable and threatened by conflict.

Third, Russia does not want confrontation with any other country. Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop friendly relations with Europe, the United States, and other countries, as much as is possible.

Fourth, protecting the lives and dignity of our citizens, wherever they may be, is an unquestionable priority for our country. Our foreign policy decisions will be based on this need. We will also protect the interests of our business community abroad. It should be clear to all that we will respond to any aggressive acts committed against us.

Finally, fifth, as is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests. These regions are home to countries with which we share special historical relations and are bound together as friends and good neighbors. We will pay particular attention to our work in these regions and build friendly ties with these countries, our close neighbors.

These are the principles I will follow in carrying out our foreign policy.

President Medvedev’s rejection of the Krauthammer “Unipolar World” thesis is consistent with former Russian President Putin’s repudiation of that model. On February 10, 2007, President Putin proclaimed at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, “I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s—and precisely in today’s—world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization.”

In sum, Russia reaffirms the kind of world that is familiar to the pragmatic Realist approach to foreign policy.
In an insightful op-ed piece in The Times, former British Ambassador to the United States, Christopher Meyer articulates the need for a foreign policy approach based on pragmatic Realism. He writes:

It is useless to say that nationalism and ethnic tribalism have no place in the international relations of the 21st century. If anything the spread of Western-style democracy has amplified their appeal and resonance. The supreme fallacy in foreign policy is to take the world as we would wish it to be and not as it actually is…

Ambassador Meyer notes that many today would find such an approach unpalatable. Yet, he explains, “there is no other way to remove the scope for miscalculation, the mother of far too many wars.”

How might that work with respect to Georgia and larger U.S./NATO-Russia relations?

Following the development and implementation of an agreed political process that resolves the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Georgia’s borders could be guaranteed in what would amount to a tri-party security framework that would be accepted by Georgia, Russia, and the nations that comprise the NATO alliance. While Georgia would remain outside the NATO alliance, its boundaries would be assured by the relevant major powers, including NATO’s members.

That way, Russia’s needs would be respected and Georgia’s territorial integrity that would arise following the agreed political process to settle Abkhazia’s and South Ossetia’s status would also be safeguarded. Under such an arrangement, Georgia would remain free to pursue deeper political and economic relations with the West. At the same time, it would no longer be perceived along lines of Russia’s historic nightmare as an emerging component of a potentially hostile ring of nations that could collectively pose a threat of strangling Russia. That is Russia’s historic nightmare and that historic fear needs to be considered in diplomatic arrangements that aim to enhance the security and stability of the Caucasus region. Words alone toward the effect that NATO is not hostile to Russia’s interests will not suffice. There is too much historical baggage that needs to be addressed. Later, the tri-party arrangement between Russia, the NATO alliance, and Georgia could serve as a viable model for Ukraine, not to mention other former Soviet states who might desire it.

What should I start from… You are worthy of a debate, thanks again for a good post… on other hand I do not want that anybody would take my objection as diminishing goodness of your post.

Why do you think that balance of power is only balance of military power, and why do you thinking that it disregards or does not take in account moral?

Unipolar power is impossible to maintain because of natural human longing for freedom, including freedom of thoughts.

As the US and the West has constructed the best principals of a government and social existence, some individuals see a reason of spreading such principals around the globe. They act as prophets of the bright future of humanity (invented by them in endless writings) and as crusaders (though as a rule they still prefer the warm and high offices and never forget to cash in a profit).

Russians, so you would know are sick and tired of ideas of the bright future.

They have been feeling that they a kind of polygon for testing, laboratory mice.

They suffered from the bright future of Communism.
They suffered from the bright future of socialism.
They suffered from the bright future of capitalism.
They suffered the bright future of democracy.

Each construction of the Western intellectuals has brought disaster and destruction to Russians.

I see the Realistic model as not only possible, but moral, as anything that is realistic and does not make things worse is moral. On the opposite I consider idealistic ideas that have proven to make things worse as immoral.

Hitler once asked Ghoebbels – ‘How can we counter America in propaganda? What isin short the idology Americans have. Goebbels answered – “”My furher, Americans have no ideology”’

Russians at this moment a leaning to have no ideology, no democracy, no capitalism, no communism, no totalitarism, no anarchism, they sincere want you to take all these pages of ideas, wipe you butt and chew on them. You have to be realistic and make things better, - now, today. Don’t cry, don’t blame, don’t promise, don’t project.

Right now the US, to my great sorrow, is acting to spread a certain ideology, a very good and the only possible ideology as we think. Russians know – it cannot work, it did not work, it will not work. That was what Marxists did, this was what Nazi’s, did that was what Islamists did and do.

“The United States of America will continue to support Georgia’s democracy,” - Bush

Condoleezza Rice is in Tbilisi. She's conferring with President Saakashvili and expressing America's wholehearted support for Georgia's democracy. --- Bush

He [ McCain] provided a primer for why Americans should care about the "tiny little democracy"

I like this : Obama- ‘’No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and has now violated the space of another country. Russia has escalated its military campaign through strategic bombing and the movement of its ground forces into the heart of Georgia. There is no possible justification for these attacks.’’’’’ Obama at his best – no matter what are justifications, there is no possible justification. What a scam – from only the moral point of view - no matter what is the truth, - and how openly and clear y he expresses the state of his mind, the liberal idea.

Speaking about morality, - you can conduct an experiment yourself, anywhere in the US including DP. If you ask anybody, - where you would prefer to live yourself, if it was your only choice - in the democratic Georgia or in Russia under regime of Putin.

You will see that nobody, not even a single person will give you a relevant answer.
http://www.freedomhouse.hu/images/fdh_galleries/NIT2008/NT-Georgia-final.pdf

http://www.freedomhouse.hu/images/fdh_galleries/NIT2008/NT-Russia-final1.pdf

Democracy Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You would be able to see not only the statistic, but also dynamic in the facts accepted even by most crazy liberal institutions. As well you would understand how much easier it is to make democracy, not love in a tiny uniform place, rather than in vast uneven territories. As a thinking man you will take another factors correcting the numbers.

But even according these numbers you can see the result of the experiment. You have not found a single person who does not have a belief that Georgia is a democracy opposite to Russia.

This is the first very obvious result of spreading democracy. In order to continue the spreaders firstly have to establish a totalitarian regime in the US. Undeniably you can see the total lie has been spread first. I don’t know if you accept lie as immoral, but if you take such an assumption, you will see what doctrine is moral, - Russian Realistic, or American Monopolar.

Thus, if you make such an assumption you will see that Medvedev’s 5 principals first of all are moral, and then are beneficial for any free man, whether in the US or in Russia.

``Live Not By Lies.''
And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:
``Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?
``Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.''
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Can the US declare any moral principals countering Russia, except for spreading a uniform ideology and making the globe to submit to it by means of military power? Can we at least declare that we have something in difference from Communists?

Once upon a time Americans did not have any ideology, they were free and appreciated freedom. Can we roll back?

donsutherland1 · Sep 3, 2008

justone said:
What should I start from… You are worthy of a debate, thanks again for a good post… on other hand I do not want that anybody would take my objection as diminishing goodness of your post.

Justone,

People can feel free to debate or disagree with my thoughts. Even in cases where the same facts are available, reasonable people can, and often do, arrive at different opinions.

Why do you think that balance of power is only balance of military power, and why do you thinking that it disregards or does not take in account moral?

Given many people's differing views concerning legitimacy of policies e.g., the huge debate concerning the U.S. decision to go to war with Iraq is a case in point, I prefer to focus more on the conventional definition of power. I do note that moral principles can augment that power.

Unipolar power is impossible to maintain because of natural human longing for freedom, including freedom of thoughts.

I would agree. The American Founding Fathers were particularly concerned about the human tendency to concentrate power in a small number of hands. The same concept can apply in the larger geopolitical framework where one state gains dominance. Then such great power can offer a state temptations that might not otherwise be pursued were power more widely dispersed.

As the US and the West has constructed the best principals of a government and social existence, some individuals see a reason of spreading such principals around the globe. They act as prophets of the bright future of humanity (invented by them in endless writings) and as crusaders (though as a rule they still prefer the warm and high offices and never forget to cash in a profit).

There is a fairly sizable body of literature that highlights the benefits of democracy. However, what is often lost in the contemporary discourse, is the reality that democracy is not merely defined by a nation's holding elections. Democracy depends on political, economic, legal institutions, laws, and separation of power. A nation's traditions and historic experience can be important in helping build that framework. In the absence of such a framework, governance can become dysfunctional, corrupt, and/or unstable. Over time, one can witness coup d'etats, a slide to authoritarianism, etc.

In my view, it is no accident that Pakistan has suffered through episodes of popular and military rule. It is no coincidence that Iraq has had such difficulty in creating a functional post-Hussein government.

Russians, so you would know are sick and tired of ideas of the bright future.

They have been feeling that they a kind of polygon for testing, laboratory mice.

They suffered from the bright future of Communism.
They suffered from the bright future of socialism.
They suffered from the bright future of capitalism.
They suffered the bright future of democracy.

Each construction of the Western intellectuals has brought disaster and destruction to Russians.

There is little doubt that Russians have suffered through some harsh times under the Tsars, communism, and then in the economic/political disintegration that followed the end of the Cold War. The fundamental error some Western academics and policymakers made was to assume that Russia could almost instantaneously transform itself into a liberal Western democracy. As noted above concerning the framework for democracy, the task involved was far more complex and difficult. That Westerners expected the unrealistic has created dissatisfaction among the Westerners who are disappointed Russia did not become a liberal Western democracy and Russians who felt the West provided too little assistance, a "one-way" partnership, and held them to unrealistic expectations.

That Russia is now evolving toward elected governments that possess strong central power is consistent with its historic experience and traditions. Such an outcome need not be destabilizing geopolitically.

I see the Realistic model as not only possible, but moral, as anything that is realistic and does not make things worse is moral. On the opposite I consider idealistic ideas that have proven to make things worse as immoral.

I subscribe to a pragmatic Realist foreign policy perspective precisely because I believe excessive idealism can only be counterproductive when it comes to foreign policy. A "one-size-fits-all" approach has never been realized. Given the diverse experiences and conditions affecting the world's many countries, such an approach is not feasible. Hence, I do not embrace either liberal internationalism or neoconservatism. Both are too heavy on idealism even as liberal internationalism seeks to accomplish its ends through international institutions while neoconservatism seeks to use power to achieve its idealistic ends.

As a thinking man you will take another factors correcting the numbers.

As with most things, measures published by Freedom House and the Heritage Foundation (Index for Economic Freedom) offer some insight into a country's situation. However, it is overly simplistic to assume that these measures provide a complete picture. They offer some information and a starting point. It is also hazardous for one to use such data to adopt one-dimensional/black-white characterizations of countries. The reality is usually more complex.

Thus, if you make such an assumption you will see that Medvedev’s 5 principals first of all are moral, and then are beneficial for any free man, whether in the US or in Russia.

I have no issues with President Medvedev's principles. They are reasonably consistent with the way I see the world through a pragmatic Realist perspective. They clarify things and offer a perspective that makes West-Russia cooperation feasible with respect to common interests/opportunities/challenges while providing a degree of certainty necessary to reduce risks of confrontation.

metreon · Sep 3, 2008

Just one note, the "balance of power" in practical terms is usually played out as a "competition for power". My observation has been when balance of power is sought, the result is increased competition for it, and therefore greater potential conflict. However "conflict" in my sense could simply mean greater diplomatic struggles rather than military ones, but would not intrinsically exclude the latter.

What was it that Clausewitz said? "War is a continuation of politics by other means..."

justone · Sep 4, 2008

donsutherland1 said:
Justone,

People can feel free to debate or disagree with my thoughts. Even in cases where the same facts are available, reasonable people can, and often do, arrive at different opinions.

donsutherland1, you have
1. thoughts.
2. facts
3. reasons
4. opinions based on the above.
It is such a rare find not only on DP, that I feel like… I don’t know… spoiling a picture?

donsutherland1 said:
Given many people's differing views concerning legitimacy of policies e.g., the huge debate concerning the U.S. decision to go to war with Iraq is a case in point, I prefer to focus more on the conventional definition of power. I do note that moral principles can augment that power.

Iraq may be a very different topic:
If Russia openly supported terrorism, if Russia announced Georgia to be its territory and rolled tanks to annex it with no sign of Georgian hostilities towards Russia (Saddam, Kuwait), if Russia used WMD against a rebelled or breakaway region which did not conduct persistent terrorist actions (Kurds),if Russia announced the US as an enemy incompatible with Russian goals, - then Russia would not be Russia, but Iraq.
Then I would appeal to Russian morality and common sense and support against Saddam.
The principle #1 is the law. I am afraid you do not understand that Medvedev’s idea is not about Russia as polar opposite to the US. It is about taking in consideration Russian interests no less than American interests; and it does not forbid from partnership in actions against nations breaking laws. Russia could be a partner (it does mean that it could be agreeable with stupidity), and she made such an offer or hints of it, - unfortunately the US dismissed it with an attitude, - ‘you, Russia are just bending over with a fear that you may be the next, - don’t worry your turn will come.’ We have major political appointees and decision makers reaching their positions on the waves of the affirmative action and musts of the liberal ideology.

I see all signs that if the US was treating Russia in accordance with the 5 principals, Putin could turn very supportive and may be even helpful in the Iraq problem.
I would like you also comment on other augments of power, such as power of ideas and thoughts and power of actions not related to use of force.

donsutherland1 said:
I would agree. The American Founding Fathers were particularly concerned about the human tendency to concentrate power in a small number of hands. The same concept can apply in the larger geopolitical framework where one state gains dominance. Then such great power can offer a state temptations that might not otherwise be pursued were power more widely dispersed.

You have correctly understood my referral to the principals this country was founded on, - even when I have made no mentioning. If you read DP you would see total misinterpretation of such statements of mine by almost everyone. You are a rare find. You are all correct, this is exactly my particular concern, - the same as of The American Founding Fathers.

donsutherland1 said:
There is a fairly sizable body of literature that highlights the benefits of democracy. However, what is often lost in the contemporary discourse, is the reality that democracy is not merely defined by a nation's holding elections. Democracy depends on political, economic, legal institutions, laws, and separation of power. A nation's traditions and historic experience can be important in helping build that framework. In the absence of such a framework, governance can become dysfunctional, corrupt, and/or unstable. Over time, one can witness coup d'etats, a slide to authoritarianism, etc.

Let me try to convey my point again:
There is a fairly sizable body of literature that highlights the benefits of democracy. I DO NOT READ SUCH LITERATURE, NOR DEMOS DOES. NEITHER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE US, NOR DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE EVER MENTION DEMOCRACY; AND I LIKE THAT. LITERATURE COMES MOSTLY POST FACTUM, AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS A MANUAL FOR ACTIONS. However, what is often lost in the contemporary discourse, is the reality that democracy is not merely defined by a nation's holding elections, NOT AT ALL. Democracy depends on political, economic, legal institutions, laws, and separation of power. A nation's traditions and historic experience AND THE PRESENT STATE OF ECONOMY, POLITICAL AND SOCIAL LIFE can be EXTREMELY important in helping build that framework. In the absence of such a framework, HISTORICALLY TEMPORARILY AND IMPATIENT IDEAS OF SOME INDIVIDUALS ABOUT governance OF DEMACRACY WITHOUT ANY BENEFITS FOR DEMOS can become dysfunctional, corrupt, and/or unstable, AND EVEN DESTRUCTIVE . Over time, one can witness coup d'etats, a slide to authoritarianism, etc., INCLUDING DESTRUCTION AND SUFFERING OF THE BOTH ENTITIES, - THE NATION SPREADING DEMOCRACY AND THE NATION THAT IS CHOSEN TO SERVE AS A SUBJECT OF THE EXPERIMENT.

donsutherland1 said:
In my view, it is no accident that Pakistan has suffered through episodes of popular and military rule.

I am not sure what relation Pakistan can have to Russia. I am not sure what suffering you are talking about. Actually I am clueless. Let’s stay on topic.

donsutherland1 said:
It is no coincidence that Iraq has had such difficulty in creating a functional post-Hussein government.

I disagree, - we are the ones who have such difficulty. We could create a functional post-Hussein government in a moment, but instead we tried to create a democracy. It is not like we cannot do, the problem is that we have already tilted the geopolitical balance for worse rather than for better, and in the confrontation with Russia we keep on going in the same direction for worse. Why we did not outsource creating a functional post-Hussein government to Putin? He has been able to create a functional g-nt in totally dysfunctional Russia.

to be continued

justone · Sep 4, 2008

continued

donsutherland1 said:
There is little doubt that Russians have suffered through some harsh times under the Tsars, communism, and then in the economic/political disintegration that followed the end of the Cold War. The fundamental error some Western academics and policymakers made was to assume that Russia could almost instantaneously transform itself into a liberal Western democracy. As noted above concerning the framework for democracy, the task involved was far more complex and difficult. That Westerners expected the unrealistic has created dissatisfaction among the Westerners who are disappointed Russia did not become a liberal Western democracy and Russians who felt the West provided too little assistance, a "one-way" partnership, and held them to unrealistic expectations.

Russian were not disappointed that “”it did not work”’, they were disappointed in continuous support of destruction of Russia, in continuous support of looting of Russia. They have historical disgust of implementing ideas of the bright future at the cost of the grim present.
Then the economic/political disintegration that followed the end of the Cold War was one of the things many thinking Russians called for, as they did not see a need to keep on carrying certain economic/political burdens, Generally the idea was – you want to earn your living by yourself, by hard work, - go. And so many went to learn living by selling themselves to the West, by mere prostitution…

Also there is a little doubt that Russians have suffered through some harsh times under the Tsars. We all had Tsars and Kings, etc.

donsutherland1 said:
That Russia is now evolving toward elected governments that possess strong central power is consistent with its historic experience and traditions. Such an outcome need not be destabilizing geopolitically.

One of the things is that Russia does not evolve towards anything – it just it just tries to make things better, but not worse. If there is any idea, that is more like in the US in the beginning in the meaning of spirit, but not in the meaning of the essnce. Historical experience is very important, Russia has a huge territory with historical tradition of each region pulling to all different sides. On other hand Moscow used to ignore difference in regions and to rob them. ‘’Strong central power’’ is not a goal or outcome. Everyone sees Putin as an authoritarian person making steps towards totalirism; when the facts tell that such a unanimous view is another example of the totalitarian regime of lies in the US. I am firstly concerned about the totalitarian regime in the US rather than in Russia.

The facts are that Putin did not have to step down from Presidency. He did. Why? He could change the law slightly, - he did not. Why? Why would he change the law now as the Prime minister when he has less opportunities/strings/power to make such changes? It is pretty much clear that he pushed hard for Medvedev. Why would he be disappointed in his choice? Why would he need a puppet but not an excellent friend, somebody who is equally devoted to good for Russia more than to personal good? Why it cannot be a tandem? There is a Russian proverb, one head is good, two heads are better. And as you have said election does not always lead to a good government.

donsutherland1 said:
Such an outcome need not be destabilizing geopolitically.

Why do you think Medvedev- Putin would argue? What is their gain in destabilization?

donsutherland1 said:
I subscribe to a pragmatic Realist foreign policy perspective precisely because I believe excessive idealism can only be counterproductive when it comes to foreign policy. A "one-size-fits-all" approach has never been realized. Given the diverse experiences and conditions affecting the world's many countries, such an approach is not feasible. Hence, I do not embrace either liberal internationalism or neoconservatism. Both are too heavy on idealism even as liberal internationalism seeks to accomplish its ends through international institutions while neoconservatism seeks to use power to achieve its idealistic ends.

I am not too good in sorting the partisan labels, but even in your description liberal internationalism and neoconservatism are both sick with the same decease. Some call Bush neoconservative, for me he has been exhibiting more and more liberalism, and now he looks to me like a liberal to the bone. If Obama is represented as an opposite to Bush, I cannot understand such a representation. Obama is nobody, thus he cannot be an opposite of anything.
I am not too good in sorting the partisan labels, - Medvedev in the principals seeks to accomplish his ends through international institutions AND as well he seeks to use power to achieve his ends, - thus – in your definition – is he a liberal and neoconservative at the same time?
Labels aside, you are my man. That’s why I had said I wanted to see you running for POTUS. Then, you would have no support, only one justone. I sense that the demos doesn’t even understand your speech.

donsutherland1 said:
Foundation (Index for Economic Freedom) offer some insight into a country's situation. However, it is overly simplistic to assume that these measures provide a complete picture. They offer some information and a starting point. It is also hazardous for one to use such data to adopt one-dimensional/black-white characterizations of countries. The reality is usually more complex.

It is all correct, except for one thing, - you are avoiding giving a clear answer. The Qs are, - would you think there is any reasonable base for the imposed idea that Georgia is democracy vs. Russia which is not a democracy. Where would you like to live as an apologist of democracy, if the only choice was between the 2? Where would you like to live as an apologist of global stability, if the only choice was between the 2?

donsutherland1 said:
I have no issues with President Medvedev's principles. They are reasonably consistent with the way I see the world through a pragmatic Realist perspective. They clarify things and offer a perspective that makes West-Russia cooperation feasible with respect to common interests/opportunities/challenges while providing a degree of certainty necessary to reduce risks of confrontation.

I guess sometimes you position is very unclear and may be misinterpreted in different ways. I am sorry I have made you to expose yourself as a target for liberal internationalists and neoconservatives, which generally means for everyone.

Do you have issues with McCain’s geopolitical principles? I do.

Do you have issues with Obama’s absence of any principles? For me it is even scarier than Mccain’s present principals. I just imagine Obama taking a sit at a table across Medvedev.

justone · Sep 4, 2008

metreon said:
Just one note, the "balance of power" in practical terms is usually played out as a "competition for power". My observation has been when balance of power is sought, the result is increased competition for it, and therefore greater potential conflict. However "conflict" in my sense could simply mean greater diplomatic struggles rather than military ones, but would not intrinsically exclude the latter.

What was it that Clausewitz said? "War is a continuation of politics by other means..."

When I a neocon have a gun and you a neolib have a gun and we both are reasonable people respecting the law, what is a potential for a conflict?

donsutherland1 · Sep 5, 2008

justone said:
Iraq may be a very different topic:

If Russia openly supported terrorism, if Russia announced Georgia to be its territory and rolled tanks to annex it with no sign of Georgian hostilities towards Russia (Saddam, Kuwait), if Russia used WMD against a rebelled or breakaway region which did not conduct persistent terrorist actions (Kurds),if Russia announced the US as an enemy incompatible with Russian goals, - then Russia would not be Russia, but Iraq.

Without doubt, the circumstances were entirely different. My only point was that Americans found the decision to go to war in Iraq controversial. There was no clearly-held moral case. Given the reality that people may view things in differing moral terms, I choose to focus more on the conventional definition of power.

It is about taking in consideration Russian interests no less than American interests; and it does not forbid from partnership in actions against nations breaking laws. Russia could be a partner (it does mean that it could be agreeable with stupidity), and she made such an offer or hints of it, - unfortunately the US dismissed it with an attitude, - ‘you, Russia are just bending over with a fear that you may be the next, - don’t worry your turn will come.’ We have major political appointees and decision makers reaching their positions on the waves of the affirmative action and musts of the liberal ideology.

We agree on this point. Russia's government seeks to safeguard and advance Russia's interests. That's entirely reasonable. That's the way nations behave. I also agree that there is sufficient common ground to make a constructive U.S.-Russia partnership possible. I hope that the next U.S. President will make improvement of the bilateral U.S.-Russia relationship a priority.

I see all signs that if the US was treating Russia in accordance with the 5 principals, Putin could turn very supportive and may be even helpful in the Iraq problem.

As U.S. and Russian interests coincide for improved stability in the Middle East and Russia has articulated that it has no intention of altering the strategic balance in the Middle East, I agree that there are grounds for improved cooperation in the region.

I would like you also comment on other augments of power, such as power of ideas and thoughts and power of actions not related to use of force.

They matter greatly. Ideas have influence. Influence has geopolitical significance.

Actions establish precedents and demonstrate whether or not a state can be or is a reliable partner. To establish or sustain a reputation for reliability, actions need to be consistent with the principles countries set forth.

You have correctly understood my referral to the principals this country was founded on, - even when I have made no mentioning. If you read DP you would see total misinterpretation of such statements of mine by almost everyone. You are a rare find. You are all correct, this is exactly my particular concern, - the same as of The American Founding Fathers.

I try to understand the views people express. If I misunderstand, one can and should feel free to correct me.

I disagree, - we are the ones who have such difficulty. We could create a functional post-Hussein government in a moment, but instead we tried to create a democracy. It is not like we cannot do, the problem is that we have already tilted the geopolitical balance for worse rather than for better, and in the confrontation with Russia we keep on going in the same direction for worse. Why we did not outsource creating a functional post-Hussein government to Putin? He has been able to create a functional g-nt in totally dysfunctional Russia.

I believe a combination of factors led to the decision. In large part, the U.S. had concern that Iraq had reconstituted its weapons of mass destruction program. The fateful October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that with a high degree of confidence that:

• Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

• We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

• Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.

• Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material.

In part, the decision might well have been a product of the neoconservative approach to foreign policy that was based on assumptions of a unipolar world and permanent triumph of democracy. Indeed, if one goes back to a 2000 report ("Rebuilding America's Defenses") published by the neoconservative Project for a New American Century, one finds a statement that a "main military mission..." is to "secure and expand zones of democratic peace..." At a minimum, such thinking probably helped the Bush Administration to conclude that the absence of a fresh Security Council resolution authorizing military operations was unnecessary and, more worrisome, that once the war was over Iraq could quickly be transformed into a functioning democracy.

donsutherland1 · Sep 5, 2008

justone said:
One of the things is that Russia does not evolve towards anything – it just it just tries to make things better, but not worse. If there is any idea, that is more like in the US in the beginning in the meaning of spirit, but not in the meaning of the essnce. Historical experience is very important, Russia has a huge territory with historical tradition of each region pulling to all different sides. On other hand Moscow used to ignore difference in regions and to rob them. ‘’Strong central power’’ is not a goal or outcome. Everyone sees Putin as an authoritarian person making steps towards totalirism...

Several quick things:
1. I agree that Russia's policies are aimed at improving conditions in Russia
2. Evolution toward a more centralized state is not synonymous with totalitarianism. Certainly, I had no intention of making such a characterization.
3. Prime Minister Putin has a role in which his executive power is quite strong. Again, I never intended to describe him as totalitarian.

The facts are that Putin did not have to step down from Presidency. He did. Why? He could change the law slightly, - he did not. Why? Why would he change the law now as the Prime minister when he has less opportunities/strings/power to make such changes? It is pretty much clear that he pushed hard for Medvedev. Why would he be disappointed in his choice? Why would he need a puppet but not an excellent friend, somebody who is equally devoted to good for Russia more than to personal good? Why it cannot be a tandem? There is a Russian proverb, one head is good, two heads are better. And as you have said election does not always lead to a good government.

From what I have read and observed, it seems that both President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin have a good relationship. Also, I don't agree with caricatures that portray the Russian President as Prime Minister Putin's "puppet." That the more experienced Prime Minister has a degree of influence by virtue of his experience is a different matter.

I am not too good in sorting the partisan labels, but even in your description liberal internationalism and neoconservatism are both sick with the same decease. Some call Bush neoconservative, for me he has been exhibiting more and more liberalism, and now he looks to me like a liberal to the bone.

Liberal internationalism and neoconservatism are foreign policy schools. Clearly, as you note, President Bush has not demonstrated fiscal conservatism e.g., he proposed and, following Congressional approaval, enacted a dramatic expansion in Medicare. That expanded coverage was not tied to any reforms that meaningfully reduced Medicare's long-term fiscal imbalance. Instead, the new program significantly exacerbated those challenges. That's just one example. Overall, under President Bush, the role of the federal government and size of the federal budget have been expanded and the White House played an active role in bringing about that outcome.

It is all correct, except for one thing, - you are avoiding giving a clear answer. The Qs are, - would you think there is any reasonable base for the imposed idea that Georgia is democracy vs. Russia which is not a democracy.

The notion that Georgia is a democracy and Russia is not is overly simplistic. Both countries have democratic features. Both have other attributes, as well.

Do you have issues with McCain’s geopolitical principles? I do.

Do you have issues with Obama’s absence of any principles?

I have some concerns and more questions about the foreign policy positions of both candidates. In my view, Senator Obama should avoid any Summitry in a first term should he be elected. He should avoid the temptation to get involved in day-to-day negotiations e.g., in a bid to break the Middle East peace logjam. Shrewd interlocutors e.g., President Ahmadinejad, might well try to exploit Senator Obama's lack of foreign policy experience if given the opportunity.

justone · Sep 6, 2008

donsutherland1 said:
Without doubt, the circumstances were entirely different. My only point was that Americans found the decision to go to war in Iraq controversial. There was no clearly-held moral case. Given the reality that people may view things in differing moral terms, I choose to focus more on the conventional definition of power.

You did not have to make it as a point. I have called you many times on the regime of total lies. I truly believe that Americans are good and moral people as a nation, and they agree on many basic moral stands. It is when everyone lies to them repeatedly from everywhere they may get confused. I do not believe that avoiding answering this point would suffice for mutual acceptance of your definition. I truly believe that you and I have the same minimal and basic moral stands that can constitute a sensible power, even if it is obvious that you and I are different. Let me quote you: ‘’They matter greatly. Ideas have influence. Influence has geopolitical significance.’’

donsutherland1 said:
I hope that the next U.S. President will make improvement of the bilateral U.S.-Russia relationship a priority.

I have laid my arguments why we practically have no chance, - McCain is a very slight chance (that is not founded in his present actions); Obama has no chance. What consideration does give you hope?

donsutherland1 said:
As interests coincide for improved stability in the Middle East and Russia has articulated that it has no intention of altering the strategic balance in the Middle East, I agree that there are grounds for improved cooperation in the region.

But the US continues extremely confrontational, the cold war at its worst, policy against Russia. Does such policy benefit the US interests in the ME? How much of a hope are you putting on Putin putting up with mental disabilites of his partner-opponent?

donsutherland1 said:
Actions establish precedents and demonstrate whether or not a state can be or is a reliable partner. To establish or sustain a reputation for reliability, actions need to be consistent with the principles countries set forth.

Thus the double standard the US is demonstrating proves to Russia that the US neither reasonable, nor reliable partner. Both you and Russia have been demonstrating unreasonable hope that something is going to (as you like to say “’should”) change for better. I understand both of you have no other choice, but to hope for a miracle.

donsutherland1 said:
I believe a combination of factors led to the decision. In large part, the U.S. had concern that Iraq had reconstituted its weapons of mass destruction program. The fateful October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that with a high degree of confidence that:

• Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

• We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

• Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.

• Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons-grad fissile material.

The decision was based on intelligence. Intelligence is often incorrect as a rule. But decisions have to be made. In reference to the intelligence estimate the decision was reasonable.
American intelligence had shown having problems, starting from neither predicting nor understanding the collapse of the USSR. I have reasons to believe that it still has major problems. It had problems if it did not report about Georgian intentions. It did have problems if it did not estimate Russian reaction.

donsutherland1 said:
In part, the decision might well have been a product of the neoconservative approach to foreign policy that was based on assumptions of a unipolar world and permanent triumph of democracy. Indeed, if one goes back to a 2000 report ("Rebuilding America's Defenses") published by the neoconservative Project for a New American Century, one finds a statement that a "main military mission..." is to "secure and expand zones of democratic peace..."

Do you really read such stuff? I was exhausted after 5 minutes. Do you really spend your life reading such things? Did I forget to tell you that I am 100% neocon in the view of many on DP? (Some think that I am a pacifist).

I don’t see any problem with the US having the most powerful military. I am concerned about the problems outlined in the report, as well as some specific professional solutions=mistakes suggested. I would love to see the reign of our military all over the globe, but I HAVE TO agree with Medvedev – it is impossible.

As well I am against using military for spreading liberalism because it is against my soul of a neocon.

Not only reference to the American FF, but the real experience show that we cannot rule the world and guarantee that we will not go into wars against democracy, liberty and freedom of peoples of the world. There are things which are impossible. I would love to become a dictator, because I am the smartest, kindness and highly moral person and I would love the job.

I do not want to see any other superpower rising like the USSR to challenge liberty and freedoms. If I saw Russia turning into the USSR, I would never be saying what I am saying.

Realistically it is impossible to spread liberty by imposing liberal ideas. Realistically it is impossible to write down on the paper the description and ways of achievement of the bright future of humanity. Realistically we need allies and fierce and powerful opponents who have the same basic values of liberty and freedom of pursuit. It’s like I, a neocon, need you, obviously a liberal… no, a democrat… no, I don’t know how to call you, I guess anti-neocon would be the best word, - to challenge me and to cooperate with me in extreme situations threatening either you or me, or both. The same reference… as you see…

You and I had agreed expansion of zones of democratic peace is a very liberal idea, whatever means it uses, - that is enough for me to see the possibility of our cooperation. The report is full of liberalism.

donsutherland1 said:
At a minimum, such thinking probably helped the Bush Administration to conclude that the absence of a fresh Security Council resolution authorizing military operations was unnecessary and, more worrisome, that once the war was over Iraq could quickly be transformed into a functioning democracy.

Here we go…. Bush, Bush, Bush, --- we all who were brought up by liberalism and we all who were not cowards hoped the war was over Iraq could quickly be transformed into a functioning democracy. The reality put liberalism on the edge, Russia pushed it over. Liberalism has proven to be a total failure as an universal value, that’s why it has been reserving to total lies, that’s why it pushes us into bloody misery where it finds itself today.

donsutherland1 said:
Without doubt, the circumstances were entirely different. My only point was that Americans found the decision to go to war in Iraq controversial.

There was no clearly-held moral case. Given the reality that people may view things in differing moral terms, I choose to focus more on the conventional definition of power.

I disagree. In the great majority Americans have rather universal moral stands. With the report given, the good majority including democrats found the decision justified; for the most Americans Saddam had to be removed. And the overwhelming majority perceived him as a threat. We cannot now go clean, blaming all on Bush. Avoiding personal responsibilities is one of the core values of liberalism. Clinging to old ideas that have not worked and proven to be wrong is one of the core values of liberalism.
Such a stand of American people was quite powerful. The only difference was that some minority including Obama were suggesting that Saddam could be neutralized by the international community gathering together to lick Saddam’s behind. I guess licking butts is the only principal I can find in Obama.

justone · Sep 6, 2008

donsutherland1 said:
Liberal internationalism and neoconservatism are foreign policy schools. Clearly, as you note, President Bush has not demonstrated fiscal conservatism e.g., he proposed and, following Congressional approaval, enacted a dramatic expansion in Medicare. That expanded coverage was not tied to any reforms that meaningfully reduced Medicare's long-term fiscal imbalance. Instead, the new program significantly exacerbated those challenges. That's just one example. Overall, under President Bush, the role of the federal government and size of the federal budget have been expanded and the White House played an active role in bringing about that outcome.

Bush has proposed and enacted liberal ideas. It is widely reported that conservatives are disappointed in Reps. On other hand the idea that they would like somebody who puts liberalism in the platform, and they would hope he/she like Clinton would enact conservative ideas, like cutting welfare, is very shaky, at least.

I don’t know why Bush considered Medicare as an urgent necessity, why it had not been pre-planned years before, why he decided that we could afford, etc – I would like to stay on the topic.

donsutherland1 said:
The notion that Georgia is a democracy and Russia is not is overly simplistic. Both countries have democratic features. Both have other attributes, as well.

It is the 4th time when you are avoiding simple questions. How would you talk to Putin and/or Medvedev and think that such answers of yours would suffice? We had agreed two times that ‘’The notion that Georgia is a democracy and Russia is not is overly simplistic. Both countries have democratic features. Both have other attributes, as well. ‘’All I asked you to take in the consideration the features and attributes in the present dynamics and give your opinion as of the present moment.
I have been saying that the notion that Georgia is a democracy and Russia is not is an overly simplistic lie. It is greatly misleading the American public. What are your objections if any?

donsutherland1 said:
I have some concerns and more questions about the foreign policy positions of both candidates. In my view, Senator Obama should avoid any Summitry in a first term should he be elected. He should avoid the temptation to get involved in day-to-day negotiations e.g., in a bid to break the Middle East peace logjam. Shrewd interlocutors e.g., President Ahmadinejad, might well try to exploit Senator Obama's lack of foreign policy experience if given the opportunity.

It is very interesting. You suggest that Obama shouldn’t get involved where the POTUS should be involved. You are correct, everyone starting from Iran and finishing with France will be exploiting Obama.

One should run for the President in order to get involved.One cannot get experience by not getting involved.

Obama has already been involved for quite a while. Did you see liberal crowds in Europe rallying for THEIR candidate?

Unfortunately in reality Obama has been involved where he shouldn’t have been involved for quite a while. But again it has been not because of him, his principals or his will. He has been used and put up as a symbol, not as a person. He is no person.

But I am with you, - it is a very good advice of yours: Barack Hussein Obama, if you are elected, - just don’t touch anything..

donsutherland1 · Sep 7, 2008

justone said:
Bush has proposed and enacted liberal ideas. It is widely reported that conservatives are disappointed in Reps. On other hand the idea that they would like somebody who puts liberalism in the platform, and they would hope he/she like Clinton would enact conservative ideas, like cutting welfare, is very shaky, at least.

We don't disagree that President Bush has advocated and enacted liberal ideas. However, that does not mean that he has not pursued a neoconservative foreign policy. One good reference book on the origins of the neoconservative movement is John Ehrman's The Rise of Neoconservatism: Intellectuals and Foreign Affairs. The book notes that a number of neoconservatism's architects were disenchanted liberals from the 1960s.

I don’t know why Bush considered Medicare as an urgent necessity, why it had not been pre-planned years before, why he decided that we could afford, etc – I would like to stay on the topic.

This is very much on topic. It was intended to differentiate between domestic and foreign policy. In short, even as President Bush has pursued some liberal domestic politices (Medicare expansion was one, lack of spending restraint in general highlights that approach), he has pursued a neoconservative foreign policy.

It is the 4th time when you are avoiding simple questions. How would you talk to Putin and/or Medvedev and think that such answers of yours would suffice?

I simply would not use the misleading jargon of defining one state as democratic and the other as non-democratic. Such terminology can only create barriers when it comes to substantive discussions.

It is very interesting. You suggest that Obama shouldn’t get involved where the POTUS should be involved. You are correct, everyone starting from Iran and finishing with France will be exploiting Obama.

One should run for the President in order to get involved.One cannot get experience by not getting involved.

Obama has already been involved for quite a while. Did you see liberal crowds in Europe rallying for THEIR candidate?

Detailed negotiations are best left to senior foreign policy staff not the President. Whether the President is a Democrat or Republican makes little difference. A President can help break deadlocks. He/She can finalize agreements.

President Wilson's post-WW II negotiations at Versailles highlights the danger of a President's becoming involved in day-to-day negotiations. The outcome was a badly flawed treaty and, to add insult to injury, that treaty resulted after President Wilson had neglected major policy decisions in the U.S. for an extended period of time.

donsutherland1 · Sep 7, 2008

justone said:
I have laid my arguments why we practically have no chance, - McCain is a very slight chance (that is not founded in his present actions); Obama has no chance. What consideration does give you hope?

My expression of a preferred foreign policy approach for the next President is not the same as my expecting the next President to take that approach. At this time, I have little reason to believe that either candidate will make a serious and sustained effort to improve the U.S.-Russia relationship. Certainly, neither of their policy papers/positions spells out such a priority. Whether or not the recent mini-conflict in the Caucasus leads to a reorientation of foreign policy priorities remains to be seen.

The decision was based on intelligence. Intelligence is often incorrect as a rule. But decisions have to be made. In reference to the intelligence estimate the decision was reasonable.

No disagreements on this. However, before decisions are carried out, adequate planning needs to be undertaken. That the military operation in Iraq was not budgeted (Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz told Congress that the U.S. would not know the costs involved) and the post-war stability operations (maintaining security, creating a framework for self-rule by the Iraqis, etc.) was poorly conceived, contributed greatly to the post-war violence that ultimately resulted. The troop surge helped alleviate that violence, but had sufficient planning been undertaken ahead of time, the troop surge would not have been necessary. Certainly, the kind of violence that broke out was foreseen by the 1999 Desert Crossing exercise.

Do you really read such stuff? I was exhausted after 5 minutes. Do you really spend your life reading such things?

I generally stay informed on foreign affairs matters--in part on account of my own interest and in part on account of my work.

I don’t see any problem with the US having the most powerful military. I am concerned about the problems outlined in the report, as well as some specific professional solutions=mistakes suggested. I would love to see the reign of our military all over the globe, but I HAVE TO agree with Medvedev – it is impossible.

I believe a strong military is important. The issue arises as to its proper role. I do not subscribe to the report's idea that the military can be used to "expand" spheres of democracy. Democracy is not a matter of simply replacing one set of rulers with another. Much more is involved.

I do not want to see any other superpower rising like the USSR to challenge liberty and freedoms. If I saw Russia turning into the USSR, I would never be saying what I am saying.

I do not believe Russia seeks to "restore" the Soviet era. Russia will likely be more active in defining and defending its critical interests.

We cannot now go clean, blaming all on Bush. Avoiding personal responsibilities is one of the core values of liberalism. Clinging to old ideas that have not worked and proven to be wrong is one of the core values of liberalism.

If you interpreted my comment as indicating I completely "blame" President Bush for the situation in Iraq, etc., that is not a correct interpretation. I note that he made a decision and some of the factors behind it. It should also be noted that Congress gave him sufficient support in its resolution concerning Iraq. Furthermore, when it came to the testimony prior to the decision to launch the war, Congress did not insist on receiving the specific information Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz declined to provide i.e., budgets, plans for post-war stabilization, etc. It did not challenge General Franks minimalist manpower strategy even as General Shinseki expressed real concerns and the 1999 Desert Crossing Exercise warned of a high probability of substantial civil unrest in Iraq. In short, President Bush does not bear all the responsibility. Indeed, rather than seeking to apportion blame, the nation's political leaders would do much better to learn where things went wrong, fix those areas, as well as know what went well and reinforce those areas.

justone · Sep 9, 2008

donsutherland1 said:
We don't disagree that President Bush has advocated and enacted liberal ideas. However, that does not mean that he has not pursued a neoconservative foreign policy. One good reference book on the origins of the neoconservative movement is John Ehrman's The Rise of Neoconservatism: Intellectuals and Foreign Affairs. The book notes that a number of neoconservatism's architects were disenchanted liberals from the 1960s.

I will not read the book. Do those disenchanted liberals call themselves neocons? I bet they don’t. Did Clinton pursue a neoconservative foreign policy in Kosovo? What would he do after 9/11 and intelligence reports? Is Afgan a neoconservative foreign policy? All the above have the same feature of spreading liberal ideas by military and diplomacy (based on military power). I thought you read documents, not books.

donsutherland1 said:
This is very much on topic. It was intended to differentiate between domestic and foreign policy. In short, even as President Bush has pursued some liberal domestic politices (Medicare expansion was one, lack of spending restraint in general highlights that approach), he has pursued a neoconservative foreign policy.

It is away, unless you show dependence of foreign and domestic. Whatever policy he has persuaded domestically, he has persuaded liberal foreign policy of spreading democracy and ideals. Many conservative do not like his domestic policy, but still they support spreading democracy and ideals, by means of militarization, economic pressure, peaceful starvation, genocide, looting, free handing of condoms, etc, - in the same way as liberal do.

donsutherland1 said:
I simply would not use the misleading jargon of defining one state as democratic and the other as non-democratic. Such terminology can only create barriers when it comes to substantive discussions.

What substantive discussions? What I have been asking you about? Was it any kind of discussion at all?

donsutherland1 said:
Detailed negotiations are best left to senior foreign policy staff not the President. Whether the President is a Democrat or Republican makes little difference. A President can help break deadlocks. He/She can finalize agreements.

President Wilson's post-WW II negotiations at Versailles highlights the danger of a President's becoming involved in day-to-day negotiations. The outcome was a badly flawed treaty and, to add insult to injury, that treaty resulted after President Wilson had neglected major policy decisions in the U.S. for an extended period of time.

You claimed that Osama shouldn’t get involved at all and only at the first term because of lack of experience which (experience) in your view should be gained by not been involved.
Now you reading me a lecture that the POTUS does not have drive his limousine by himself. I may stay polite and nice with you, but I see the 2nd thought you trying to hide very persistently. You think Putin wouldn’t crack you in a few, - when he is trained by the KGB? You make me laugh.

donsutherland1 said:
My expression of a preferred foreign policy approach for the next President is not the same as my expecting the next President to take that approach. At this time, I have little reason to believe that either candidate will make a serious and sustained effort to improve the U.S.-Russia relationship. Certainly, neither of their policy papers/positions spells out such a priority.

Is it a priority in foreign relations, do you want me to remind you your own considerations about Russia-ME-Iran? Did I ask about improvement? How good they are keeping the same neoconservative foreign policy? Who has a better chance of getting the Realistic approach? Who has a chance to change and slow down on spreading liberalism?

donsutherland1 said:
Whether or not the recent mini-conflict in the Caucasus leads to a reorientation of foreign policy priorities remains to be seen.

What MINI-conflict? Why then you have been posting so much and so dramatically on this MINI-conflict, - the one that could be a turning point of the geopolitical situation? The one which has caused the US to start another Cold war including reference to nuclear stand off- all in the name of democracy and freedom and support of new democracies, like Georgia? You make me laugh again. Did you let minidonsutherland1 to reply instead of you today?

donsutherland1 said:
No disagreements on this. However, before decisions are carried out, adequate planning needs to be undertaken. That the military operation in Iraq was not budgeted (Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz told Congress that the U.S. would not know the costs involved) and the post-war stability operations (maintaining security, creating a framework for self-rule by the Iraqis, etc.) was poorly conceived, contributed greatly to the post-war violence that ultimately resulted.

It is the same as with intelligence. How can budget crawl through procedures of Congress etc? I expected Saddam to attack us when we were just unloading in the docks, - it was his only chance. Where would be your budget then? Do you understand that showing the budget and discussions to saddam, you would show him our military plans?

donsutherland1 said:
The troop surge helped alleviate that violence, but had sufficient planning been undertaken ahead of time, the troop surge would not have been necessary.

How come? I see only if we had the troop surge in the beginning as a reaction to the signs of democracy (peaceful demonstrations first months) then it would not have been necessary when it was too late. How would you do it with no troop surge at all? If I am not mistaken McCain had been suggesting it looong time ago. Why did you follow the lead of Kerry Edwards and Hillary Obama instead? Why do you still want to see Obama in training rather than Mccain in action?

donsutherland1 said:
Certainly, the kind of violence that broke out was foreseen by the 1999 Desert Crossing exercise.

Have more of Obama’s propaganda to spread? Show me the page.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...Wargame Intellgence Conference_1999-04-29.pdf http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...ntelligence Center Central doc_1998-11-14.pdf

donsutherland1 said:
I believe a strong military is important. The issue arises as to its proper role. I do not subscribe to the report's idea that the military can be used to "expand" spheres of democracy. Democracy is not a matter of simply replacing one set of rulers with another. Much more is involved.

I don’t quite understand you. You still want "expand" spheres of democracy, but without military?

donsutherland1 said:
If you interpreted my comment as indicating I completely "blame" President Bush for the situation in Iraq, etc., that is not a correct interpretation. I note that he made a decision and some of the factors behind it. It should also be noted that Congress gave him sufficient support in its resolution concerning Iraq. Furthermore, when it came to the testimony prior to the decision to launch the war, Congress did not insist on receiving the specific information Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz declined to provide i.e., budgets, plans for post-war stabilization, etc. It did not challenge General Franks minimalist manpower strategy even as General Shinseki expressed real concerns and the 1999 Desert Crossing Exercise warned of a high probability of substantial civil unrest in Iraq. In short, President Bush does not bear all the responsibility. Indeed, rather than seeking to apportion blame, the nation's political leaders would do much better to learn where things went wrong, fix those areas, as well as know what went well and reinforce those areas.

It is the name of the game your Obama has been playing – pointing fingers and blaming. What else can he use for his advantage? The media has been blaming Bush, you are blaming General Franks’ brilliant military plan, and nobody is saying the truth that the liberal idea of spreading democracy and liberalism itself has failed. Who did promise to General Frank that Iraqis were ready to embrace all the pleasures the democracy was bringing to them just in exchange for promise to use condoms?

donsutherland1 · Sep 9, 2008

justone said:
Did Clinton pursue a neoconservative foreign policy in Kosovo? What would he do after 9/11 and intelligence reports? Is Afgan a neoconservative foreign policy?

President Clinton was not a neoconservative. If anything, the military operations in Kosovo were liberal internationalist policies, as they were aimed at using force to address a humanitarian situation. Whomever was President following 9/11 would almost certainly have gone to war to topple the Taliban regime and its Al Qaeda allies. The Taliban's refusal to turn over the terrorists who had attacked the U.S. constituted an act of aggression.

...but still they support spreading democracy and ideals, by means of militarization, economic pressure, peaceful starvation, genocide, looting, free handing of condoms, etc, - in the same way as liberal do.

Spreading democracy is not the issue. Seeking to encourage the spread of freedom is a worthy undertaking. However, precisely because democracy depends on legal, political, and economic institutions, among other factors, simple regime change does not bring about Western-style democracy.

You claimed that Osama shouldn’t get involved at all and only at the first term because of lack of experience which (experience) in your view should be gained by not been involved.

Now you reading me a lecture that the POTUS does not have drive his limousine by himself. I may stay polite and nice with you, but I see the 2nd thought you trying to hide very persistently. You think Putin wouldn’t crack you in a few, - when he is trained by the KGB?

My point was that Presidents are not day-to-day negotiators. It is best to leave those details to their senior foreign policy staff.

I made no comments about Prime Minister Putin. Despite his KGB background and specialized experience, even he left the minutiae of day-to-day negotiations to his foreign minister.

What MINI-conflict? Why then you have been posting so much and so dramatically on this MINI-conflict, - the one that could be a turning point of the geopolitical situation? The one which has caused the US to start another Cold war including reference to nuclear stand off- all in the name of democracy and freedom and support of new democracies, like Georgia?

I've spent some time posting on the events concerning Russia for six reasons:

1. My terming the conflict a "mini-conflict" does not trivialize its importance.
2. The reality is that the conflict was not a large-scale war.
3. A number of my posts touch on the larger geopolitical and policy dimensions associated with the conflict.
4. Some of the details I posted e.g., from Interfax, are not widely reported (if at all) in the U.S. media.
5. The events highlight the reality that the world remains multi-polar and that there was no "end of history" in which one form of political arrangement permanently triumphed.
6. The background information pertinent to the conflict highlights the continuing relevance of national interests, as well as spheres of influence, and their historic orientation/perspective.

It is the same as with intelligence. How can budget crawl through procedures of Congress etc? I expected Saddam to attack us when we were just unloading in the docks, - it was his only chance. [/quote

There is a vast difference between appropriating funds and providing guidance to Congress as to what resources would be required to achieve victory. The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate did not express any degree of confidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat to attack the U.S. or U.S. interests.

How come? I see only if we had the troop surge in the beginning as a reaction to the signs of democracy (peaceful demonstrations first months) then it would not have been necessary when it was too late. How would you do it with no troop surge at all? If I am not mistaken McCain had been suggesting it looong time ago. Why did you follow the lead of Kerry Edwards and Hillary Obama instead? Why do you still want to see Obama in training rather than Mccain in action?

Click to expand...

Senator McCain deserves much credit for advocating the troop surge. My point was that had General Shinseki's comments about manpower and Desert Crossing's lessons been given adequate consideration, the U.S. would have had sufficient manpower to execute the military operation to drive Saddam Hussein from power and to assure a stable post-war environment.

...you are blaming General Franks’ brilliant military plan...

Click to expand...

There's nothing brilliant about a plan that failed to consider the high risk of ethnic conflict (noted in Dessert Crossing and an aspect of Iraq's history) that almost squandered the initial success from driving Saddam Hussein from power. Post-war stabilization is a crucial part of any military plan. The initial military phase was brilliant. The post-war phase was poorly conceived. That the architects of the troop surge were able to reverse the situation does not eliminate the reality of the poor planning that made the troop surge necessary.

justone · Sep 12, 2008

donsutherland1 said:
President Clinton was not a neoconservative. If anything, the military operations in Kosovo were liberal internationalist policies, as they were aimed at using force to address a humanitarian situation. Whomever was President following 9/11 would almost certainly have gone to war to topple the Taliban regime and its Al Qaeda allies. The Taliban's refusal to turn over the terrorists who had attacked the U.S. constituted an act of aggression.

And what was used to impose liberal internationalist policies in Kosovo ? And what is it if not another failure of liberal internationalist policies and totalitarian lies.
It was not only about Taliban but it also was and is about installing democracy.

donsutherland1 said:
Spreading democracy is not the issue. Seeking to encourage the spread of freedom is a worthy undertaking. However, precisely because democracy depends on legal, political, and economic institutions, among other factors, simple regime change does not bring about Western-style democracy.

Who ever talks about simple regime change? Seeking to encourage the spread of freedom, economic pressure, peaceful starvation, peaceful looting, free handing of condoms, etc, - all with the idea of encouraging the spread of freedom and democracy is the subject.

Russians will choose the Cold war by Bush, rather than peaceful encouragement by Clinton at any time of the day. The financial and human loses in Russia during 8 years of encouragement -less -military can be compared to loses of the Civil War. Spreading democracy is exactly the issue.
My point was that Presidents are not day-to-day negotiators. It is best to leave those details to their senior foreign policy staff.

justone. Would Obama be good in duties of the POTUS related to foreign affairs? If to compare with Mccain?
Minidonsutherland1 : My point was that Presidents are not day-to-day negotiators. It is best to leave those details to their senior foreign policy staff.
justone: Should the POTUS be able to tell his limo driver where to go?
Minidonsutherland1: The POTUS shouldn’t drive the limo by himself, he has drivers.

And whom will Obama appoint to be his spiritual, sorry, senior advisers in foreign affairs?

Your cover up for Obama makes me laugh.

donsutherland1 said:
I made no comments about Prime Minister Putin. Despite his KGB background and specialized experience, even he left the minutiae of day-to-day negotiations to his foreign minister.

Who thinks you did? Anybody in the room? Neither I made any comments about Prime Minister. It is called red herring, - what you’re doing to cover up helplessness of Obama in any position.

donsutherland1 said:
I've spent some time posting on the events concerning Russia for six reasons:

1. My terming the conflict a "mini-conflict" does not trivialize its importance.
2. The reality is that the conflict was not a large-scale war.
3. A number of my posts touch on the larger geopolitical and policy dimensions associated with the conflict.
4. Some of the details I posted e.g., from Interfax, are not widely reported (if at all) in the U.S. media.
5. The events highlight the reality that the world remains multi-polar and that there was no "end of history" in which one form of political arrangement permanently triumphed.
6. The background information pertinent to the conflict highlights the continuing relevance of national interests, as well as spheres of influence, and their historic orientation/perspective.

Exactly! And 4. was a major thing of global importance, not only of “ the larger geopolitical and policy dimensions associated with the conflict.” You have recorded the establishment of a totalitarian regime in the US as an independent observer, when everyone piece of media and every politician lied openly and blatantly to Americans. This is the only logical development of liberalism, - to resort to Ghoebbels-Stalin type of propaganda. Did not I quote the symbol of liberalism Obama openly proclaiming that the truth did not matter? What ‘’Seeking to encourage the spread of freedom is a worthy undertaking’’ are you talking about when you, at the same time, are recording the final steps of cutting freedom of information, freedom of thoughts and ideas, installing ‘’ the truth does not matter’’ everywhere - from schools to colleges, from text books to media and movies, - right here in the US?

When it came to Obama, you pretended that "mini-conflict" was min-conflict, but now telling the truth you have blown your cover. You have to decide if the truth does matter for you.

donsutherland1 said:
There is a vast difference between appropriating funds and providing guidance to Congress as to what resources would be required to achieve victory. The 2002 National Intelligence Estimate did not express any degree of confidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat to attack the U.S. or U.S. interests.

Did you aver mention guidance in your statement I replied to? It is called shifting polls.
Please quote the report where it can confirm your exact wording ‘’the U.S. or U.S. interests.””

donsutherland1 said:
Senator McCain deserves much credit for advocating the troop surge. My point was that had General Shinseki's comments about manpower and Desert Crossing's lessons been given adequate consideration, the U.S. would have had sufficient manpower to execute the military operation to drive Saddam Hussein from power and to assure a stable post-war environment.

The US did have sufficient manpower to execute the military operation to drive Saddam Hussein. Then what in the world could make General Shinseki to make such an ungrounded comment. I can only conclude that he had been drinking too much a night before.
The US did have sufficient manpower to assure a stable post-war environment, if the US was not full of liberal idealism predicting that Iraqis were ready to embrace democracy in exchange for promise to use condoms.

donsutherland1 said:
There's nothing brilliant about a plan that failed to consider the high risk of ethnic conflict (noted in Dessert Crossing and an aspect of Iraq's history) that almost squandered the initial success from driving Saddam Hussein from power. Post-war stabilization is a crucial part of any military plan. The initial military phase was brilliant. The post-war phase was poorly conceived. That the architects of the troop surge were able to reverse the situation does not eliminate the reality of the poor planning that made the troop surge necessary.

What? Gen. Franks RETIRED in July 2003.

I still hope we will get back to discussing Georgia, that’s why I am avoiding to comment on the troop surge, saying only that the troop surge has been helpful only combined with reversal of the idea of democracy in Iraq. The only Q is – if to accept your points without comments - : ‘’Senator McCain deserves much credit for advocating the troop surge’’, - on other hand what does Obama deserve for pointing fingers and blaming liberal planners for the post-war Iraq and advocating both the immediate and long planned surge of American life loses in the operation “withdraw!withdraw!’ ?

P.S. It seems we were threatening to insulate Russia, but got ourselves isolated by EU. You see I was right Russia received everything it wanted without resorting to ritual diplomatic dances.

Bodi · Sep 13, 2008

donsutherland1, are you Russian?

Russia Articulates Its Foreign Policy Doctrine

donsutherland1

justone

donsutherland1

metreon

Active member

justone

justone

justone

donsutherland1

donsutherland1

justone

justone

donsutherland1

donsutherland1

justone

donsutherland1

justone

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...