Russia and America

DarkCrawler

Since Obama has started his three-day trip to Russia, thought it would be cool to have a thread to discuss American/Russian relations. Here is some of the stuff from the trip:

US and Russia agree nuclear cuts

US President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have reached an outline agreement to cut back their nations' stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

The "joint understanding" signed in Moscow would see reductions of deployed nuclear warheads to below 1,700 each within seven years of a new treaty.

The accord would replace the 1991 Start I treaty, which expires in December.

Mr Obama said the two countries were both "committed to leaving behind the suspicion and the rivalry of the past".

Separately, Russia also agreed to allow the US military to fly troops and weapons across its territory to Afghanistan, allowing it to avoid using supply routes through Pakistan that are attacked by militants.

The two countries also will set up a joint commission to co-operate over energy, and fighting terrorism and drug-trafficking. Military co-operation, suspended since last year's conflict between Russia and Georgia, will be resumed.

However, on the contentious issue of US plans to base parts of a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe, the presidents merely said they had agreed to a joint study into ballistic missile threats and the creation of a data exchange centre.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8136918.stm

Putin urges Obama to scrap shield
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8133343.stm

US urges Russian break from past
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8131449.stm

While I'm not saying that this is a total revolution in U.S./Russian relations, I think it's a promising step forwards, I could not have imagined anything like this happening on the previous president's term. Any viewpoints on this?

ronya

Good progress on the nuclear front. The airspace access will evaporate the moment something flares up along Russia's border - which is really inevitable - and the US is internally obliged to protest, though.

Elki

A real response later, but a funny tidbit first:

The Corner wrote:

Russian audiences don’t care much about the details of nuclear-arms reductions but they are watching the body language of Obama and Medvedev to see who is the demandeur and who is the boss. So far, it’s not looking too good for the U.S. Obama slaps Medvedev on the back and looks at Medvedev while Medvedev looks away.

Now that's deep analysis.

ronya

See, the body language I'd be watching would be between Obama and Putin if they ever meet.

chidona

ronya wrote: »

See, the body language I'd be watching would be between Obama and Putin if they ever meet.

They're meeting today, aren't they?

And this is a really cracking start to the trip - they got quite a lot established on the first day, but it could be argued that's low hanging fruit. What people are looking for is not so much the nuclear arms reduction and concrete deals on NATO and the missile shield (sigh), but more a change in attitudes between the two Governments. Obama and Medvedev seem to be getting on alright, but the meeting between him and Putin will be the true test of Obama's charisma.

Henroid

Wow, that progress in nuclear arms reduction makes me so happy. I didn't know the Start treaty had an expiration date, damn. And that's pretty nice of Russia to allow the US to fly supplies over its territory.

I mean, certainly we're not BFF but this is good stuff. I am happy our president was able to negotiate this.

SyphonBlue

What is it with conservatives and wanting to destroy the world?

Henroid

SyphonBlue wrote: »

What is it with conservatives and wanting to destroy the world?

They're still disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. The article is written with many quotes and info, but written as if to say, "Gee Obama way to not know this." Obama probably does know who said what, and whatever public information Russia has put forth.

OptimusZed

SyphonBlue wrote: »

What is it with conservatives and wanting to destroy the world?

Because they think this is all one big game of Axis and Allies.

As much as I hate to admit it, though, they do have a point. The USA is dipping, but we're still the preeminent superpower. Russia is on the decline, so arms reduction is something that they would be forced into with or without an agreement.

Not that I think arms reduction treaties are a bad idea, just that it's pretty obviously in everyone else's (and specifically Russia's) best interest to talk us down from the world-destroying precipice.

ronya

Russia isn't that weak. Yeah, it's no longer a world-shaking superpower, but it's still a power.

OptimusZed

ronya wrote: »

Russia isn't that weak. Yeah, it's no longer a world-shaking superpower, but it's still a power.

It's probably on par with one of the European nations that maintains a reasonably well equipped military, in terms of raw power if not technological superiority. Aside from their nuclear arsenal, they deserve the same respect we ought to be showing places like Pakistan.

ronya

I daresay the PRC of a decade ago is a better match, really, from a fuzzy gauge of international influence.

For what it's worth, the Russian Federation has a GDP per capita three times of that of the PRC (and roughly six times that of Pakistan). It's certainly not incapable of being belligerent - if it came to a purely conventional war over Europe, I daresay Russia is capable of taking on Britain, France, and Germany combined. The point is rather that it has no real reason to be in the current environment, and it is in the US interest that this remains so.

OptimusZed

ronya wrote: »

I daresay the PRC of a decade ago is a better match, really, from a fuzzy gauge of international influence.

For what it's worth, the Russian Federation has a GDP per capita three times of that of the PRC (and roughly six times that of Pakistan). It's certainly not incapable of being belligerent - if it came to a purely conventional war over Europe, I daresay Russia is capable of taking on Britain, France, and Germany combined. The point is rather that it has no real reason to be in the current environment, and it is in the US interest that this remains so.

The problem there is that they'd have to push through Eastern Europe to get to any of those places. Not that any of the old Soviet Bloc really has a substantial military, but citizen resistance would make life very uncomfortable for an invasive Russian force. These aren't people who tend to get misty eyed about Russian imperialism.

Russia is a pretty thoroughly caged tiger at this point. Any military expansion will be on the order of reclaiming broken off satellite states, and that would draw enough unwanted international attention as to be very unattractive a prospect for anyone who isn't as nakedly Sovietski nationalistic as Putin.

zeeny

OptimusZed wrote: »

ronya wrote: »

Russia isn't that weak. Yeah, it's no longer a world-shaking superpower, but it's still a power.

It's probably on par with one of the European nations that maintains a reasonably well equipped military, in terms of raw power if not technological superiority. Aside from their nuclear arsenal, they deserve the same respect we ought to be showing places like Pakistan.

May I suggest extra curriculum reading on Eurasian geopolitics?
Russia's potential military/economic output in a time of crisis surpasses that of any other European nation by several orders of magnitude.

wwtMask

You know, I really like the commitment to pragmatic diplomacy that has been made by the Obama administration. It's nice having a president whose first instinct is not to posture like a TV tough guy. Anyway, I'm all for the de-proliferation stuff and it's great that Russia is letting us run a supply line over their land. It's also good to see that we're cooperating more closely again, and I'd like to think (but can't prove) that Obama's careful and measured response to the Georgia-Russia conflict last year helped smooth some things over. I think it's pretty obvious, though, that the relationship between Medvedev, Putin, and Obama will be strictly business. They don't seem to be nearly as friendly with each other as Obama is with Sarkozy.

OptimusZed

zeeny wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

ronya wrote: »

Russia isn't that weak. Yeah, it's no longer a world-shaking superpower, but it's still a power.

It's probably on par with one of the European nations that maintains a reasonably well equipped military, in terms of raw power if not technological superiority. Aside from their nuclear arsenal, they deserve the same respect we ought to be showing places like Pakistan.

May I suggest extra curriculum reading on Eurasian geopolitics?
Russia's potential military/economic output in a time of crisis surpasses that of any other European nation by several orders of magnitude.

I'm familiar with Russian military history.

Massive military production or not, they're behind most first world nations in terms of what they can reliably outfit their men in the field with. They're catching up, and they've got the potential to be a true military superpower again if the angle that direction, but their military infrastructure, the really basic stuff, needs to be brought up to par.

DarkCrawler

OptimusZed wrote: »

zeeny wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

ronya wrote: »

Russia isn't that weak. Yeah, it's no longer a world-shaking superpower, but it's still a power.

It's probably on par with one of the European nations that maintains a reasonably well equipped military, in terms of raw power if not technological superiority. Aside from their nuclear arsenal, they deserve the same respect we ought to be showing places like Pakistan.

May I suggest extra curriculum reading on Eurasian geopolitics?
Russia's potential military/economic output in a time of crisis surpasses that of any other European nation by several orders of magnitude.

I'm familiar with Russian military history.

Massive military production or not, they're behind most first world nations in terms of what they can reliably outfit their men in the field with. They're catching up, and they've got the potential to be a true military superpower again if the angle that direction, but their military infrastructure, the really basic stuff, needs to be brought up to par.

If you are familiar with Russian military history...their military power has never really relied on their technological prowess.

Reckless

zeeny wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

ronya wrote: »

Russia isn't that weak. Yeah, it's no longer a world-shaking superpower, but it's still a power.

It's probably on par with one of the European nations that maintains a reasonably well equipped military, in terms of raw power if not technological superiority. Aside from their nuclear arsenal, they deserve the same respect we ought to be showing places like Pakistan.

May I suggest extra curriculum reading on Eurasian geopolitics?
Russia's potential military/economic output in a time of crisis surpasses that of any other European nation by several orders of magnitude.

Not to mention Gazprom. Russia remains an incredibly potent geopolitical force and Moscow will take measures to protect their spheres of influence. To write it off as a dying power is a terrible mistake.

OptimusZed

DarkCrawler wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

zeeny wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

ronya wrote: »

Russia isn't that weak. Yeah, it's no longer a world-shaking superpower, but it's still a power.

It's probably on par with one of the European nations that maintains a reasonably well equipped military, in terms of raw power if not technological superiority. Aside from their nuclear arsenal, they deserve the same respect we ought to be showing places like Pakistan.

May I suggest extra curriculum reading on Eurasian geopolitics?
Russia's potential military/economic output in a time of crisis surpasses that of any other European nation by several orders of magnitude.

I'm familiar with Russian military history.

Massive military production or not, they're behind most first world nations in terms of what they can reliably outfit their men in the field with. They're catching up, and they've got the potential to be a true military superpower again if the angle that direction, but their military infrastructure, the really basic stuff, needs to be brought up to par.

If you are familiar with Russian military history...their military power has never really relied on their technological prowess.

No, but the odds of someone being forced to attack the Russian heartland with unmotorized infantry forces is pretty low.

Technologically, they are in the middle of a major upgrade (1.4 or so billion rubles a year in the budget) to modernize their equipment. With the current budgeting shortfalls, though, that kind of spending threatens to create Cold War era debt spirals.

ronya

No, no. A belligerent Russia won't be invading Germany. Goodness, no. Why would Russia even want to do that? Treating all of Eastern Europe as a buffer state is very passé, I think. Stalin apparently thought that a wealthy future Germany would inevitably become an aggressive expansionist Germany, but that isn't really one of history's best predictions.

Strength here is about being able to pursue your own national priorities without impedance. Like being able to claim ambiguously-defined territory, occupying it over objections, and then being in a position to leave Western European nations with no real military or economic options to enforce said objections.

OptimusZed

Reckless wrote: »

zeeny wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

ronya wrote: »

Russia isn't that weak. Yeah, it's no longer a world-shaking superpower, but it's still a power.

It's probably on par with one of the European nations that maintains a reasonably well equipped military, in terms of raw power if not technological superiority. Aside from their nuclear arsenal, they deserve the same respect we ought to be showing places like Pakistan.

May I suggest extra curriculum reading on Eurasian geopolitics?
Russia's potential military/economic output in a time of crisis surpasses that of any other European nation by several orders of magnitude.

Not to mention Gazprom. Russia remains an incredibly potent geopolitical force and Moscow will take measures to protect their spheres of influence. To write it off as a dying power is a terrible mistake.

Dying? No. Depressed and precariously balanced? Yes.

Reckless

OptimusZed wrote: »

Reckless wrote: »

zeeny wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

ronya wrote: »

Russia isn't that weak. Yeah, it's no longer a world-shaking superpower, but it's still a power.

It's probably on par with one of the European nations that maintains a reasonably well equipped military, in terms of raw power if not technological superiority. Aside from their nuclear arsenal, they deserve the same respect we ought to be showing places like Pakistan.

May I suggest extra curriculum reading on Eurasian geopolitics?
Russia's potential military/economic output in a time of crisis surpasses that of any other European nation by several orders of magnitude.

Not to mention Gazprom. Russia remains an incredibly potent geopolitical force and Moscow will take measures to protect their spheres of influence. To write it off as a dying power is a terrible mistake.

Dying? No. Depressed and precariously balanced? Yes.

Russia has been riding out the GEC fairly successfully. And before the shockwaves of that hit, the economy of the Russian Federation was doing the best it had ever done. Comparing it to Pakistan shows a basic lack of understanding for the power and influence of Moscow.

Precariously balanced? I don't see it. They're struggling with the GEC like most every other state is, but the Russian Federation is not anywhere, anywhere near the verge of falling apart. Very far from it.

OptimusZed

ronya wrote: »

No, no. A belligerent Russia won't be invading Germany. Goodness, no. Why would Russia even want to do that? Treating all of Eastern Europe as a buffer state is very passé, I think. Stalin apparently thought that a wealthy future Germany would inevitably become an aggressive expansionist Germany, but that isn't really one of history's best predictions.

Strength here is about being able to pursue your own national priorities without impedance. Like being able to claim ambiguously-defined territory, occupying it over objections, and then being in a position to leave Western European nations with no real military or economic options to enforce said objections.

Well, the real test is whether Eastern Europe would indeed be treated as some sort of ablative buffer against Russian aggression. I don't personally believe they would. The advent of things like the European Union has linked most of those states with Europe and the US economically, which means there would be much more interest in preserving them as non-client states.

Right now, the Russians have the military might to push on places like Chechnya because no one in the international community is strongly linked to them. Most of Eastern Europe has made out better in the thaw than those poor people, and the links with western military powers are growing every day.

OptimusZed

Reckless wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

Reckless wrote: »

zeeny wrote: »

OptimusZed wrote: »

ronya wrote: »

Russia isn't that weak. Yeah, it's no longer a world-shaking superpower, but it's still a power.

It's probably on par with one of the European nations that maintains a reasonably well equipped military, in terms of raw power if not technological superiority. Aside from their nuclear arsenal, they deserve the same respect we ought to be showing places like Pakistan.

May I suggest extra curriculum reading on Eurasian geopolitics?
Russia's potential military/economic output in a time of crisis surpasses that of any other European nation by several orders of magnitude.

Not to mention Gazprom. Russia remains an incredibly potent geopolitical force and Moscow will take measures to protect their spheres of influence. To write it off as a dying power is a terrible mistake.

Dying? No. Depressed and precariously balanced? Yes.

Russia has been riding out the GEC fairly successfully. And before the shockwaves of that hit, the economy of the Russian Federation was doing the best it had ever done. Comparing it to Pakistan shows a basic lack of understanding for the power and influence of Moscow.

Precariously balanced? I don't see it. They're struggling with the GEC like most every other state is, but the Russian Federation is not anywhere, anywhere near the verge of falling apart. Very far from it.

The comparison with Pakistan was in terms of them being a potential military power that doesn't necessarily like us much. They should get the space due their sovereignty.

Right now, Russian military spending is pushing way out in front of economic growth, and they've specifically stated that it isn't going to pull back any time soon. They're following the model of military spending that crippled the Soviet government. Granted, the state doesn't have to pay for everything anymore, but actively making war is on the Kremlin's dime, and running those coffers dry and then digging holes under them isn't a great way to ensure continued military power.

DarkCrawler

Seriously though, Russia's greatest asset at staying a superpower is probably their size and position. They are right next to Europe, knocking on China's door, and waving to U.S.A across the sea. I mean, it's a HUGE country. It can't be ignored purely based on that fact. Largest country in the world always has a say on stuff, even if it doesn't have a military or economic reach on everything, it's geographic position makes up for that.

OptimusZed

DarkCrawler wrote: »

Seriously though, Russia's greatest asset at staying a superpower is probably their size and position. They are right next to Europe, knocking on China's door, and waving to U.S.A across the sea. I mean, it's a HUGE country. It can't be ignored purely based on that fact. Largest country in the world always has a say on stuff, even if it doesn't have a military or economic reach on everything, it's geographic position makes up for that.

Size is a huge asset. Especially when that size includes some of the largest remaining oil reserves in the world. It also comes with a huge population, which itself translates directly into economic and military power.

DarkCrawler

Russia's population trends are also pretty interesting. In 2050 Islam might be it's majority religion.

Still, it's population is small compared to it's geographic size. If we look at future superpowers, U.S. has twice the population of Russia, European Union three and half times, China and India seven times. (Do we count Brazil as an emerging superpower? Because it has more population too).

ronya

Brazil doesn't have [strike]five hundred[/strike] six thousand nuclear warheads. :P

edit: anyway, the most important number in the long run to consider is GDP per capita, because that's how you pay for all those shiny explodey stuff. Then consider their geographical and demographic situation.

Henroid

ronya wrote: »

Brazil doesn't have five hundred nuclear warheads. :P

But it does have a badass soccer team.

MalaysianShrew

I don't think Russia's geographic size has anything do to with it's economic or military power. It's a lot like Canada, controlling vast swathes of nothingness with a few spots of metal that are barely profitable to mine because of the required infrastructure to such remote places. I see them being busy mostly with holding themselves together as a nation as their demographics change.

Any power they still have is due to Gazprom. If anything were to change with the energy situation in Europe making natural gas worthless, Russia would lose it's only bargaining chip and it's main export.

Reckless

MalaysianShrew wrote: »

I see them being busy mostly with holding themselves together as a nation as their demographics change.

Well, that applies to nearly every populous and diverse state out there.

OptimusZed

DarkCrawler wrote: »

Russia's population trends are also pretty interesting. In 2050 Islam might be it's majority religion.

Orthodoxy is back on the rise as well. Big chunks of Russian society are going back to the Church after decades of oppression by the Communists.

It'll be interesting to see how that all turns out. I don't anticipate a new Holy Russian Empire, but these things are hard to predict.

MalaysianShrew

Reckless wrote: »

MalaysianShrew wrote: »

I see them being busy mostly with holding themselves together as a nation as their demographics change.

Well, that applies to nearly every populous and diverse state out there.

True. Actually I see a lot of Western Europe in the same situation. The large influx of immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East are already causing strain in France with large, countrywide riots. But I see Western Europe's governments as being better able to control their populations as opposed to Russia whose growing Muslim populations will demand more power or more autonomy. I see Russia responding in the same way China is currently with the Uyghurs: military crackdowns and hundreds dead. While this works well in the short term, it creates snowballing resentment towards the government as the cycle repeats itself.

Tiger Burning

Putin worries me. The more I read about him, the more he seems like a fascist. And I don't mean that as the trite epithet we use to describe anyone to the right of us politically, but like an old-school, early 20th century socio-politcal fascist.

Dman

Isn't Russia much more democratic than china? And much better on civil rights?

I don't see Russia cracking down on people the way china does at all.

OptimusZed

Dman wrote: »

Isn't Russia much more democratic than china? And much better on civil rights?

I don't see Russia cracking down on people the way china does at all.

The Democratic situation in Russia is... non-fluid. In a lot the same way as the Iranian Democracy is. Unofficially, of course.

Putin isn't as secure in his power as the Council was at their height, but he's got a lot of control.

And like Iran, there are swaths of the population that would be perfectly happy under a dictatorship. The transition to a capitalist democracy was pretty painful for a lot of people.

ronya

Dman wrote: »

Isn't Russia much more democratic than china? And much better on civil rights?

I don't see Russia cracking down on people the way china does at all.

On paper Russia is more democratic than the PRC. But I suspect that in practice the PRC leadership is more responsive to shifts in public opinion than Russia.

Neither are great on civil rights.

RMS Oceanic

An interesting anecdote: Shortly after the Submarine Kursk sank, a family member of one of the sailors accosted Putin at a press conference. As she was escorted from the room, the footage indicates she was injected with a tranquilizer of some sort.

It was...intriguing, to be polite.

Tiger Burning

Russia has been importing (well, was importing, before oil prices fell) a lot of immigrants as labor. Their (the immigrant laborers') biggest problems are 1) exploitation by organized crime, which was huge in Russia but is apparently on the decline, and 2) attacks from ultra-nationalist gangs, which are on the rise.

Aegis

DarkCrawler wrote: »

Russia's population trends are also pretty interesting. In 2050 Islam might be it's majority religion.

I wonder if demographic changes over the intervening decades will cause a settlement of the Chechynan conflict simply due to changing societal norms and beliefs.

OptimusZed

Tiger Burning wrote: »

Russia has been importing (well, was importing, before oil prices fell) a lot of immigrants as labor. Their (the immigrant laborers') biggest problems are 1) exploitation by organized crime, which was huge in Russia but is apparently on the decline, and 2) attacks from ultra-nationalist gangs, which are on the rise.

Organized crime stepped up to fill the power gaps left by the sudden death of communism. Russia proved very fertile soil for the mob, as people were looking to quickly improve their financial situations and most didn't have any experience dealing with capitalism.

There's also a strong correlation between the mob's decline and the rise of nationalist groups. Not only is one pushing out the other, but the nationalists are (by most accounts) getting implicit government support to do so. The Russian state is cracking down on crime and solidifying it's own power at the same time.