It’s being reported that President Obama has cancelled bilateral talks between Russia and the United States scheduled for next month over Russia’s granting temporary asylum to Edward Snowden:
The Kremlin says it is “disappointed” the US cancelled bilateral talks in September, after Russia granted asylum to intelligence leaker Edward Snowden.
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s foreign affairs adviser said the move showed the US could not develop ties with Russia on an “equal basis”.
A White House aide said Mr Snowden’s asylum had deepened the pre-existing tension between the two counties.
I wanted to share a few thoughts on this move and ask a question:
- The most important bilateral relationship in the world today is that between Russia and the United States.
- Great powers cannot be bullied, shamed, or manipulated into acting against what is perceived as their national interests.
- Russia is a great power.
- For the last two decades American presidents have systematically miscalculated in their management of the U. S.-Russian relationship.
- Russia has interests of its own. Just as the United States does.
- Russia and the United States have more interests in common than we have conflicts.
Russia’s granting temporary asylum to Snowden makes complete sense in the context of European politics and in the context of domestic Russian politics. Now here’s my question.
Why does the president’s decision make sense?
I agree with just about everything you wrote.
For your question, I think it makes sense if one views Snowden as a convenient excuse to get out of talks that pretty much everyone knows are not going to go anywhere. Russia is not going to throw Assad under the bus, they are not going to accept nuke warhead reductions and missile defense and they are pretty much done with being treated as weak and irrelevant on the world state.
And Snowden’s defection – yes, I think that’s what it is at this point – is probably the most damaging national security leak in a decades.
So, in total, I’m not surprised the President chose this course of (in)action.
* world stage….
It makes sense in the context of US domestic politics, but otherwise, there was little he could do. When Hong Kong gives you “the finger”, Russia is not going to be more cooperative. The US and Europe live in a world of pink ponies and sunshine lolipops.
From the Tonight Show interview:
To me, it seems obvious that Putin never left the “cold war thinking and a cold war mentality” behind. Putin is not an ex-KGB officer. He was, is, and always will be a KGB officer. President Obama and his advisors fail to realize that Putin has no qualms about “not playing nice”. Putin does not give a rat’s ass about cooperation.
Putin is the type to bring a knife to a gun fight just to keep things even. The stern warning ain’t gonna work with him.
I’ll play devil’s advocate:
1) I don’t think this is our most important bilateral relationship. China, EU, UK separately, I think are more important. Even Japan and Israel may be more important.
2) Making our point is not necessarily predicated on an expectation that it will shame or bully the other side. We can say X without needing them to agree.
3) Russia is washed up. They’re an oil/gas state. They’re Saudi Arabia with a whole lot more booze. They’re 140 million drunks on their way to being 100 million drunks.
Why did it make sense to cancel the summit?
1) It had no defined agenda.
2) Nothing was likely to be accomplished.
3) Going would have made us look like we enjoyed Putin’s thumb in our eye.
4) They’re the EU’s problem not ours. We’re not the ones burning their fossil fuels.
5) Russia’s bigotry and legal threats against gay athletes at the Olympics are intolerable. The IOC should cancel the Olympics and failing that, we should boycott.
6) If Russia shares interests with us maybe they could act like they valued the relationship. We are the superpower. They’re the former. pretend superpower. This is not an equal, bilateral relationship.
The reason that the U. S.-Russia relationship is important has to do with the ability to project power. Other than the United States Russia continues to have more ability to project power than any other country or even collection of countries on earth. Either one of us has the power to destroy the world, something enjoyed (if that is the right word for it) by no other country. Armed conflict between the two countries would injure everyone. That’s why at the very least not letting the relationship deteriorate is so important.
China has a huge, capable military but relatively little ability to project power beyond its borders. Its power is turned inwards. The only other two countries other than the United States and Russia with a substantial capacity to project power are the United Kingdom and France in that order and their abilities are so inferior to either Russia’s or ours that they barely bear mentioning in the same breath. Japan, by design, has little ability to project power. Germany’s military, again by design, is practically a comic opera military at this point. To go into battle they’d need to be carried by U. S., British, or French transport.
I think that at this point the damage that Snowden can do is probably mostly political. An explanation for what strategic damage he could do would be interesting.
As to domestic policy, recent polls suggest that Americans see Snowden as a whistle-blower rather than a traitor, much as the Russians do. The Obama Administration isn’t following public opinion here by their actions, it’s bucking it.
Note that I’m not necessarily opposed to the tack the administration is taking. I’m trying to make up my mind and a good, solid argument would help. At this point I think the administration is trying to minimize downside domestic political risk which is a pretty weak reason.
Note, too, that the Russians are the consummate foreign policy realists. If they grant Snowden asylum, it means they think they gain by it and I think they’re probably right.
China is more important. Russia has a second rate military and a lot of nukes. They had trouble invadingGeorgia. Their economy remains a mess. China has surpassed Russia as an economic power, but is limited by its own problems. Still, we benefit more from a bilateral relationship with China right now.
Since great powers cannot be bullied, etc., does that not also apply to the US? Putin gets few tangible benefits from keeping Snowden. What it does is help him with his own hard liners. He is standing up to the US. Obama is also appeasing his own Cold Warriors. After a few months no one will care, but right now nothing much is happening or going to happen, so not sure it matters much.
Steve
I’m not sure how much this kind of stuff figures in, but I can’t believe it doesn’t have some effect:
In the West, only the most rabidly anti-gay would look upon those laws with approval.
Forgot to add, Notice that mere suspicion is grounds for arrest.
@Dave Schuler
… I’m trying to make up my mind and a good, solid argument would help. …
I do not think there are any good, solid options. Hence, the lack of an argument. Once Snowden left Hong Kong, any options were lost. At this point, I do not see what can be done by any president.
I think @michael reynolds states the opinion of President, his advisors, political leaders of both parties, and most Americans. As you note, they severely underestimate the Russians, and this attitude makes the Russians even more problematic. The Russians, especially Putin, have no problem using their power to make a point.
steve’s fellow-Indianan, Richard Luger, (/joke) made much the same points in the second paragraph this morning. China are the realist here, they pawned Snowden off on Russia. Putin is under some domestic pressure in which projecting authority and leadership are seen by him as a key to survival. Luger made an obscure reference to an agreement that the U.S. / Russia reached which had to be signed by lower level diplomats (i.e. not Putin) and not publicized so Russians wouldn’t know about it. (or at least Russians that weren’t watching MSNBC this a.m.) But basically Luger thinks lower level agreements will be the norm while Putin is in power.
That said, I wasn’t entirely convinced by Luger. He pointed out that Russia has an interest in getting U.S. help with security for the Olympics in the face of the Islamacist problem in its near abroad. I think we too have an interest in deepening cooperation on those issues in light of the Boston bombing. And frankly I don’t see any problem with people talking unless (a) you have something more important to do, or (b) the President will be somehow forced to publicly discuss or respond to issues that would be more harmful to diplomatic relations than the talks would reasonably further.
Just as a thought experiment, imagine that Putin is a pragmatic populist and President Obama is a high-handed jerk. I’m not claiming that’s the case because that’s not my view of the president. Just imagine.
Now consider that may be the way much of the world sees things.
Also, note that Putin’s approval rating in Russia is much higher than President Obama’s is here. There aren’t a lot of liberals in Russia.
@sam, I believe those laws are popular in Russia, so I don’t know if I would blame the law. I would blame the system (illiberal democracy based upon Rousseau’s “general will” as the source of the rule of law) or the values of the Russian people. I think Obama should not touch on these topics.
I didn’t hear much about the lack of gay rights in China when China got approved to host the Olympics. China doesn’t have the “gay-bashing” that Russia does because most Chinese homosexuals are closeted and likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future.
@Dave, the thought did occur to me that the degree to which Luger personalized the disputes left open similar claims about Obama. You don’t have to go so far as to think Obama is a jerk, you can just assume the personalities of great leaders dominate over national interests and cooperation. Its either setting the bar low or an argument for faceless bureaucrats to do almost all of the lifting.
@steve
… Russia has a second rate military and a lot of nukes. …
Compared to the US military, everybody is second rate, but that is primarily due to 10 years of combat.
… They had trouble invading Georgia. …
I missed this.
Russia’s foreign policy is busy in part dealing with the foreign policy of countries that used to be part of the Soviet empire. How hard-nosed is a country that lost half its population?
That snark aside, Russian force projection is illusory. They can project on their borders. So can China. They can throw up ICBM’s. Co can China, France, the UK, India, Pakistan and presumably Israel. They can sell arms. So can everyone.
If Putin were a realist he’d never have taken Snowden on-board, and once stuck with him would have arranged for a Venezuelan flight that was then “surprisingly” diverted en route by American allies. Putin could have been shocked, shocked and it would be all over. Instead he thought he’d have some fun at our expense.
Obama could blow off Putin because Russia doesn’t really matter. In fact, Obama’s just made that fact obvious to the world. Obama to Putin: “Whatever, dude. Later.” He just backhanded the little thug and that’s not a good thing for Putin no matter how it gets spun.
It seems to me the short answer is that Obama’s decision and action is not commensurate with the issues at hand. He has effectively voted present.
We can argue academically whether China or Russia or whomever is the #2, but its silly to dismiss Russia. To cite homosexuality is absurd. (Do we snub all Muslim countries about that or their treatment of women? As I recall we bow in front of their leaders. What next, Obama organizes a boycott of Chick-Fil-A?) I presume (I would hope) we can all hold Russia’s stance in disdain. But calling Putin a poopie and taking our ball home is no help.
There is a notion floating around that there was nothing to be accomplished at a meeting. Really? Syria? Missiles? And so the leader of the free world will visit Sweden after G12? There’s a world changer.
No, the issue is that its an ineffectual and disproportionate response that does nothing but remove us from the debate. If I called off deal negotiations every time issues became thorny, the other side became obstinate, potential progress through discussions would be marginally incremental or I didn’t like the way the seller treated his wife I’d never have gotten a deal done. Nothing would be accomplished.
Come to think of it that’s pretty much Obama’s record. How long until he blames Congress?
Putin is playing with our President, and seems to be enjoying himself immensely. If such actions constitute ‘bullying,’ it’s because bullies are energized by another’s demonstration of weakness or inability to know what action to take
Bullies actually thrive on reactions, such as the one shown by Obama, that are nothing more than bristling and blustering their discontent. “I’ll show him, and won’t meet with Putin!” is a small-minded response, indicating the problems with our countries to be more a compilation of petty personal piques rather than any significant international differences.
After all, here is a country we were negotiating the SMART Treaty with, giving them the upper hand, and we don’t even know how to handle a man defecting to their country? Here’s a country Obama’s opening salvo was nothing more than an humiliating faulty ‘reset button.’ Here’s a country in which Obama whispered to it’s representative that he would have more flexibility after his reelection! What does that mean — more flexibility to act indecisively, or with only meager, symbolic rebukes, should Russia not cooperate with a request of our’s?
I feel that we have become so disemboweled under the weight of Obama’s confusing and meaningless rhetoric, which he oftentimes does not follow through on or completely does an about-face on, that the U.S. is seen as no more than a superficial paper bag kind of super power in the world — not one that garners any international respect, let alone fear of reprisal. Consequently, the vacuum left, by having no adult supervision on the world stage, is being filled by a plethora of jihadists in the ME, an old super power trying to reconstitute it’s earlier muscle (Russia), and a newbie, China, on economic, military and outer space exploration steroids, in it’s attempts to gain the upper hand. All the while, the only thing that soars in the United States is Obama’s speeches, and the mighty masses who only seem enthralled or concerned with the social issues of SSM, gender orientation, accentuating racial differences, rekindling class envy, and raving about a luke-warm economic recovery, aided and abetted by statistically juggling the numbers measuring it.
BTW, I for one view Snowdon as a frustrated whistleblower. He left this country because he no longer trusted it, going to another who warrants little trust as well. What it indicates, though, is how far we’ve fallen away from our initial mission statement of individual freedom and liberty for all, under the auspices of a small, unintrusive government with numerated powers over it’s citizens. Although, we have been drifting away from our original document formulating the premise of this country, the last 4-5 years has been navigated by a speed boat, so that the destination to another kind of governance is being realized much faster.
Red and Jan:
Had Obama gone ahead with the summit you’d be arguing that he was showing weakness and kowtowing to a fascist thug. It’s hard to have much respect for, or interest in, people who’s every answer to every issue is, “Obama’s fault.”
A visit from POTUS is a diplomatic tool. We reward governments we think may be coming our way. We don’t reward those whose direction we don’t like. There is no current negotiation that requires the reward of a state visit. Syria? Please, there will be no give by the Russians there. And again, had Obama gone and come away with nothing, you two would have popped out of your cuckoo clocks to chirp, “Weakness! Weakness!”
If Obama cured cancer and lowered the tax rate to 10% you two would object. Yawn.
Had Obama gone ahead with the summit you’d be arguing that he was showing weakness and kowtowing to a fascist thug. It’s hard to have much respect for, or interest in, people who’s every answer to every issue is, “Obama’s fault.â€
Michael,
That kind of response sounds very similar to what the left has indudged in for years and years, and continues to do do, with regards to every nut and bolt of the Bush Administration’s governance. If a person suffered a hang-nail, they often pinned it on Bush!
Unfortunately, being at the top of the power heap, gives you not only more power, but also a broader place for accountability. Obama is accountable for his interaction with country leaders, as well as for what kind of respect he has earned from them. So far, his ‘respect account’ has been overdrawn, and he is not doing anything about replacing it with notable actions.
As for Putin, Obama laid a weak foundation with him from the get go. Putin not only seems to dislike Obama, but he disdains him, which is even worse. It has long been said that he views Obama as weak, indecisive, ineffective leader of this country — one who makes a lot of noise but does little to follow through on either his promises or threats — to any country — friend or foe.
I’m not sure what Obama could have done to smooth over his image, regarding meeting or not meeting with Putin. However, if I were to flip a coin, I would probably want the coin to come up on the side saying he should have met with him, had a spine in that meeting, and not given away anything more from the U.S. store of concessions.