BIDEN: "U.S. NEEDS NEW STRATEGY FOR DEALING WITH RUSSIA"

#1
If U.S. needs the new strategy then what would be your propositions?

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=277431&

Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE), in a hearing today examining U.S.-Russian relations, called for the U.S. to forge a new common strategy with our European allies for dealing with Russia.
...
Contrary to what the Russian media might say, the United States needs a Russia that is strong and stable.
Hmm...

For years, the Bush Administration tried to paper over problems with Russia. More recently, the State Department has said it will work with the Kremlin when possible, and push back when necessary.

This formula sounds reasonable, but I worry that it provides neither the strategic vision nor a practical framework to deal with a Kremlin that has repeatedly and successfully outmaneuvered the West in recent years.
Really? Though highly esteemed senator is well informed I suppose.

Mr. Putin has successfully exploited differences in the Euro-Atlantic community for years. But with new leadership in several of Europe’s key capitals, it is time to forge a new common strategy for dealing with Russia.
...
A joint U.S.-European approach would not and should not constitute a threat to Russia.
Many thanks. So Russia is not Iraq or Iran.

Indeed, I believe the principal goal of such an effort should be to refocus the Kremlin on all that Russia stands to gain from working with the West – and all that it stands to lose by sticking to a zero sum mentality.
Golden words I should say. And how it is possible to 'refocus' the Kremlin?

The West needs to offer a clear vision of the positive role Russia could and should play as a leader in the international community. We need to devise incentives that will recognize and reward Moscow’s efforts to deal responsibly with the many common challenges we face.
It's interesting. But how to reward Moscow?

Conversely, if Russian leaders continue pursuing a zero sum diplomacy, then it is time we address the issue together with our allies.
As I understand it is not a threat (or is?). And how the issue would be addressed?

Frankly speaking I'm disappointed. The senator doesn't propose anything concrete. Maybe you would help him?
 
#2
News Source said:
Over the last seven years, Russia has slipped into a mire of authoritarianism, corruption, and manufactured belligerence.

These developments, along with many serious domestic problems, have been partly masked by an extraordinary oil and gas windfall.

But these resources aren’t solving Russia’s public health and demographic crisis; they aren’t being used to modernize Russia’s aging oil and gas infrastructure; and they aren’t bringing peace to the North Caucusus.

Instead, we’ve seen the spread of rampant corruption, Kremlin efforts to muzzle dissent and bully neighbors, and a fixation on acquiring pipelines that deliver hydrocarbons to our close allies.

In view of these stark realities and the Kremlin’s charged rhetoric about the United States, the most important conclusion we can draw about our strategy for dealing with Russia is that we need a new one.
So you left out this first bit because it didn't really fit with your argument? You seem to be suggesting that the US is beginning to think that Russia needs to be worked with because of how capable they are.

Well, that's not what's being suggested, at all. The senator is pointing out that the strategy that has been used up to this point is only workable with a democratic leadership, which is NOT what Russia is now.

So I think he's wanting a harder stance towards Russia, a united front form the US/Europe and, basically, a no BS tolerance towards Russia and it's increasingly aggresive policy towards the west.
 
#3
The_Goon said:
News Source said:
Over the last seven years, Russia has slipped into a mire of authoritarianism, corruption, and manufactured belligerence.

These developments, along with many serious domestic problems, have been partly masked by an extraordinary oil and gas windfall.

But these resources aren’t solving Russia’s public health and demographic crisis; they aren’t being used to modernize Russia’s aging oil and gas infrastructure; and they aren’t bringing peace to the North Caucusus.

Instead, we’ve seen the spread of rampant corruption, Kremlin efforts to muzzle dissent and bully neighbors, and a fixation on acquiring pipelines that deliver hydrocarbons to our close allies.

In view of these stark realities and the Kremlin’s charged rhetoric about the United States, the most important conclusion we can draw about our strategy for dealing with Russia is that we need a new one.
So you left out this first bit because it didn't really fit with your argument? You seem to be suggesting that the US is beginning to think that Russia needs to be worked with because of how capable they are.
This fragment is too lengthy. And there is nothing new. Corruption in Russia is on the huge level. The Kremlin tries to restore its status as a superpower and 'rediscovered' a habit to punish those who behaves badly (looking at Washington I suppose). And of course Russia has demographic problems.

The_Goon said:
Well, that's not what's being suggested, at all. The senator is pointing out that the strategy that has been used up to this point is only workable with a democratic leadership, which is NOT what Russia is now.

So I think he's wanting a harder stance towards Russia, a united front form the US/Europe and, basically, a no BS tolerance towards Russia and it's increasingly aggresive policy towards the west.
But how it possible without threats? And why the 'awards' have been mentioned?

So you think that sen.Biden calls for full-scale confontation. USA, NATO, EU should form united front against Russia and dictate how Russia should behave. I'm not sure that it is viable strategy.
 
#4
No, Sergey, you're not understanding me.

The senator is saying that the west needs to unite, yes, but NOT in an aggressive manner. He's saying the west needs to show a front to Russia to prevent Russia bullying (he uses that word) it's way around it's neighbours.

He does not say that Russia should be threatened he says the opposite. The awards he mentions are not the same as a sweet to a child, he means, I would imagine, something more along the lines of saying to Russia, "If you fcuk about and mess up your neighbours, we won't include you in the international community. However, if you actually play nice for once then you'll be involved 100%".

This is not a threat, it's an incentive. Russia can either start behaving like an adult nation and not continue to throw its teddy into the corner, or it can be shunned by the western world. I'm sure that, over time, Russia will realise which is the better course of action.

Editted for mong spelling :oops:
 
#5
KGB_resident said:
So you think that sen.Biden calls for full-scale confontation. USA, NATO, EU should form united front against Russia and dictate how Russia should behave. I'm not sure that it is viable strategy.
There's no need for full scale confrontation. The US turned Russia into a democracy before, and can do it again. McDonalds anyone?

You forget, US gets a new president next year, and with it a new lease on foreign policy (hopefully). Putin is putting himself out there as a threat and not to just the US. Russia may have lots of cheap tanks but it can't take on the whole of Europe and the US.

Russia is plagued by everything from wholesale corruption to human trafficking. I would think that this would be a much larger threat to national security than the US putting some missiles in Poland.

Also, do you have any idea what the people in the US would do the the leadership if they launched a strike against Russia? I'm thinking tying them up to the next missle.
 
#6
The_Goon said:
No, Sergey, you're not understanding me.

The senator is saying that the west needs to unite, yes, but NOT in an aggressive manner. He's saying the west needs to show a front to Russia to prevent Russia bullying (he uses that word) it's way around it's neighbours.

He does not say that Russia should be threatened he says the opposite. The awards he mentions are not the same as a sweet to a child, he means, I would imagine, something more along the lines of saying to Russia, "If you fcuk about and mess up your neighbours, we won't include you in the international community. However, if you actually play nice for once then you'll be involved 100%".

This is not a threat, it's an incentive. Russia can either start behaving like an adult nation and not continue to throw its teddy into the corner, or it can be shunned by the western world. I'm sure that, over time, Russia will realise which is the better course of action.

Editted for mong spelling :oops:
Well, but what 'including into international community' does mean from practical point of view?

I would understand something like: if you would be a bad boy then we would not buy you gas. Though unlikely the 'united front' would be formed on this ground.

Or - if you would behave well we will buy you weapons. It would be interesting then.

My main point: sen.Biden hasn't outlines any practical proposition. What should be done exactly?
 
#7
It is not the senators job to outline new foreign policy for the US. I suspect he would get a swift rollicking from Bushy if he attempted to do so.

He's opening up debate for others to look at and partake in, as we are doing now, to try and come up with alternatives.

Democracy in action, Sergey.
 
#8
So... exactly what would be bad about letting Putin become a Tzar anyway? Russia best period of relations with their neighbors occured when they were an imperial power... well except for that Great Game sillyness. ;)

I'm joking by the way Sergey...

Simple fact is with the "global economy" Russia is as much a neccesary component as any other producer/consumer of goods.
 
#9
ghost_us said:
Also, do you have any idea what the people in the US would do the the leadership if they launched a strike against Russia? I'm thinking tying them up to the next missle.
As had been done in the case with Iraq... In your scenario I fear, it would be hard to find any missile in USA or Russia and remaining population would be turned to the stone age.

There is an interesting phenomenon. The UK and France are allies for many generation but still typical Englishman softly speaking 'dislikes' the French. By contrast relations between the Russians and the Americans (I mean peoples) are absolutely cloudless. Even during the Cold war official Soviet propaganda underlined that namely American ruling elite is evil while American people is hardworking, inventive, openhearted, joyfull.

The US (and maybe Canada) is the only country where (if I emigrate) I would be soon not 'this foreigner' but 'one of us'.

So what would be my propositions? Indeed USA needs to change its policy. USA should be not exclusive but normal member of international community and play by the rules. It's that simple.

As for practical steps then from my point of view it would be profitable (both from economical and political points of view) for USA to develop extensive trade relations with Russia. Now, they are on the very low lever. So Russia has nothing to lose.

And another practical hint. Nobody like to be taught, to be lectured against his will. Our American friends should stop lecturing others about human rights, democracy and so on. There exists a stereotype that 'fair elections' would produce pro-American Russian president. It is not true. Mr.Putin is more and more anti-American in his rhetorics because he should take into account opinions of the electorate (it is a democracy btw).

So USA should appeal to ordinary Russians. How? Stimulate American firm to open plants in depressive Russian regions. People would have well-paid work. Immortal "it's an economy stupid" springs in mind.
 
#10
Sergey, currently Russia's about as democratic as where I live (which could be described as autocratic).

And what are you on about...

Sergey said:
So what would be my propositions? Indeed USA needs to change its policy. USA should be not exclusive but normal member of international community and play by the rules. It's that simple.
Maybe Russia could ALSO use this advice and stop bullying neighbouring nations and carrying out political assassinations abroad?
 
#11
The_Goon said:
Sergey, currently Russia's about as democratic as where I live (which could be described as autocratic).

And what are you on about...

Sergey said:
So what would be my propositions? Indeed USA needs to change its policy. USA should be not exclusive but normal member of international community and play by the rules. It's that simple.
Maybe Russia could ALSO use this advice and stop bullying neighbouring nations and carrying out political assassinations abroad?
Assassinations? Not proved yet. So according to princeples of democracy (presumption of innocence) it should not be used as a valid argument. Btw, CIA recognised that it attempted to kill Fidel Castro using criminals. How would you comment it?

Bullying? What do you mean by bulling? How do you define the term? For example is USA bulling Cuba?

Russia uses economical methods in own interests. Name me even one country that don't use economics this way.
 
#12
Russia accused of killing a bloke who was outspoken.

USA admits to attempting to kill head of communist state on its doorstep.

Yep, can see why you compare the two, Sergey. Two completely different sets of circumstances - the Russians are accused of murdering a bloke simply because he disagreed with Russian policy etc. whilst the US admits to having attempted to murder a bloke who ran what was (is?) considered a destabilising country next door. Get a grip, Sergey.

Bullying? Just look at how Russia handled the recent fiasco with the removal of the Russian statue in Talin Square! Lots of rhetoric and bullying to attempt to enforce Russian will, including attacks on the computers of the nation (a fairly safe accusation).

Countries do look out for their own interests, you're quite correct. But most countries try and do it a little more subtly. It's very disturbing watching Russia act like a dinosaur on the international stage and thrash about irrespective of the damage it could cause.
 
#13
The_Goon said:
Russia accused of killing a bloke who was outspoken.

USA admits to attempting to kill head of communist state on its doorstep.

Yep, can see why you compare the two, Sergey. Two completely different sets of circumstances - the Russians are accused of murdering a bloke simply because he disagreed with Russian policy etc.
I repeat my point Goon, it hasn't been proven that Russian authorities have any relation to the death of the bloke. Do you have even one well proven case?

The_Goon said:
...whilst the US admits to having attempted to murder a bloke who ran what was (is?) considered a destabilising country next door. Get a grip, Sergey.
And do you think that it is normal that democratic (at least from formal point of view) country resorts to political assassination? What if Russia would try to kill Estonian prime minister?

The_Goon said:
Bullying? Just look at how Russia handled the recent fiasco with the removal of the Russian statue in Talin Square! Lots of rhetoric and bullying to attempt to enforce Russian will, including attacks on the computers of the nation (a fairly safe accusation).
I don't see a formal definition of 'bulling'. Is USA bulling Cuba, Iran? What Russia has done wrong with Estonia? Sent troops? Broke diplomatic relations? Imposed economic embargo? Nope. Hackers attacks? There is no evedence that Russian authorities are involved. Moreove one of the hackers was arrested in Tallinn. The Estonians excavated the military grave without notification of relatives (and it violates the signed Convention). Just yesterday I watched a ceremony of reburrial of one fallen soldier in his homeland.

The_Goon said:
Countries do look out for their own interests, you're quite correct. But most countries try and do it a little more subtly.
Iraqi example springs in mind.

The_Goon said:
It's very disturbing watching Russia act like a dinosaur on the international stage and thrash about irrespective of the damage it could cause.
Again, I ask what Russia has made wrong?
 
#14
KGB_resident said:
The_Goon said:
Maybe Russia could ALSO use this advice and stop bullying neighbouring nations and carrying out political assassinations abroad?
Assassinations? Not proved yet.
What about Zelimkhan Yanderbiyev? Not a nice chap, but it obviously set a precedent..
 
#16
LJONESY said:
Dear God Sergey please don't tell me your considering going to the States and actually staying?
He's trainable and has a logical mind... I'll trade Ted Kennedy or Tom Cruise for him any day. :wink:
 
#17
Rumpelstiltskin said:
KGB_resident said:
The_Goon said:
Maybe Russia could ALSO use this advice and stop bullying neighbouring nations and carrying out political assassinations abroad?
Assassinations? Not proved yet.
What about Zelimkhan Yanderbiyev? Not a nice chap, but it obviously set a precedent..
Yes, it is a good example. Assassination of Zelimkhan Yandarbiyv was organised by Russian agents in Qatar. But IRA operative was killed in Gibraltar by British agents. what is the difference?
 
#18
I would say Paris Hilton but she is still a trophy b#tch, how bout Billary Clinton? If we could give her the boot I might agree to a swap.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top