Ext – Obama Solves Russia Reset

Ext – Romney Kills US/Russian Relations

Romney’s policies would isolate Russia --- collapses relations

Mitt Romney has become the inevitable Republican presidential candidate. He’s hoping to paint Barack Obama as weak, but his attempt at a flanking maneuver on the right may complicate America’s relationship with Eastern Europe and beyond. Romney recently charged Russia with being America’s “number one geopolitical foe.” As Jacob Heilbrunn of National Interest pointed out, this claim embodies a monumental self-contradiction, attempting to claim “credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, on the one hand [while] predicting dire threats from Russia on the other.” Thankfully, the U.S.S.R. really is gone, and neither all the king’s men nor Vladimir Putin can put it back together. It is important to separate behavior which is grating, even offensive, and that which is threatening. Putin is no friend of liberty, but his unwillingness to march lock-step with Washington does not mean that he wants conflict with America. Gordon Hahn of CSIS observes: Yet despite NATO expansion, U.S. missile defense, Jackson-Vanik and much else, Moscow has refused to become a U.S. foe, cooperating with the West on a host of issues from North Korea to the war against jihadism. Most recently, Moscow agreed to the establishment of a NATO base in Ulyanovsk. These are hardly the actions of America’s “number one geopolitical foe.” Romney’s charge is both silly and foolish. This doesn’t mean the U.S. should not confront Moscow when important differences arise. But treating Russia as an adversary risks encouraging it to act like one. Moreover, treating Moscow like a foe will make Russia more suspicious of America’s relationships with former members of the Warsaw Pact and republics of the Soviet Union—and especially Washington’s determination to continue expanding NATO. After all, if another country ostentatiously called the U.S. its chief geopolitical threat, ringed America with bases, and established military relationships with areas that had broken away from the U.S., Washington would not react well. It might react, well, a lot like Moscow has been reacting. Although it has established better relations with the West, Russia still might not get along with some of its neighbors, most notably Georgia, with its irresponsibly confrontational president. However, Washington should not give Moscow additional reasons to indulge its paranoia.

Romney election destroys any chance of working with Russia – global institutions won’t check

Lyman 12 (John Lyman, Editor-in-Chief of International Policy Digest, 3/30/12, International Policy Digest “Romney’s Foreign Policy and Russia,” http://www.internationalpolicydigest.org/2012/03/30/romneys-foreign-policy-and-russia/)

In critiquing the president in several interviews, Romney also roiled the Russians with his suggestion that Russia is the “Number one geopolitical foe” of the United States. This of course negates what most observers would regard as the top foreign policy concern of the United States – whether it be Afghanistan, Israel, Iran, Syria, or North Korea. If Romney defeats Obama in November, he will need a very big “reset” button to attempt to make things right with Russian President-elect Vladimir Putin. Following Mr. Romney’s comments, Mr. Medvedev said during a news conference that Romney’s assertion that Russia should not be confused with the same country depicted in many Cold War espionage films said the comments “smells of Hollywood.” “Look at your watch,” Mr. Medvedev said to reporters. “It is 2012, not the mid-1970s. No matter what party someone belongs to, he should pay attention to political realities.” Romney explained to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that he was alarmed by Obama’s casual conversation with Medvedev: “Russia continues to support Syria, supports Iran, has fought us with the crippling sanctions we wanted to have the world put in place against Iran. Russia is not a friendly character on the world stage…For this president to be looking for greater flexibility, where he doesn’t have to answer to the American people in his relations with Russia is very, very troubling, very alarming. I’m very, very concerned. I think the American people are going to feel the same way. This is a president who is telling us one thing and is doing something else, and is planning on doing something else even more frightening.” Obama, seeking to bury the story, told reporters following meetings in Seoul, “The only way I get this stuff done is if I’m consulting with the Pentagon, with Congress, if I’ve got bipartisan support and frankly, the current environment is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful consultations.” Romney’s characterization is not necessarily untrue. Russia has used its veto power on the U.N. Security Council to block action on Syria and has shown, through its membership in the BRICS, a proclivity against tougher economic sanctions directed at Iran outside of the framework of the United Nations. U.S.-Russian relations transcend the United Nations and other multilateral institutions. The United States relies on Russian assistance in counterterrorism, Afghanistan, shoring up loose nuclear material in the former Soviet Republics, international narcotics trafficking, WMD proliferation and reducing American and Russian nuclear stockpiles, which has become a cause celeb for Mr. Obama. Obama has calculated that the Russians would be amendable to significant reductions in their nuclear stockpiles if he negotiates with the Russians in good faith over missile defense. This process was started several years ago in an effort to “reset” U.S.-Russian relations, when Obama ordered a different configuration to the missile defense system – the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) – planned for construction in Eastern Europe. The original system envisioned a radar base that was to be built in the Czech Republic with interceptors housed in Poland. The EPAA is designed to intercept ballistic missiles launched from “rogue” nations from interceptors housed in Poland and now Romania. The Russians have been highly critical of the system first announced by the Bush administration as they claim it would undermine their own nuclear deterrent. “This is not a matter of hiding the ball,” Mr. Obama said. “I want to see us gradually, systematically reduce reliance on nuclear weapons.” Now that Mr. Romney has antagonized the Russians, he might find it difficult to negotiate with them over a whole host of issues, much less getting Russia on board with prodding the Iranians to return to the negotiating table or facilitating America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan if he defeats Mr. Obama in November.

Romney win returns to Bush doctrine of Russian confrontation

Macfie et. al 12 (Nick Macfie, writer for Reuters, Steve Gutterman, Reuters Reporter, Ed Lane and Alesandra Rizzo, editors for Reuters, 3/27/12, Reuters, “UPDATE 1-Medvedev says Romney's anti-Russia comment smacks of Hollywood,” http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/russia-usa-medvedev-idUSL3E8ER6TR20120327)

A senior lawmaker from Putin's ruling party said Romney's remark went "far deeper" than political posturing, warning a Republican win would likely revive a "line of confrontation with Russia" rooted in the administration of George W. Bush. "It's clear that this is a new edition of the old doctrine of American hegemony, and Romney is not alone in this approach," said Alexei Pushkov, chairman of the international affairs committee in the State Duma, the lower parliament house. "There is a whole group of senators who specialise in promoting the idea of U.S. domination of world affairs and ... in anti-Russian themes," he told a news conference. "The Republicans are going with the ideology of George Bush and John McCain, in essence, and on this basis they want to return to power. And that's the problem." (Additional reporting by Steve Gutterman in Moscow; Writing by Nick Macfie; Editing by Ed Lane and Alessandra Rizzo)

Romney election collapses relations – no cooperation

Larison 12 (Daniel Larison, writer for The American Conservative 6/27/12, The American Conservative, “U.S.-Russian Relations Would Get Much Worse Under Romney,” http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/u-s-russian-relations-would-get-much-worse-under-romney/)

The easier (and more accurate) answer is that Putin doesn’t actually want a “hard-line conservative in the White House.” Putin distrusts the U.S. because he believes that the Bush administration behaved in an ungrateful and untrustworthy fashion in the previous decade, and U.S.-Russian relations improved as much as they did because the current administration seemed to be more reliable. U.S.-Russian relations reached their lowest point in the last twenty years in no small part because of a “more active U.S. policy” toward the Middle East, the South Caucasus, and central Europe. Putin might be willing to deal with a more hard-line American President, but only so long as it this translated into tangible gains for Russia. Provided that the hard-liner was willing to live up to his end of the bargain, there could be some room for agreement, but there isn’t any. Since Romney’s Russia policy is essentially to never make any deals with the current Russian government, Putin doesn’t have much of an incentive to cooperate. That will guarantee that U.S.-Russian relations will deteriorate much more than they have in the last year.

Ext – Romney Kills US/Russian Relations

Conservative president hurts Russia relations and increases US-Sino tension

Minchev 12 (Ognyan Minchev, writer for Real Clear World, 6/27/12, Real Clear World, “Understanding Russia's Anti-Americanism,” http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2012/06/27/understanding_russias_anti-americanism_100107.html)

Yet, there would almost certainly be tradeoffs. A conservative president would likely engage in more assertive policies toward Moscow. A more active U.S. policy toward the Middle East, the South Caucasus, or Central Europe would risk clashing more openly with Russia's positions. Why would Putin want this, given the fragility of Russian power today? Threats have been a key driver of Russian power politics throughout the history of the Empire. Putin's calculations could take many forms. A more active U.S. policy on disputed issues might demonstrate not only American power but also reveal American weaknesses. A more assertive U.S. presence in the spheres of Russian interest might also provoke more active opposition by China, and Russia may benefit from greater competition between Beijing and Washington. Or Putin might prefer an immediate, open rivalry with what he perceives to be a weakened United States across a range of issues.

Romney openly wants to sever US-Russia relations

Larison 12 (Daniel Larison, writer for The American Conservative 6/1/12, The American Conservative, “Gillespie: Romney Will Align U.S. and Russian Interests More Than Obama,” http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/gillespie-says-that-romney-will-align-u-s-and-russian-relations-more-than-obama/)

Gillespie doesn’t seem to know that his candidate is campaigning on a pledge to undo the “reset” because he believes (falsely) it has been too favorable to Russia, and he must not know that an article appearing under Romney’s name made a point of stressing how generally pleased Moscow was with Obama’s Russia policy. The Romney campaign thinks this is a liability for Obama, and it was trying to change the subject from the mockery Romney was receiving after he labeled Russia “our number one geopolitical foe.” The funny thing here is that Gillespie must think he is doing Romney a favor by talking up how Romney will reduce Russian “hostility.” Perhaps someone failed to remind Gillespie that his candidate wants to antagonize Russia at every turn. Instead of helping his candidate, Gillespie has completely undermined Romney’s criticism of Obama on Russia. Romney has never claimed any interest in aligning U.S. and Russian relations. He claims that the effort to do so over the last three years has been misguided, and he seems to think that finding common interests isn’t possible. He isn’t concerned to reduce Russian hostility. Everything he has said about Russia seems designed to stoke it. What makes Gillespie’s comments so bizarre is that U.S.-Russian relations have demonstrably improved over the last three years. They have been relatively cooler and rockier in the last year because of disagreements over missile defense, the conduct of the Libyan war, and over how to respond to the conflict in Syria, but they are still far better than they were in late 2008 and early 2009. Even though Chuck Todd seems clueless on this point, the improvement in relations is not really in dispute. Gillespie has forgotten that Romney doesn’t want U.S.-Russian relations improved, and he has consistently opposed the attempt to improve them. The idea that Romney could preside over an even better U.S.-Russian relationship with his relentlessly anti-Russian posturing is not remotely credible. Gillespie’s interview is a remarkable breach of the Romney campaign’s normal discipline and its ability to stay on message.

Ext – Romney Kills US/Russian Relations

Romney’s Russia-relations policy is nonsensical and steeped in agression

Adomanis 12 (Mark Adomanis, Forbes Contributor, 1/6/12, Forbes, “Mitt Romney's Russia Policy - A Lot of Nothing,” http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2012/01/06/mitt-romneys-russia-policy-a-lot-of-nothing/)

Romney’s suggestion that he will “enhance diplomatic ties, increase military training and assistance, and negotiate trade pacts and educational exchanges with Central Asian states” is realism 101, a perfectly Kissingerian response to a foreign threat. Indeed this is basically “containment” updated for the 21st century: we’ll work with anyone, anywhere in Central Asia, provided that they agree to work against Russian power. I personally fail to see how this actually serves the vital interests of the United States (we were ever in any danger from Central Asia when it was a constituent part of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union?) but bolstering Central Asian states to stymie Russian influence is perfectly rational and can be an understandable and even rather banal component of a broadly realist vision for US foreign policy. The problem, though, is the very next bullet point where Romney promises that his administration will “forthrightly confront the Russian government over its authoritarian practices.” By itself this would make perfect sense as part of a broadly neoconservative, morality-driven vision for US foreign policy that places a premium on support for civil society and democracy. I would, of course, disagree with such a policy, I think the US has more than enough to worry about without obsessing over the internal politics of other countries, but there is an intellectually coherent and consistent case to be made that the US should make democracy promotion a primary objective. But when taken in combination with Romney’s promise to work hand-in-hand with Central Asian despots, his promise to confront Russian authoritarianism becomes totally contradictory, hypocritical, and nonsensical. Romney is proposing that he will angrily and aggressively confront the Kremlin over its human rights violations, while simultaneously giving weapons, money, and diplomatic cover to Central Asian states despite their far more egregious human rights violations. Romney’s Russia policy thus has hypocrisy built into its very foundations in the explicit admission that one country will be treated with one set of standards (forceful confrontation over any and all alleged human rights abuses) and that other countries will be treated with an entirely different set of standards in which their ability to “deter Russian ambitions” is paramount.

Electing Romney causes Russian crisis

Armbruster 12 (BEN ARMBRUSTER is National Security Editor for ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, 7.3.12, Think Progress, “Russian Official: Romney’s Hostile Rhetoric Could Bring ‘A Full-Scale Crisis’,” http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/07/03/510342/russian-official-romney-crisis/)

The Los Angeles Times reports that Alexey Pushkov, chairman of the international affairs committee of Russia’s State Duma, said in a recent interview that Russian leaders are wondering whether Mitt Romney’s aggressive rhetoric toward Russia is previewing a “full-scale crisis” should he be elected president in November. Pushkov is referring to Romney’s comment during the campaign that Russia is America’s “number one geopolitical foe.” “We don’t think that for us Romney will be an easy partner,” said Pushkov, an ally of President Vladimir Putin. “We think that Romney will be, on the rhetorical side, a replay of the Bush administration.” [...] “If he is serious about this, I’m afraid he may choose the neocon-type people…In the first year of his presidency, we may have a full-scale crisis,” he said. President George W. Bush’s secretary of state, Gen. Colin Powell, also recently criticized Romney’s comments on Russia. “When governor Romney not to long ago said ‘the Russian federation is our number one geo-strategic threat.’ Well, come on, Mitt, think. That isn’t the case,” he said. Even one of Romney’s own foreign policy advisers thinks the former Massachusetts governor went a bit too far on Russia. “I think Romney is right to make Russia an issue,” the adviser told the Daily Beast. “But when he said that, the campaign should have walked it back and moved on.”

Directory: files
files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2
files -> Integer programming and game theory
files -> 4 Integer Programming
files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective
files -> Pop Warner History
files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose
files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d
files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal
files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations

Download 1.8 Mb.

Share with your friends: