There is a well written critique of our current foreign policy in FP (foreign policy) which makes our flaws all too clear. It is not that Kerry doesn't know what he is doing, because he is convinced he does. It is that his whole approach and paradigm are flawed and therefore doomed to failure. Within his paradigm, his actions and words are perfectly logical and clear. But in a larger, more historically correct perspective, every step he takes only makes things worse. The problem is that Kerry and Obama have bought into their flawed paradigm, and nothing can shift their view or educate them about the error of their ways.

It is failures of vision and failing to recognize a more historically based perspective that can bring on a huge, costly war.

you can't tell from here if he himself rejected the dialog, or the Administration...but it's a good bet it was the Administration.

A diplomat never turns down an opportunity to talk...regardless of the prospects for accommodation. This Administration isn't into accommodation unless you're a bankster or a self-appointed 1% Elitist. Then it's not only accommodation, but also adulation.

I can see refusing to talk to Kim Jung UN, only because I don't want to become dinner for his sty full of starving pigs.

What the administration rejected was having Kerry fly to Moscow -- when Putin had no intentions of negotiating anything.

Putin rejected all the proposals Lavrov brought back that included every option the EU countries, the US and Lavrov spoke of.

Do you see any value in that exercise in futility? Not to mention, it is very likely Putin would have used the trip to embarrass Obama.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/11/us-ukraine-crisis-usa-kerry-idUSBREA2A1G720140311

Cabinet Secretaries do not set policy, the Administration (the President) does. The Secretaries implement the directives given to them by the President.

going almost immediately - on Russia's time schedule and to Russia. Russia has rejected point blank the American position and ideas on this. Do you think that Russia would have agreed to Lavrov coming to DC to work with Obama to resolve this?

The administration may see that at this point, Putin is playing a power game where he wants to start from a point that makes Crimea a fait accompli. You might consider that the timing is bad for the US - with the Crimean vote on March 16.

Strange that you criticize the US for game playing, but ignore Russia's. I doubt that Obama was not impressed that Putin stated for days that he had no intention of annexing Crimea and his foreign minister said there was no plan for Russia to move people to Crimea. ("just a preplanned war game&quot

"Strange that you criticize the US for game playing, but ignore Russia's."
Indeed.

That is not nimble diplomacy, that is playing the Bibi card and is doomed to failure.

This only reinforces my opinion that Kerry (and Obama) are taking the wrong road here.

So cut the shit, there is no "before we talk", we've already been talking.

When one side invites the other's top ranking diplomat to talk, in the face of possible war, even world war, setting preconditions is as stupid and ass backwards as what Bibi does to the Palestinians with each new settlement and destroyed farm, olive tree, and well.

This isn't "shit" as you so ridiculously put it, but an observation. There could have been 10 calls between Putin and Obama. So what? It is moving a diplomatic process forward that matters. By suddenly demanding preconditions, you stop all talks in their tracks. Myopia, thy name is phlesh.

Again, my point is the position from which Obama and Kerry are talking and negotiating is seriously in error. It ignores the reality in Ukraine and Russia. It ignores the severe mistrust that they feel, especially after we promised never to take in the Baltics or Ukraine into NATO, then promptly did exactly that. This upcoming fuck up has been decades in the making, and how Obama and Kerry are acting right now, last week, yesterday, and today - makes it worse, not better.

The 2 Presidents have been speaking directly. There is no missed diplomatic opportunity when that is the dynamic. And Putin appears to be out of his mental faculties a bit, on top of that. Kerry meeting with him isn't going to make a difference in the situation. If it would, I imagine he would be on his way. I mean, Obama sent Bill Clinton to North Korea, just on the off chance he could get some American prisoners back. Obama sent the navy seals in to get Bin Laden when no one else thought it was a good idea. If Obama thought Kerry meeting with Putin right now would be helpful, then Kerry would be meeting with Putin right now.

Having talked to Putin himself and having talked to all the other world leaders that have talked to Putin, Obama has more credibility of judgment on this situation than you do, a lot more.

So yes, its pure and utter shit and another imaginary reason to attack the President.

the face of stupidity is so tempting though.

Seems you can't handle the truth

This is perfectly good diplomacy by Kerry and Obama. They talk to everyone, but don't just do what someone else wants. Your opinion on diplomacy is worthless.

And hopefully talk them into reversing their gains. Crimea is a huge asset. They wanted it too.

It is entirely consistent with US practice in these situations, when they have been handed their ass, to make vague or not sufficiently specific promises that they have no intention of keeping. (Ask with the native americans, but they treat the electorate that way too.)

I'll bet he is quite frustrated right now.

That is how our election system runs too, isn't it? How many promises have we heard these last 40 years where the opposite was done?

Since when is it a coup when a leader flees the country taking billions with him?

Certainly it wasn't a coup when he agreed to restorre the constitutional amendments that he bribed judges to throw out.

It's kind of hard to tell who are the bigger assholes, though the fellow in Crimea seems to be giving a good account of himself in that regard. It's like they all come unhinged when they get power. Not that they don't have good reason to in the circumstances.

Edit: I have to go do stuff, back later.

and Russia refuses that as a starting point. What you said. So we're stuck. Some diplomacy.

Last edited Tue Mar 11, 2014, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

It is a very complicated matter not to be dealt with in a less delicate manner...as some might like...it also can't be ignored.

...in guiding foreign policy negotiations at such a critical time. We are lucky he chooses to serve.

But when you know it all, there is nothing more you can learn.

These kinds of policies are set by the president. SOS enact policy, they do not set it. They do not operate in a vacuum, and things of this import, are decided in full coordination with the WH.

As has been noted before, this is a WH that has a tight control over its foreign policy. If Kerry won't be meeting with Putin, rest assured that this matter was fully discussed and decided within the administration.

her level of accomplishment with others, say Acheson.

Last edited Tue Mar 11, 2014, 09:50 PM - Edit history (1)

and the world she found. Some have criticized Hillary for not having "any major accomplishments" during her term as SOS. Getting the world to actually view us in a more favorable light after 8 years of Bush's cowboy foreign policy was quite an achievement. I think that her world popularity is why Obama chose her as his SOS. Wherever she went there were masses of people who wanted to meet her. She was our good will ambassador, so to speak.

I remember reading an article that mentioned that even in Pakistan she was popular with the people and even with the government, the reporter added: "And they hate us in Pakistan".

He's a vital part of the Obama administration, and his thinking is in sync with the President, thank God!

...we all have a right to criticize, it amazes me to see good hard-working Dems be targeted more than others...especially here.

...you wait for a counterproposal before negotiating away more of your position. Kerry must have learned that much in the Senate.

It is a demand. Do this or else.

That is not diplomacy, at least not what Foggy Bottom teaches.

I'm not clear on whether this is a particularly good opening to a negotiation, but everyone involved understands that it is negotiation.

1) Ensure US control over mideast oil resources
2) Oppose leftism on the world stage

Sometimes the two merge, as we saw in the US installment and support for that nasty little fucker Reza Pahlavi.

"leftism on the world stage?"

That is a rather absurd claim, given our close relationship with socialist France and antagonistic relationship with rightwing, oligarchy-ruled Russia.

But, yeah:

P. S. I'm sure Obama doesn't wake up with that on his mind, either. This stuff has gone way past the left and right, who seem to merge due to ODS and classic smarty pants anti-Americanism. 'Tag, you're it' in team think, or dog pack lingo as to who is going to be the new whipping boy.

Every nation on the planet sucks in different way, or sometimes in the exact same way. Their leaders are not responsible for every howling troglodyte who crawls out of a cave to snarl or run out and bite someone.

No, I said US foreign policy hasn't changed since Truman.

on the world stage.

Both statements are silly.

Foreign policy has changed with every administration, so it's really absurd to say it never changed since Truman.

Bush was different than Clinton, Clinton was different than Poppy, Reagan was different than Carter, Carter was different than Nixon, Nixon was different than Kennedy, etc etc etc.

If you really think Obama's foreign policy has been the same as Bush, I have a copy of Paul Bremer's book I'd like to sell you.

Which is my point. The exact methods and intensity vary, but the goals remain.

Tell me. Tomorrow, a new wave of the Arab spring begins, at the heart of the problem - Saudi Arabia. Saudi liberals - they exist! - begin demonstrations and protests, demanding an end to the monarchy and a transition to real democracy.

Who does the Obama administration support, the demonstrators, or King Abdullah? Relatively left-leaning people seeking democratic reform, or the despotic theocrat who oppresses them?

Well, we supported Mubarak in Egypt all the way down. And we're tentatively supporting al-Sisi there. And we helped arm the king of Bahrain against his own people back when they were trying to get rid of that tick. We didn't support Ghaddafi or Assad, but those guys have been Americna boogeymen for decades - and we didn't really help the Libyans, so much as get our own rocks off by throwing those missiels we've been saving up for such an occasion. Nor did we actually speak in favor of the Syrian demonstrators, even before that mess turned into a civil war (which we have been fueling, by the by.)

So. Saudi Arabia. People seeking to overthrow the monarchy and institute a democracy. Who does America side with? Whether vocally, materially, or both.

My feeling is that King Abdullah will suddenly "discover" a lot of ammunition and riot weaponry, and maybe even a few new shiny F-16's. He does love those f-16's, you know!

Do you think differently?

After 4 days of protests in Egypt:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-28/obama-says-mubarak-must-take-concrete-steps-to-deliver-pledge-on-reforms.html

Seriously, despite your best efforts to cast it so, this isn't an "Obama" thing. Foreign policy outlives administrations, and there are indeed overarching courses to foreign policy. And the two longest-running are keeping our "friendly" despits in power over oil-useful states, and containment and combating of leftism, whether through actual combt, or through fueling high-octane neoliberal "reforms" and "trade agreements"

not a US thing, a world thing

You maybe had an argument if this was the Reagan administration, and we were mining Managua's harbor while supporting the contras.

The Soviet Union is gone, and US foreign policy has radically changed as a result. The only thing unchanged is the reflexive thinking found amongst ideological dinosaurs on the left and and the right.

to claim that the US has some master goal of "Oppose leftism on the world stage" indicates a Cold War mentality.

What is our standing policy towards Cuba?

Do you know anything of US involvement in Latin America well before Reagan? Does the phrase "Operation Condor" ring any bells?

The only thing that has changed is that as the world connects and the ashes of old wars settle, other nations grow in power relative to the US, making us less able to throw our weight as effectively. But we keep trying

But they do business with one another.

Bush certainly implicitly supported the coup attempt against Chavez, but since then it's been "I hate you, but I will buy your oil/sell oil to you."

Not that Chavez was a champion of human rights on the global stage--even bragged up Carlos the Jackal.

US policy towards Cuba is an embarrassment and an anarchronism.

Maybe US policy has changed because ... its interests and worldwide goals have changed. No longer trying to contain the Soviet Union means that if Nicaragua wants to vote in Danny Ortega, the response from Washington under Obama was "who gives a shit" instead of mining Managua's harbors and hiring contras.

Evo Morales hates the United States with a fierce, burning passion and has acted accordingly, and the US government has done exactly what to Bolivia (other than the alleged Snowden plane thing)?

Correa's Ecuador--a steadfast ally of Cuba and Venezuela-- is sheltering Julian Assange and tried to shelter Snowden. How has the US punished it?

It also stopped communism from taking over all of Korea. What do you have against protecting US energy interests or opposing communism?

Bush would have kept us there forever. That's a HUGE difference!

you can let go of that talking point.

If the people don't like their current President, they have two choices: wait until his term is over and elect someone else, or follow constitutional means of impeaching him. Neither of those things happened here.

The US should support reinstalling the pre-coup government, which would force Russia to withdraw from Crimea since they would have no ground for their invasion after that.

The only time a coup is valid is when elections are rigged, and AFAIK, they were not in Ukraine. This coup is no more valid than the ones in Honduras, the coup that installed the shah of Iran, or the coup-in-the-making against Maduro in Venezuala.

Reports say this one is, too.

The CIA was behind the ?2002 failed coup against Chavez as well.

The Honduras one was very weird because the illegitimate coup government seemed a bit take aback at our government's reaction to the coup, which made me think maybe we weren't expecting it. There was some talk of an embargo, but it was pretty faint.

1) the February 21 agreement is in place (meaning he doesn't control the military or police);
2) he returns every dime he stole;
3) he agrees to stand trial for his crimes

But, kind of hard for him to rule in absentia.

You ignore that even many of the party members of the former President voted to impeach him. What is questionable is whether the steps of the impeachment process were followed. Though steps may have been rushed through, it is clear that the elected members of Parliament did vote him out.

In addition, their government requires elections in 90 days - and they are scheduled. It would seem that the best course would be to allow those elections to go forward and to elect a new leader. ( It is clear that the former leader does not have sufficient support to win - a fact noted by Putin himself.)

By the way, AFAIK, the biggest factor in Venezuela's disruptions is Maduro's actions. (If you are old enough, you might remember that some on the right said the 1960s demonstrations here were caused by the communists - those of us who protested knew that was not - for the most part - true at all. )

....and the situation in Ukraine?

Anyone? Because there's a pretty huge distinction between the two that pretty much discredits your argument.

Iran (with the Shah) and Honduras were military sponsored coups, with the old leader detained by the new leadership, and with the new leadership not given any forseeable electoral mandate.

What happened in Ukraine was that there were mass protests by the Ukrainian people, Yanukovych voluntarily fled the country, and an interim government took over with new elections being scheduled to take place in a matter of months.

The situations aren't even remotely similar. The Ukrainian situation only exists as a "coup" in your own mind, for whatever reason.

had violent confrontations with police, blocked traffic, destroyed public buildings, and demanded Obama leave office immediately, then seized his office when he was out of town and appointed Republicans to all cabinet posts, that would be a legitimate government? Because, I hear wacko teabaggers, prominent ones even, suggesting this about once a month.

Right-wingers hate democracy, and if they can't get their way at the ballot box, which they frequently don't, they will use whatever means necessary to restore themselves to power. In Venezuela, they tried a traditional coup in 2002 which failed miserably, despite support from the Bush administration. They failed in free, fair elections at least twice since then. Now, suddenly, there are violent right-wing protests in some cities. I guess if the army decides the time is right, and moves on Maduro and forces him to flee for his life, that would make Venezuela's new government legitimate as well.

Forcing a government change through violent opposition in a democratic society is illegitimate.

And while there were ultranationalist elements within the protests, the protests themselves represented a wide spectrum of ideologies.

Your situation regarding the tea party was nothing like what happened in Ukraine.

If the government was so demonstrably corrupt, it should easily have been provable at a trial. Why didn't their legislature do that before the protests even started since they so easily impeached him after he left? If Fox News showed the teabagger riots and said they represented a wide spectrum of ideologies, ranging from teabaggers to anti-immigrants activists to disgruntled Democrats (Zell Miller), to libertarians, to tin-foil conspiracy theorists, would that make their revolt against Obama legitimate?

And even assuming that the anti-Obama protests truly were wide spectrum and had significant support across all spectrums, even including most DUers, would that legitimize using riots to force a government change in America? Hell, Bush and his band of Reagan leftovers were arguably one of the most corrupt administrations in history, but I don't recall a single DUer advocating rioting until Bush was forced to resign. There were many calling for him to be impeached or tried as a war criminal, but not one single DUer ever suggested usurping the democratic process to force him from office.

of a private golf course, zoo, airplane hangar full of collectible cars, and a freaking Spanish Galleon--was actually corrupt?

You're wondering why the despotic thug who had bribed the country's judges to suspend constitutional limits on his power wasn't put on trial?

Of for fuck's sake. Tell you what, let him come back under the terms he agreed to (2004 constitutional amendments in place), and let him stand trial, while granting power of attorney to a state-appointed auditor to oversee all of his assets.

Then we can talk about him being allowed back into office.

That's how things work in a democracy.

Fuck democracy. Fuck the rule of law. The legislature was powerless to do anything until he actually left the country. He was a repressive dictator exactly like Obama who crushes opposition like bugs, which is why he allowed the rioting to go on for weeks. He had a golf course, like Papa John's founder and right-wing asshole John Schnatter, so lock him up and throw away the key. He had a fleet of collectible cars, like Jay Leno, who is surprisingly walking free to this day.

When people like you say it's ok to subvert the rule of law when you have a shitty, and perhaps even corrupt, leader, we are truly screwed. Right-wingers will walk all over you. All they need to do is claim Obama is a corrupt Marxist dictator and go on a fucking rampage and by god, Obama must go.

As are your attempts to pretend there is any doubt that he was guilty of massive corruption and abuse of his office.

By the way, he wasn't removed from power. He abdicated by fleeing the country. Then was found to be unable to carry out his duties, because, you know, he was hiding in a foreign country.

If Obama stole billions of dollars and then fled to Mexico, then your analogy might be more valid.

We are baiting the bear w/ cookies for demonstrators. Snipers are still a quandary. Some circumstantial evidence shows someone interfered to cause both sides to erupt.

We shouldn't get involved, Ukraine crisis obviously over arms, NATO expansion, energy.

We're not gonna affect the outcome.

30 million just on chandeliers for their palace...hard to be cut off that kind of cash flow, huh Putin?

transcript of radio interview of US ambassador to Ukraine with Ekho Moskvy, an independent Russian radio station:
http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/speeches/amb-ekho-moskvy.html


Also: report of Kerry's conversation with Lavrov, March 10 (Jen Psaki)
http://ukraine.usembassy.gov/statements/kerry-lavrov-03102014.html

Correct on all three points!

1) S&B: Funny how people like to let that slide when it's one of "ours" who is in the club.

2) 1%er: Not that there will ever be a change to that situation (from any candidate who gets the top spot).

3) Putin: So many people go on uber-defensive when Kerry is criticised and *assume* that the critics support Putin.


Sometimes a rotten politician is just a rotten politician.

The parallels between Putin and Bush I are very telling - the USA had a very close shave with the latter ...

That was Carter's move in 1980 when Russia started playing dirty. But this came a month too late.

then how did Kerry reject it ? Only reference to the subject comes from Kerry.

See :

WASHINGTON – Secretary of State John F. Kerry has delayed plans for a meeting in Moscow with Russian President Vladimir Putin this week amid an impasse between the two countries over Ukraine.

A Kerry trip to Moscow was under discussion in recent days and might have been held as early as Monday. But it was postponed pending “concrete evidence that Russia is prepared to engage” on U.S. proposals for resolving the crisis, Jen Psaki, a State Department spokeswoman, told reporters Monday.



http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-kerry-putin-ukraine-meeting-20140310,0,1816628.story#axzz2vhGgxbxh

millions went to Russia/Putin. Why is Russia allowing the kicked out old Gov. officials/ embezzlers to live there now?