How To Simultaneously Play into the Hands of Obama and the Kremlin
Romney wants to be in the White House, so he will attack all of the current president's proposals.
If President Barack Obama promises Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to be more “accommodating” in post-election talks over the problem of a European missile shield, does this mean it really will happen? Of course not. First, “we” never agreed with “them” to be accommodating — rather, each side is trying to use verbal gymnastics to lead the other around by the nose.
Secondly, the European missile shield serves the same role for both Russian and American political elites: A convenient front on which to demonstrate their nationalist credentials and easily hide their excessive willingness to accommodate. National interests are a powerful thing. It's very complicated to unambiguously determine exactly what they are, since in the process of deconstructing them you always run across unchallenged assumptions. Moreover, when you hear the very words “national interests,” a patriotic shiver runs up your spine, tears well in your eyes, your hands clench into fists, your lower jaw juts out like an excavator. That's how it should be, in any case.
If Mitt Romney states that Russia is America’s number one “geopolitical foe,” does this mean that if he becomes president he will surround our country with missiles and forcefully admit Ukraine into NATO? Again, no. Vladimir Putin's last election campaign was comfortable, but definitely not friendly towards the U.S. Nevertheless, immediately after the election, Russian authorities offered America the use of an Ulyanovsk airport as a supply hub for Afghanistan. Now Romney has his own campaign. He wants to become the Republican candidate, so he will try to play a hawkish role whenever possible, with squawks and challenges reminiscent of the Cold War. He wants to sit in the White House, so he will criticize all the current president's actions, including his foreign policy. If Obama were to quarrel constantly with Russia, Romney would brand Obama as a worthless diplomat.
Has Obama played up to the Republicans and Romney by laying his heart open to Medvedev in front of live microphones? If the answer is yes, then it's hardly meaningful in the grand scheme of things. The deciding factor in the American election will most likely be the economy, not geopolitics. If you think that Obama was trying to convince Medvedev (and by extension, Putin) that they should bet on him emerging victorious, then really it was Romney playing Obama, not the other way around. It's as if Romney visually demonstrated that the American president tried to snitch to the Russians, “How can we even talk about the missile shield when I have such a messed up situation at home? When I have to deal with idiots in America?” Obama might want the Russians to think that he, the bird in their hand, is better than the candidates waiting in the bush.
As of now, Obama values the status quo in relations with Russia. He sees a certain practical value in the infamous “reset” with Russia and fears that the Russians will suddenly go berserk over the missile shield and make some sudden maneuvers while his hands are tied up by the election. Obama perfectly understands that tough negotiations and compromises are inescapable. He's looking at serious concessions and is trying to explain to Medvedev why he can't make them right now, not with the election campaign in full swing. Medvedev, by the way, should understand him perfectly. Obama wants the Russian political elite to refrain from talking about the Department of State and the U.S. Consulate in Russia, which use “orange” protestors (like the ones in Bolotnaya Square) to accomplish their goals.
Romney, with his claims of a number one “geopolitical foe,” is highly useful to Obama. Obama can present Romney to the Russians as an undesirable alternative to himself. Romney is also useful to the Russian ruling elite because his hostility showcases the “true face of America” — that is, for the portion of the American electorate that actually follows foreign policy. For politicians seeking to inflate their ratings by playing up a “foreign enemy,” it makes sense to let another one in the club. After all, they manage to successfully lob each other softballs with enviable regularity, giving each other opportunities to burnish their nationalist credentials.
I think that Romney understands all of this, but the present circumstances are forcing him toward entirely concrete words. His words, by the way, have far more weight in domestic politics than in foreign. In foreign policy, there is a core idea of signed or unsigned documents and approved or unapproved resolutions. Obama already occupies this level, where he has the power to bridge the gap between words and to actually achieve something. Romney wants to ascend to this stage. He's investing in words today so he can act against them tomorrow.
If President Barack Obama promises Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to be more “accommodating” in post-election talks over the problem of a European missile shield, does this mean it really will happen? Of course not. First, “we” never agreed with “them” to be accommodating — rather, each side is trying to use verbal gymnastics to lead the other around by the nose.
Secondly, the European missile shield serves the same role for both Russian and American political elites: A convenient front on which to demonstrate their nationalist credentials and easily hide their excessive willingness to accommodate. National interests are a powerful thing. It's very complicated to unambiguously determine exactly what they are, since in the process of deconstructing them you always run across unchallenged assumptions. Moreover, when you hear the very words “national interests,” a patriotic shiver runs up your spine, tears well in your eyes, your hands clench into fists, your lower jaw juts out like an excavator. That's how it should be, in any case.
If Mitt Romney states that Russia is America’s number one “geopolitical foe,” does this mean that if he becomes president he will surround our country with missiles and forcefully admit Ukraine into NATO? Again, no. Vladimir Putin's last election campaign was comfortable, but definitely not friendly towards the U.S. Nevertheless, immediately after the election, Russian authorities offered America the use of an Ulyanovsk airport as a supply hub for Afghanistan. Now Romney has his own campaign. He wants to become the Republican candidate, so he will try to play a hawkish role whenever possible, with squawks and challenges reminiscent of the Cold War. He wants to sit in the White House, so he will criticize all the current president's actions, including his foreign policy. If Obama were to quarrel constantly with Russia, Romney would brand Obama as a worthless diplomat.
Has Obama played up to the Republicans and Romney by laying his heart open to Medvedev in front of live microphones? If the answer is yes, then it's hardly meaningful in the grand scheme of things. The deciding factor in the American election will most likely be the economy, not geopolitics. If you think that Obama was trying to convince Medvedev (and by extension, Putin) that they should bet on him emerging victorious, then really it was Romney playing Obama, not the other way around. It's as if Romney visually demonstrated that the American president tried to snitch to the Russians, “How can we even talk about the missile shield when I have such a messed up situation at home? When I have to deal with idiots in America?” Obama might want the Russians to think that he, the bird in their hand, is better than the candidates waiting in the bush.
As of now, Obama values the status quo in relations with Russia. He sees a certain practical value in the infamous “reset” with Russia and fears that the Russians will suddenly go berserk over the missile shield and make some sudden maneuvers while his hands are tied up by the election. Obama perfectly understands that tough negotiations and compromises are inescapable. He's looking at serious concessions and is trying to explain to Medvedev why he can't make them right now, not with the election campaign in full swing. Medvedev, by the way, should understand him perfectly. Obama wants the Russian political elite to refrain from talking about the Department of State and the U.S. Consulate in Russia, which use “orange” protestors (like the ones in Bolotnaya Square) to accomplish their goals.
Romney, with his claims of a number one “geopolitical foe,” is highly useful to Obama. Obama can present Romney to the Russians as an undesirable alternative to himself. Romney is also useful to the Russian ruling elite because his hostility showcases the “true face of America” — that is, for the portion of the American electorate that actually follows foreign policy. For politicians seeking to inflate their ratings by playing up a “foreign enemy,” it makes sense to let another one in the club. After all, they manage to successfully lob each other softballs with enviable regularity, giving each other opportunities to burnish their nationalist credentials.
I think that Romney understands all of this, but the present circumstances are forcing him toward entirely concrete words. His words, by the way, have far more weight in domestic politics than in foreign. In foreign policy, there is a core idea of signed or unsigned documents and approved or unapproved resolutions. Obama already occupies this level, where he has the power to bridge the gap between words and to actually achieve something. Romney wants to ascend to this stage. He's investing in words today so he can act against them tomorrow.
Previous article![]( "Culture and Negotiation")
