Debate on Russo-American relations

[Pablo Sanchez]

The majority of the conflicts of interest between the US and Russia have their roots in the US's retarded "export democracy!" foreign policy. If not for that, and a lot of American Russophobia, the two nations would likely be a lot closer.

Why should Russia and the United States be "a lot closer"? Where do their national interests coincide? I can name plenty of reasons for the opposite, for which the USA is in no sense responsible (Putin's authoritarian politics, alleged murders of dissidents including on British soil, the use of energy exports to manipulate US allies in Western Europe). Yes, the USA has done some things to provoke Russia, but it's incredibly naive to say that everything would be just fine between us if we let them be (to say nothing of the desirability of giving them a free hand!), and you'd have to be really reaching for it to think that Russia hasn't done anything to deserve our opprobrium.

The election issue on diplomatic matters, not just with Russia but in general, is that McCain is full of bluster. He won't talk to anybody without "preconditions" (e.g. he says that the other side must accede to some of his demands before he will even sit down with them), and he's going to do this, that, and the other to Russia (where all of those things are either unfeasible or would have no effect other than pissing them off). At best he would pursue the disjointed, half-thought-out Bush administration foreign policy, which hasn't worked for shit. He accuses Obama of wanting to go hat-in-hand to other nations, as if talking with foreign leaders instead of telling them is unacceptable humility, but this is basically what is necessary with Russia. We have to sit down with them, without ideological blinders, and figure out what we are each willing to compromise on.

[Vympel]

Why should Russia and the United States be "a lot closer"? Where do their national interests coincide? I can name plenty of reasons for the opposite, for which the USA is in no sense responsible (Putin's authoritarian politics

Internal business of the Russians. Nothing to do with anyone else's national interests- dovetails perfectly with Adrian's comment about America's "export democracy" messianic foreign policy. This should have no effect on their relations whatsoever. This delusion that whether another state is "democratic" or not should matter to foreign policy and national interests is a fantasy that needs to be expelled immediately.

alleged murders of dissidents

Ditto.

including on British soil

Unproven - and also really nothing to do with the United States.

the use of energy exports to manipulate US allies in Western Europe

Which?

[Pablo Sanchez]

This delusion that whether another state is "democratic" or not should matter to foreign policy and national interests is a fantasy that needs to be expelled immediately.

That's right, fuck anybody who isn't an American. They deserve nothing except what their government is willing to give them, and if a dictator takes over and secretively murders dissidents, more power to him. It would be wrong of the United States to try to exert pressure that could save lives and improve the status of people in other countries. Even if the US has the power and influence to save lives and improve conditions for people, we should just let people do whatever the fuck they want, as long as they don't hurt Americans. Realpolitik, right?

But even if we accept your "zomglol national interests" line of argument, it has been proven on previous occasions (the fall of the iron curtain esp. in the Baltics and Poland, Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Georgia's Rose Revolution) that more democratic governments tend to be friendlier and to hew more to US interests than otherwise, so encouraging democracy in the abstract increases US soft power. Overreaching attempts to force democracy as in Iraq are ill-calculated, but in general democratization is good for America.

Unproven

Please. "Unproven" to the extent that nobody could be convicted in the court of law (thanks largely to non-extradition and immunity for Duma members), but correct to the extent that the UK was willing to poison their diplomatic relations with the second or third most powerful state in the world. We should assume that the lead suspects in the FSB, who also happen to be the only people with means and motive, are not associated with the crime, just because it doesn't hash out under English Common Law? The laws of nations don't work the same way.

- and also really nothing to do with the United States.

Oh, so the United Kingdom stopped being a US ally, and we consequently stopped caring about covert assassinations on their national territory? News to me.

Which?

Russian interruption of natural gas and oil exports to Western Europe via Ukraine, implicitly designed to prevent the EU from undertaking pro-Ukrainian policies which would be of benefit to both the Ukraine and the EU (e.g. everyone who has a legitimate reason to be concerned with it).

[Lusankya]

That's right, fuck anybody who isn't an American. They deserve nothing except what their government is willing to give them, and if a dictator takes over and secretively murders dissidents, more power to him. It would be wrong of the United States to try to exert pressure that could save lives and improve the status of people in other countries. Even if the US has the power and influence to save lives and improve conditions for people, we should just let people do whatever the fuck they want, as long as they don't hurt Americans. Realpolitik, right?

From whence comes your assumptions that:

a) the US pressuring Russia to become less authoritarian would be effective and

b) applying such pressure, when it is not welcomed by the government, is actually be beneficial to the Russian people?

[Vympel]

That's right, fuck anybody who isn't an American. They deserve nothing except what their government is willing to give them, and if a dictator takes over and secretively murders dissidents, more power to him. It would be wrong of the United States to try to exert pressure that could save lives and improve the status of people in other countries. Even if the US has the power and influence to save lives and improve conditions for people, we should just let people do whatever the fuck they want, as long as they don't hurt Americans. Realpolitik, right?

That's ridiculously prejudicial framing. I will break down the implicit assumptions in it thusly:- no one asked you for your fucking help. This notion that the US can save lives in other countries with its hectoring and more often than not blatantly hypocritical posturing (never mind its more serious meddling) is a fucking fantasy, and ridiculously presumptuous. People don't like it when other countries meddle in their fucking affairs.

But even if we accept your "zomglol national interests" line of argument, it has been proven on previous occasions (the fall of the iron curtain esp. in the Baltics and Poland, Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Georgia's Rose Revolution) that more democratic governments tend to be friendlier and to hew more to US interests than otherwise, so encouraging democracy in the abstract increases US soft power.

Oh please. The very fact that you point to Georgia's fake-ass democratic revolution as something that increased US soft-power points out what's wrong with this bullshit. The US got made to look fucking stupid by a regional piece of gnat-shit that ostentatiously tried to make itself an outpost of NATO, and that resulted in thousands of deaths when the dumbfucks in the Bush administration wrote rhetorical cheques noone was willing to cash. The only thing that came out of the "Rose Revolution" was a fucking humiliation and worsening relations with Russia - and for who? Saaksahvili? Wow, what a great trade off that was!

And fucking Ukraine? Didn't you hear? The "Orange Revolution" is dead. Those shitstains who took over aren't bringing Ukraine to some glorious Western renaissance. They're using NATO membership to try and subjugate the significant portion of their population who want no part of them or their politics.

Overreaching attempts to force democracy as in Iraq are ill-calculated, but in general democratization is good for America.

That's demonstrable rubbish. Whether a country becoming democratic is good for America depends entirely on where that country is and what it can do to harm or hurt US interests. The mere fact that they become "democratic" is not, in and of itself, an inherent good for America. Or anyone else for that matter - a democracy doesn't mean anything unless there's some sort of tradition of real liberty behind it. If democratic governments sprung up all over the Middle East tomorrow, nothing at all would be different.

Please. "Unproven" to the extent that nobody could be convicted in the court of law (thanks largely to non-extradition and immunity for Duma members), but correct to the extent that the UK was willing to poison their diplomatic relations with the second or third most powerful state in the world.

What a piss-weak argument that is. "The UK was willing to act like a bunch of douchebags, therefore there must be something to the accusations!"

We should assume that the lead suspects in the FSB, who also happen to be the only people with means and motive

That's a fucking outrageous claim.

Oh, so the United Kingdom stopped being a US ally, and we consequently stopped caring about covert assassinations on their national territory? News to me.

Be realistic. Even if your ridiculous argument that the FSB must have been responsible were true - and it's simply not - just what is the death of one shady shitstain by another shady shitstain worth, exactly? A stern rebuke? Sanctions? War?

Russian interruption of natural gas and oil exports to Western Europe via Ukraine, implicitly designed to prevent the EU from undertaking pro-Ukrainian policies which would be of benefit to both the Ukraine and the EU (e.g. everyone who has a legitimate reason to be concerned with it).

Oh thatttt - you mean where Russia stopped selling gas to Ukraine at subsidized prices and Ukraine wouldn't foot the bill, so the supplies stopped - yes, let's dress that up as a sinister message to Western Europe as opposed to Russia deciding it wasn't going to subsidize more or less openly hostile governments.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

But even if we accept your "zomglol national interests" line of argument, it has been proven on previous occasions (the fall of the iron curtain esp. in the Baltics and Poland, Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Georgia's Rose Revolution) that more democratic governments tend to be friendlier and to hew more to US interests than otherwise, so encouraging democracy in the abstract increases US soft power. Overreaching attempts to force democracy as in Iraq are ill-calculated, but in general democratization is good for America.

Erm, I would like to point out that many democracies, such as India, Indonesia, Malaysia etc., may be somewhat "friendly" to the US, but they certainly are keeping the US at arms length, and none of them really like the US lecturing them about freedom, democracy, blah blah blah.

[Axis Kast]

People don't like it when other countries meddle in their fucking affairs.

So why excuse the Russians, as Adrian has done?

Pablo’s argument is founded, in part, on the obvious truth that Putin is an authoritarian leader pursuing a restoration of national power that reorients Central Asian and Eastern European agendas by force of compulsion, usually economic.

Why should the United States stand by and allow Russia to manipulate the Near Abroad?

Oh please. The very fact that you point to Georgia's fake-ass democratic revolution as something that increased US soft-power points out what's wrong with this bullshit. The US got made to look fucking stupid by a regional piece of gnat-shit that ostentatiously tried to make itself an outpost of NATO, and that resulted in thousands of deaths when the dumbfucks in the Bush administration wrote rhetorical cheques noone was willing to cash.

But, on the other hand, it matters very much to the United States and Europe whether or not pipelines running from Central Asia have to go via Russia; strong allies in the region – and especially Georgia, with its terminal on the Black Sea – are no small variable in that calculation.

As for rhetorical checks, it has been well documented that the United States made strong efforts to counsel the Georgians against responding to Russian provocations in S. Ossetia.

That's demonstrable rubbish. Whether a country becoming democratic is good for America depends entirely on where that country is and what it can do to harm or hurt US interests. The mere fact that they become "democratic" is not, in and of itself, an inherent good for America. Or anyone else for that matter - a democracy doesn't mean anything unless there's some sort of tradition of real liberty behind it. If democratic governments sprung up all over the Middle East tomorrow, nothing at all would be different.

It’s obvious that Pablo’s definition of “democracy” went well beyond popularly-elected government to include such important institutions as free exchange of information, benevolent administration by elected officials, and progressive transparency of government institutions. It is generally understood that these developments make it more difficult to instigate conflicts with other democratic regimes, sometimes while increasing antagonism toward undemocratic regimes.

Be realistic. Even if your ridiculous argument that the FSB must have been responsible were true - and it's simply not - just what is the death of one shady shitstain by another shady shitstain worth, exactly? A stern rebuke? Sanctions? War?

Pablo’s argument is that the United States has plenty of good reasons to take a dim view of Russian leadership and ambitions. He isn’t advocating a particular course of action based on the assassinations; instead, he is pointing out that the Russians themselves are responsible for this attitude, not an American spin-machine.

[PainRack]

It’s obvious that Pablo’s definition of “democracy” went well beyond popularly-elected government to include such important institutions as free exchange of information, benevolent administration by elected officials, and progressive transparency of government institutions. It is generally understood that these developments make it more difficult to instigate conflicts with other democratic regimes, sometimes while increasing antagonism toward undemocratic regimes.

Since when did a democracy ensure a benevolent adminstration by elected officials and progressive transparency of government instituions? And even if all this was present, there is no reason to believe that acting in the interests of said country, said adminstration would be friendly to the US or not instigate conflicts with democratic regimes. The dispute between European democracies over fishing rights which has escalated to armed disputes, the dispute between banana trade tariffs between the US and Europe are all examples disproving the "democracies" don't fight each other bullshit. Much less "support" the US. Germany and France are democracies and they don't support the US in every issue"Iraq". Malaysia, India, Phillipines and Indonesia are also democracies and they're outside the sphere of US interest/influence. Indeed, it was under Marcos, a dictatorship that the Phillipines was more closely aligned with the US. Ditto to the current Gloria regime.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So why excuse the Russians, as Adrian has done?

Pablo’s argument is founded, in part, on the obvious truth that Putin is an authoritarian leader pursuing a restoration of national power that reorients Central Asian and Eastern European agendas by force of compulsion, usually economic.

Why should the United States stand by and allow Russia to manipulate the Near Abroad?

You do realise that argument could easily be reversed? Why should say a power like China allow the US to establish bases around its periphery? At the core of this big power politics and everyone around them are nothing more than pawns to be sacrificed on a chess board.

It’s obvious that Pablo’s definition of “democracy” went well beyond popularly-elected government to include such important institutions as free exchange of information, benevolent administration by elected officials, and progressive transparency of government institutions. It is generally understood that these developments make it more difficult to instigate conflicts with other democratic regimes, sometimes while increasing antagonism toward undemocratic regimes.

Yet after 9/11, it took the US populace more than 2 years to realise that they have been taken for a ride, and that they were deliberately fooled. The United States Government cannot be taken as a benchmark for transparency, not by a long shot. So long as racism or nationalism has yet to die, no single democracy is immune from dickery. If you are going to toss in a European nation as an example, I would say that Western Europe as a whole has neither the energy, nor the economy, nor the men, to commit themselves to any of the dickery that US foreign policy is prone to have. Their days of Great Power politics died with WW2.

Pablo’s argument is that the United States has plenty of good reasons to take a dim view of Russian leadership and ambitions. He isn’t advocating a particular course of action based on the assassinations; instead, he is pointing out that the Russians themselves are responsible for this attitude, not an American spin-machine.

And yet Fox News, the no. 1 conservative spin machine, tried to paint the Russians bad, by getting some American Ossetians to come up for an interview, only to have the Ossetians in question singing praises of the Russians, and then told to shut up and get lost.

[Vympel]

Why should the United States stand by and allow Russia to manipulate the Near Abroad?

Because the US has no vital national interest there, and simply trying to obstruct Russia at every single turn in an area where they quite frankly have no business whatsoever (i.e. the Caucasus) doesn't serve their interests elsewhere. The US pissing on its relations with Russia over a piss-ant country like Georgia has to be one of the most absurd foreign policy slights of the 21st century.

[Axis Kast]

Since when did a democracy ensure a benevolent adminstration by elected officials and progressive transparency of government instituions?

It doesn’t. Nobody said that it did.

And even if all this was present, there is no reason to believe that acting in the interests of said country, said adminstration would be friendly to the US or not instigate conflicts with democratic regimes.

Of course.

The dispute between European democracies over fishing rights which has escalated to armed disputes, the dispute between banana trade tariffs between the US and Europe are all examples disproving the "democracies" don't fight each other bullshit.

The idea is that democracies do not make war on other democracies and settle their disputes through negotiation, even after periods of tension and ill feeling. Also, democracies tend to be “open” societies that can easily have dialogue with counterparts elsewhere. Values and attitudes converge. You can say that France and the United States have very different cultures and even value different political outcomes, but they are undeniably closer to one another in their preferences than either is to, say, nominally democratic Indonesia.

In the Near Abroad and Eastern Europe specifically – and this is vital to understanding Pablo’s point – democracy and liberalization have tended to go hand-in-hand with a marked swing toward free market principles considered favorable to American economic penetration, as well as political orientation toward the West as a counterweight to the closer Russian influence.

Much less "support" the US. Germany and France are democracies and they don't support the US in every issue"Iraq".

Nobody said that it did.

Malaysia, India, Phillipines and Indonesia are also democracies and they're outside the sphere of US interest/influence. Indeed, it was under Marcos, a dictatorship that the Phillipines was more closely aligned with the US. Ditto to the current Gloria regime.

The Philippines is quite within the American “sphere of interest;” we have troops deployed there now.

It’s also true that dictatorships and authoritarian regimes can be close American allies. Consider Chile, Iran, apartheid South Africa, to add a few more to your list. But the point is that we tend to prefer democratic allies both because it is easier to do all sorts of business (there are a number of political transactions costs that go away).

[Axis Kast]

You do realise that argument could easily be reversed? Why should say a power like China allow the US to establish bases around its periphery? At the core of this big power politics and everyone around them are nothing more than pawns to be sacrificed on a chess board.

Absolutely.

My arguments are in response to those who defend Russia’s “fear” or “resentment” over Western involvement in the Ukraine and Georgia, thereby writing off entire swaths of Europe and Central Asia as the immaculate domain of Russia. Russia has no more (or less) “right” to dictate terms to its neighbors than anyone else. It is understood that it will do what it can to advance and defend its interests, where it sees opportunity or requirement.

Yet after 9/11, it took the US populace more than 2 years to realise that they have been taken for a ride, and that they were deliberately fooled. The United States Government cannot be taken as a benchmark for transparency, not by a long shot. So long as racism or nationalism has yet to die, no single democracy is immune from dickery. If you are going to toss in a European nation as an example, I would say that Western Europe as a whole has neither the energy, nor the economy, nor the men, to commit themselves to any of the dickery that US foreign policy is prone to have. Their days of Great Power politics died with WW2.

The No True Scotsman fallacy. Telling me that we aren’t anywhere near perfect doesn’t suddenly neutralize the fact that we are a free society with about as good an approximation of the institutions I outlined as now exist in this world.

And yet Fox News, the no. 1 conservative spin machine, tried to paint the Russians bad, by getting some American Ossetians to come up for an interview, only to have the Ossetians in question singing praises of the Russians, and then told to shut up and get lost.

Everyone tried to paint the Russians a bad. A ton of media organizations got egg on their face as a result of misreporting throughout the conflict. Fox News should be taken to task – along with all the others – for using questionable information and, certainly, for brow-beating or cherry-picking interviewees.

That said, this board is especially sympathetic to Russia as a result of the fact that Georgia initiated the opening artillery barrage of the conflict against a population center. It has either distracted, or allowed them to ignore, the fact that Russia has been fanning the flames in this area for quite some time. Moscow was hoping that the Georgians would do exactly this – they prepared for it, and set up the playing board accordingly. Moscow isn’t blameless. In the United States, Russia is fairly understood as a power looking again for its place in the sun, at neighbors’ expense, if necessary. Just as many people here and elsewhere don’t regard that quality of American foreign policy as salutary, the American public sees Russian behaviors in a negative light.

There are fair arguments to be made about playing up a boogeyman, just as there are fair arguments to make that the United States exploited racism during the 1940s when we were fighting the Germans and Japanese. Neither of those arguments should detract from scrutiny of actual Russian behaviors (provocative) or Japanese and German expansionism.

Because the US has no vital national interest there, and simply trying to obstruct Russia at every single turn in an area where they quite frankly have no business whatsoever (i.e. the Caucasus) doesn't serve their interests elsewhere. The US pissing on its relations with Russia over a piss-ant country like Georgia has to be one of the most absurd foreign policy slights of the 21st century.

Who determines who has business where? Does Russia have “business” in Venezuela? Is this your quiet way of suggesting that Moscow recognize the continued validity of the Monroe Doctrine, while we politely bow out of Central Asian oil politics? The United States has plenty of interest in assuring cheap, or at least politically “safe,” pipelines out of the Heart of Asia.

Central Asia has tremendous resources. The United States should not exempt themselves from those; the cost of Russian dissatisfaction is not sufficiently high. There is no war around the corner – for anyone. Even the much-touted oil weapon is less bite than usually accepted. Russia can cut off European oil – and then swallow the cost, since it doesn’t have alternative pipelines to bring those resources over in the other direction, to a Chinese buyer.

I agree that sounds about NATO and Georgia were premature when Georgia turned out to be governed by a leader who ignores key principles of rational decision-making. I disagree that Georgia was unimportant, or that we should skirt so wide of Russian toes that we don’t step on them where Georgia is concerned.

[Shroom Man 777]

Just remember that the 1990s had Russia in a piss-weak pathetic state, and only now are they getting their balls back. If we're talking about international dickery, Russia is reacting to the dickeries inflicted by America when Russia was incapable of doing anything. If we're talking about dictating (or dicktating) the affairs of other people, we can clearly see that America has been doing more of that these last two decades than Russia.

Accusations of Russian provocation or behaviors can be applied to America, and the Americans did it first (at least, in this latest round of Russia versus America 1990s-2000s) - and that's why the board is "sympathetic" to the Russian side.

[AniThyng]

But even if we accept your "zomglol national interests" line of argument, it has been proven on previous occasions (the fall of the iron curtain esp. in the Baltics and Poland, Ukraine's Orange Revolution, Georgia's Rose Revolution) that more democratic governments tend to be friendlier and to hew more to US interests than otherwise, so encouraging democracy in the abstract increases US soft power. Overreaching attempts to force democracy as in Iraq are ill-calculated, but in general democratization is good for America.

Erm, I would like to point out that many democracies, such as India, Indonesia, Malaysia etc., may be somewhat "friendly" to the US, but they certainly are keeping the US at arms length, and none of them really like the US lecturing them about freedom, democracy, blah blah blah.

To put it bluntly, if the US wishes to "encourage" democracy in Malaysia, it's best that they just shut the fuck up, because the last thing any opposition figure needs is to be seen as a US pawn. If we, the people want to see our government changed, we sure as hell don't want to see it replaced by one that owes America big time <political> favors.

[Axis Kast]

Just remember that the 1990s had Russia in a piss-weak pathetic state, and only now are they getting their balls back. If we're talking about international dickery, Russia is reacting to the dickeries inflicted by America when Russia was incapable of doing anything.

"Dickeries" like what?

Expanding NATO to include Eastern Europe? Becoming involved in pipeline politics in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, and Georgia? Trying to address the problems in Bosnia and Kosovo?

Some of these could be described as obviously contrary to Russian interests. Drawing on the Russian historical experience, one can even forgive their fears of NATO encirclement. But, really, what this does is to deny them some of the chance to call the shots "next door." If that's the God-given right you're defending, you should rethink whether or not you can stand on even one leg when you write citations over American "dickeries."

If we're talking about dictating (or dicktating) the affairs of other people, we can clearly see that America has been doing more of that these last two decades than Russia.

No doubt. And yet we are not comparing moral balance sheets; we are asking why Adrian thinks the United States and Russia don't have perfectly legitimate reasons for tension, and why the United States should keep "out" of Central Asia. So far, all I get is the implicit, "That's Russia's old stomping ground" argument.

Accusations of Russian provocation or behaviors can be applied to America, and the Americans did it first (at least, in this latest round of Russia versus America 1990s-2000s) - and that's why the board is "sympathetic" to the Russian side.

I think it has to do partly with the mechanism you identified. A lot of folk are sick and tired of what they believe is the American ultimatum to the world, issued by the Bush Administration after 9/11: "Tow our line." They privately smirk at the Pandora's Box they judge that this unleashed in terms of setting "moral" precedent for other nations, like Russia, to go and make revisions they see as being useful.

[PainRack]

It doesn’t. Nobody said that it did.

Then using that as a definition for democracy is stupid, quiaff?

The idea is that democracies do not make war on other democracies and settle their disputes through negotiation, even after periods of tension and ill feeling.

There was an ARMED dispute resulting from fisheries dispute. Just because said countries had highly professional militaries and a populace/leadership that recognise the cost of war mean that democracies would "tend" not to war with each other.
Furthermore, we have been using a highly restricted definition of democracy, one which applies to Western governments. One could equally argue that it was the close cultural, philosophical and political links between such governments that has prevented armed conflict between democracies.

Also, democracies tend to be “open” societies that can easily have dialogue with counterparts elsewhere. Values and attitudes converge. You can say that France and the United States have very different cultures and even value different political outcomes, but they are undeniably closer to one another in their preferences than either is to, say, nominally democratic Indonesia.

And how does such open values prevent armed conflict between Spain and Portugal? Or the fact that Northern Europe has the same culture and values, and still end up in disputes that resulted in patrol ships patrolling fisheries? The use of armed force to enforce territorial rights?

In the Near Abroad and Eastern Europe specifically – and this is vital to understanding Pablo’s point – democracy and liberalization have tended to go hand-in-hand with a marked swing toward free market principles considered favorable to American economic penetration, as well as political orientation toward the West as a counterweight to the closer Russian influence.

And there is no reason to believe that such liberalisation would actually lead to them being supporters of the US. May I remind you of the case of India and Britain decolonisation?
The British trained Nehru was certainly not friendly to British interests.

Nobody said that it did.

that more democratic governments tend to be friendlier and to hew more to US interests than otherwise, so encouraging democracy in the abstract increases US soft power
That was what Pablo said.... and is why everyone now is rushing into the discussion.

The Philippines is quite within the American “sphere of interest;” we have troops deployed there now.

Yes. NOW, post 9/11. Or more specifically, post MARCOs, the dictator. The previous democractic president actually began restricting the USN presence in Phillipines and Subic Bay, albeit part of the Vietnam era policy. Post Marcos, the continued presence of the USN in Subic Bay was problematic, thus leading to the US seeking increased presence in Singapore and Malaysia.
As for the current adminstration, you do know that Gloria Arroyo would not be considered a fully democratic president by your definition as she got elected under questionable premises? And that she's actually facing determined resistance from the populace to step down and is being accused of a tyrant by the "People Press"..... People Power run wild.

It’s also true that dictatorships and authoritarian regimes can be close American allies. Consider Chile, Iran, apartheid South Africa, to add a few more to your list. But the point is that we tend to prefer democratic allies both because it is easier to do all sorts of business (there are a number of political transactions costs that go away).

That's creating a red herring. No one is saying that dictatorships can't be close American allies. Its the assumption that democracies would be US allies by default.
The US as Light of the Free World is no longer a monniker that applies.

[Pablo Sanchez]

This notion that the US can save lives in other countries with its hectoring and more often than not blatantly hypocritical posturing (never mind its more serious meddling) is a fucking fantasy,

Because the only way to encourage the development of democracy is by the feckless methods of the Bush administration, right?

and ridiculously presumptuous. People don't like it when other countries meddle in their fucking affairs.

It's true that some people are going to be displeased by US meddling. On the other hand it's morally and intellectually bankrupt to suggest that the USA should treat authoritarian gits like Robert Mugabe and Vladimir Putin exactly the same as Gordon Brown and Nick Sarkozy.

Oh please. The very fact that you point to Georgia's fake-ass democratic revolution as something that increased US soft-power points out what's wrong with this bullshit. The US got made to look fucking stupid by a regional piece of gnat-shit that ostentatiously tried to make itself an outpost of NATO, and that resulted in thousands of deaths when the dumbfucks in the Bush administration wrote rhetorical cheques noone was willing to cash.

More false dilemma bullshit. Because the Bush administration failed, we have to assume that the entire foreign policy initiative of encouraging democracy must fail, even if it were conducted by an intelligent administration? Hey, the Bush administration failed in Katrina, that must mean the entire science of levee construction is inherently flawed!

The only thing that came out of the "Rose Revolution" was a fucking humiliation and worsening relations with Russia - and for who? Saaksahvili? Wow, what a great trade off that was!

As I criticized before, the Bush/McCain plan was indeed stupid. An administration prepared to deal realistically and fairly with Russia might have set stricter boundaries with Saakashvili viz. Russia, instead of unilaterally puffing him up and telling him he was going to get into NATO and thereby encouraging him to do something incredibly stupid. Had Georgia been handled as a potential in to the oil-producing Caucasus, instead of as an opportunity to piss off Russia to absolutely no result, a lot of people would still be alive and the USA would be in a better position.

And fucking Ukraine? Didn't you hear? The "Orange Revolution" is dead. Those shitstains who took over aren't bringing Ukraine to some glorious Western renaissance. They're using NATO membership to try and subjugate the significant portion of their population who want no part of them or their politics.

Did I argue that either revolution was 100% sweetness and light and every aspect of them fulfilled America's wildest dreams? Obviously not. I used Ukraine of an example of a emerging democratic state increasing US soft power in a region. Since I guess you didn't even try to dispute it in this case, and instead branched off into a tangent about the poor oppressed Crimeans and people on the right bank of the Dnieper, you're conceding that.

I'd also argue that, whereas Ukraine's move west might have something to do with trying to pull the rug out from under the easterners, it might also have something to do with the economic development that Europe could bring, and the promise of security from Russia (forced association with whom, let us not forget, got a few million Ukrainians killed in the 1920s). Might it also be that the apparent strength of the pro-Russian bloc (still an overall minority, of course) is somewhat due to the kind of malign interference in other nation's affairs which you decry, only this time on the part of Russia?

If democratic governments sprung up all over the Middle East tomorrow, nothing at all would be different.

Actually some states like Saudi Arabia would become more hostile to the USA overnight as democracies. Which is why, as I said above, it is important to use restraint and move intelligently in diplomacy rather than posturing and pursuing fixed courses in defiance of facts. But on balance democratic states tend to have positive relationships with the USA.

What a piss-weak argument that is. "The UK was willing to act like a bunch of douchebags, therefore there must be something to the accusations!"

So it's important to give Vladimir Putin the benefit of the doubt but deny it to the British government. Because obviously the more trustworthy of the two is Putin.

You know, people in this thread are talking about Russophobia, and maybe that is a problem, but it's definitely not your problem.

That's a fucking outrageous claim.

But don't bother running it down or anything.

Okay, perhaps not the FSB specifically, but who else but the Russians had a reason to kill Litvinov, and could obtain and employ polonium to poison him?

Be realistic.

How's this for realistic: even if you're right and Litvinov was killed by martians, the UK thinks it was Russians, and the USA probably ought to trust and support it's oldest and best ally against a rival that we have no reason, no reason at all, to trust.

Even if your ridiculous argument that the FSB must have been responsible were true - and it's simply not - just what is the death of one shady shitstain by another shady shitstain worth, exactly? A stern rebuke? Sanctions? War?

The issue isn't who was killed, the issue is sending a covert agent onto British territory to murder a dissident. Hard as it may be to believe, this is kind of a big deal. And thank you for putting words in my mouth by suggesting that I think it necessitates direct action, I never said that. I listed it as one of several reasons, patterns of behavior, that the United States wouldn't be pals with Russia.

Oh thatttt - you mean where Russia stopped selling gas to Ukraine at subsidized prices and Ukraine wouldn't foot the bill, so the supplies stopped - yes, let's dress that up as a sinister message to Western Europe as opposed to Russia deciding it wasn't going to subsidize more or less openly hostile governments.

It's funny how Russia abruptly voided binding prior agreements about the gas prices and demanded an increase of several hundred percent, shortly after Ukraine gave their rent-boy the boot and began cosying to the West, then only actually reduced pressure in the pipeline just a few days after European states attempted to use their influence to urge a reasonable settlement. And that even though Russia's energy treaty obligations with the EU would have (and indeed in practice did) dictate that they would have to turn it back on after only a couple of days, meaning that the move would basically just produce a temporary energy shock in Europe. Oh my, it's almost as if they intended to do those things as a kind of threat and punishment. But they would never do that, because they're such nice boys.

[Ender]

deleted, wrong button

[Axis Kast]

Then using that as a definition for democracy is stupid, quiaff?

We were talking about democracy as the mechanism that tends to go hand-in-hand with reorientation toward the United States, and away from Russia, not about how we define democracy on every occasion.

There was an ARMED dispute resulting from fisheries dispute. Just because said countries had highly professional militaries and a populace/leadership that recognise the cost of war mean that democracies would "tend" not to war with each other.

An “armed” fisheries dispute is not anything close to a war. You are inflating a single situation in which the threat of armed forces was a useful tool, partly because the conflict was over resources at sea, into a general rejection of one of the cornerstones of modern political science: democracies do not make war on one another.

Furthermore, we have been using a highly restricted definition of democracy, one which applies to Western governments. One could equally argue that it was the close cultural, philosophical and political links between such governments that has prevented armed conflict between democracies.

One perhaps could, although I sense that the First World War would present something of a problem to a happy theory.

And how does such open values prevent armed conflict between Spain and Portugal? Or the fact that Northern Europe has the same culture and values, and still end up in disputes that resulted in patrol ships patrolling fisheries? The use of armed force to enforce territorial rights?

You are describing moments of tension, or the disputes that all states have with neighbors, then giving them the presumptive importance of shooting wars.

And there is no reason to believe that such liberalisation would actually lead to them being supporters of the US. May I remind you of the case of India and Britain decolonisation?
The British trained Nehru was certainly not friendly to British interests.

Actually, there can be. It’s dependent upon context and, in the manner that Pablo used the example, completely valid.

In Eastern Europe, democratization freed governments to begin strategic reorientation that eventually brought many countries into NATO. I’ve acknowledged that certain preconditions do need to apply before we can expect democracy to either smooth relations with the United States considerably, or lead to a commonality of big-ticket interests. I have not said that it happens across the board.

that more democratic governments tend to be friendlier and to hew more to US interests than otherwise, so encouraging democracy in the abstract increases US soft power
That was what Pablo said.... and is why everyone now is rushing into the discussion.

He said that they tend to be friendlier, and tend to allign more closely to U.S. interests. Your reply was that they didn’t join us as we invaded Iraq. You didn’t meet his point with a rejection; you cited an example of dissonance in foreign policy outlooks and national priorities. The powerful counterexamples are, of course, post-war Western Europe (after 1945) and post-Cold War Eastern Europe.

Yes. NOW, post 9/11. Or more specifically, post MARCOs, the dictator. The previous democractic president actually began restricting the USN presence in Phillipines and Subic Bay, albeit part of the Vietnam era policy. Post Marcos, the continued presence of the USN in Subic Bay was problematic, thus leading to the US seeking increased presence in Singapore and Malaysia.
As for the current adminstration, you do know that Gloria Arroyo would not be considered a fully democratic president by your definition as she got elected under questionable premises? And that she's actually facing determined resistance from the populace to step down and is being accused of a tyrant by the "People Press"..... People Power run wild.

What’s your point? You indicated that the Phillippines wasn’t important, today. I pointed out that it was.

That's creating a red herring. No one is saying that dictatorships can't be close American allies. Its the assumption that democracies would be US allies by default.
The US as Light of the Free World is no longer a monniker that applies.

He said that many of them would be closer to us, by default. That tends to be true. The typical mechanisms are transparency (which would reduce our fears about their intentions) and access to the same flow of information, as already stated.

Let’s consider a number of examples. If democracy were stronger in Iran? The U.S. benefits. In Zimbabwe? The U.S. benefits. In Venezuela? The U.S. benefits.

Yes, there are countries in the world where democratization wouldn’t benefit the U.S. right now. In the Middle East, which, I think, Pablo admitted. In Pakistan, especially, because of the sense that we forgave Musharrif too many of his transgressions against his own people. But, even when that kind of thing happens, we are able, usually, to find common ground with a country. Examine South Africa, post-1994. It’s true that they haven’t often made political statements with which we agree, but the United States and South Africa have a healthy economic relationship.

[Vympel]

Because the only way to encourage the development of democracy is by the feckless methods of the Bush administration, right?

Multiple US administrations have been doing exactly that for decades.

It's true that some people are going to be displeased by US meddling. On the other hand it's morally and intellectually bankrupt to suggest that the USA should treat authoritarian gits like Robert Mugabe and Vladimir Putin exactly the same as Gordon Brown and Nick Sarkozy.

There's nothing morally bankrupt about it, unless you can show there are concrete moral outcomes in treating a country like a pariah simply because you don't like their system of government.

More false dilemma bullshit. Because the Bush administration failed, we have to assume that the entire foreign policy initiative of encouraging democracy must fail, even if it were conducted by an intelligent administration? Hey, the Bush administration failed in Katrina, that must mean the entire science of levee construction is inherently flawed!

Shifting the goal posts. I never said democracy encouragement must fail, I said that actions have consequences, and they often are worse for the country doing the encouragement (and others) than otherwise.

As I criticized before, the Bush/McCain plan was indeed stupid. An administration prepared to deal realistically and fairly with Russia might have set stricter boundaries with Saakashvili viz. Russia, instead of unilaterally puffing him up and telling him he was going to get into NATO and thereby encouraging him to do something incredibly stupid. Had Georgia been handled as a potential in to the oil-producing Caucasus, instead of as an opportunity to piss off Russia to absolutely no result, a lot of people would still be alive and the USA would be in a better position.

Agreed.

Did I argue that either revolution was 100% sweetness and light and every aspect of them fulfilled America's wildest dreams? Obviously not. I used Ukraine of an example of a emerging democratic state increasing US soft power in a region. Since I guess you didn't even try to dispute it in this case, and instead branched off into a tangent about the poor oppressed Crimeans and people on the right bank of the Dnieper, you're conceding that.

How could I possibly be conceding that? By pissing off Russia in relation to Ukraine, US ability to influence events in Iran and elsewhere necessarily weakens - again - actions have consequences.

I'd also argue that, whereas Ukraine's move west might have something to do with trying to pull the rug out from under the easterners, it might also have something to do with the economic development that Europe could bring, and the promise of security from Russia (forced association with whom, let us not forget, got a few million Ukrainians killed in the 1920s). Might it also be that the apparent strength of the pro-Russian bloc (still an overall minority, of course) is somewhat due to the kind of malign interference in other nation's affairs which you decry, only this time on the part of Russia?

How does that follow? The fact that the Russian-speaking East is pro-Russian is Russia's malign and malicious fault as opposed to simply the natural outcome of the breakup of the USSR?

Actually some states like Saudi Arabia would become more hostile to the USA overnight as democracies. Which is why, as I said above, it is important to use restraint and move intelligently in diplomacy rather than posturing and pursuing fixed courses in defiance of facts. But on balance democratic states tend to have positive relationships with the USA.

So then in part you agree with me that promoting democracy as an end in and of itself isn't always a good idea, and instead advocate that it should be selectively applied having regard to US interests?

So it's important to give Vladimir Putin the benefit of the doubt but deny it to the British government. Because obviously the more trustworthy of the two is Putin.

Iraq can launch a strike against the West with its weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes, didn't you know?

But don't bother running it down or anything.

Because it's prima facie absurd. You clearly don't know anything about this guy or his ties.

Okay, perhaps not the FSB specifically, but who else but the Russians had a reason to kill Litvinov, and could obtain and employ polonium to poison him?

Who says the Russians had a reason to kill Litvinenko? He was in the UK for six years and revealed very little that was remotely embarassing to the Russian government, and yet all of a sudden they decided to kill him in a manner that was almost cartoonish and fraught with bad press, when they could've just had him pushed off a building? Britain's substantiation of its accusations against Lugovoi was called" embarassingly thin" by even Western media - there are many theories about the killing.

New York Sun

How's this for realistic: even if you're right and Litvinov was killed by martians

More prejudicial framing. You can't even spell the guy's name, you clearly don't know anything about his background or his ties, but you're positive that the only explanation for this guy's bizare death is that the Russian securitiy services decided to radiate him.

the UK thinks it was Russians, and the USA probably ought to trust and support it's oldest and best ally against a rival that we have no reason, no reason at all, to trust.

Ah k, so damn the facts and evidence, just close ranks and act like a fool with your ally.

The issue isn't who was killed, the issue is sending a covert agent onto British territory to murder a dissident. Hard as it may be to believe, this is kind of a big deal. And thank you for putting words in my mouth by suggesting that I think it necessitates direct action, I never said that. I listed it as one of several reasons, patterns of behavior, that the United States wouldn't be pals with Russia.

Yes, let's all torpedo nuclear proliferation initiatives (including in Iran) for which the US needs Russian support because some morons in the UK think that the Russians killed some exile.

It's funny how Russia abruptly voided binding prior agreements about the gas prices and demanded an increase of several hundred percent, shortly after Ukraine gave their rent-boy the boot and began cosying to the West, then only actually reduced pressure in the pipeline just a few days after European states attempted to use their influence to urge a reasonable settlement. And that even though Russia's energy treaty obligations with the EU would have (and indeed in practice did) dictate that they would have to turn it back on after only a couple of days, meaning that the move would basically just produce a temporary energy shock in Europe. Oh my, it's almost as if they intended to do those things as a kind of threat and punishment. But they would never do that, because they're such nice boys.

How is any of that an answer to what I said?

[K. A. Pital]

Oh my, my. Sanchez, drop that. When you call Litvinenko "Litvinov" and compare Putin with Mugabe, there's no way you can go any further in stupid assertions.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Multiple US administrations have been doing exactly that for decades.

Some of which efforts, like inculcating ties with new Eastern European democracies after the fall of the Soviet bloc, turned out to be rather successful.

There's nothing morally bankrupt about it, unless you can show there are concrete moral outcomes in treating a country like a pariah simply because you don't like their system of government.

Christ, more of this. I didn't say that Russia should be treated like a pariah. Are you so sensitive to Russophobia that you read it everywhere? Adrian Laguna asserted that Russia and the USA would be a lot closer if not for American Russophobia, I pointed out that this isn't a logical assumption. Even under ideal conditions the USA would keep Russia firmly at arms length. The time for the two nations to be close was the 1990s, when their new society was still inchoate and there was a possibility to positively influence them.

Shifting the goal posts. I never said democracy encouragement must fail, I said that actions have consequences, and they often are worse for the country doing the encouragement (and others) than otherwise.

Okay.

How could I possibly be conceding that? By pissing off Russia in relation to Ukraine, US ability to influence events in Iran and elsewhere necessarily weakens - again - actions have consequences.

It's an issue of balancing priorities, sure. Again, the Bush/McCain foreign policy is one of "we get what we want everywhere we want it."

How does that follow? The fact that the Russian-speaking East is pro-Russian is Russia's malign and malicious fault as opposed to simply the natural outcome of the breakup of the USSR?

The Eastern stronghold of pro-Russian sentiment is "Russian-speaking" only to the extent that a handful of the Oblasts have a majority of Russian speakers; others merely have large Russian minorities. The pro-Russian party has something like 35% of seats in the Rada, but only 18% of the population is of Russian extraction, so it isn't simply an issue of mixed ethnicity due to Soviet border-setting. Active Russian support for Yanukovych and his party isn't the only reason for it's popularity, but it would be an exacerbating factor.

So then in part you agree with me that promoting democracy as an end in and of itself isn't always a good idea, and instead advocate that it should be selectively applied?

Yes. I think we're running over dead ground, perhaps because what I wrote came off as more forcefully anti-Russian than I meant it. I was just criticizing Adrian Laguna's assertion that the problem was almost entirely with the US, and we would otherwise be "close." I don't think that Russian and the USA should be enemies by any means, but I do think that Russian politics and policies make them a rival. Obviously we should stop fucking them about, but they still aren't going to be our friends.

As for the Litvinenko (my bad, I'm poor with foreign names) case, you're right that I don't know that much about it, hence my inclination to believe the Brits. The case is complex and not up my alley, so I don't think I'm equipped to argue it with you. At the same time I have to say that I'm not inclined to fully trust the veracity of the NY Sun article, because of the heavy editorializing and the fact that Epstein's primary source for the article was the Russian prosecutor's office in charge of the case. He apparently accepted as given that the evidence they showed him represented the sum total of British evidence in the case, which doesn't follow.

How is any of that an answer to what I said?

I said that Russia used energy export policy to try to threaten US allies in Europe into complaisance with its policies, you implied that it was completely Ukraine's fault for non-payment of the money, I pointed out specifics of the event that belied your interpretation and indicated bad faith on the Russian part.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Absolutely.

My arguments are in response to those who defend Russia’s “fear” or “resentment” over Western involvement in the Ukraine and Georgia, thereby writing off entire swaths of Europe and Central Asia as the immaculate domain of Russia. Russia has no more (or less) “right” to dictate terms to its neighbors than anyone else. It is understood that it will do what it can to advance and defend its interests, where it sees opportunity or requirement.

Quit shifting goalposts. Why should Russia allow a hostile power into its own domain? The word "right" can not only be tossed at Russia but at the United States. Quit your usual biased high horse posturing. Are you forgetting the Monroe Doctrine with the United States still follows to a great extent?

The No True Scotsman fallacy. Telling me that we aren’t anywhere near perfect doesn’t suddenly neutralize the fact that we are a free society with about as good an approximation of the institutions I outlined as now exist in this world.

The point was that no fuckign democracy is immune to dickery, and no so-called free society can possibly be immune to the same nonsense pervading "authoritarian nations". For all the so-called free society you espouse, the US elite has wantonly exploited the poor, misled the masses etc. and even abetted with "undemocratic regimes" to achieve policy goals. And which other "progressive" democratic regime has any strength for war other than the United States?

Everyone tried to paint the Russians a bad. A ton of media organizations got egg on their face as a result of misreporting throughout the conflict. Fox News should be taken to task – along with all the others – for using questionable information and, certainly, for brow-beating or cherry-picking interviewees.

And yet none of these media organisations so much as apologised for their bad reporting, and none of them even bothered to correct themselves. Quite frankly, saying the Russians are wholely responsible for the prejudice they get from the rest of the world is bloody dishonest.

[PainRack]

We were talking about democracy as the mechanism that tends to go hand-in-hand with reorientation toward the United States, and away from Russia, not about how we define democracy on every occasion.

And I would like to repeat, since when did democracies ensure the election of benevolent adminstrators, who would thereotically thus be immune to the pressures of war, conflict and general dickery?
And given that leaders are humans and thus conditional to above said pressures of conflict and being a dick, who is to say they won't oppose　ＵＳ　ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｓ　based　ｏｎ　ｔｈｅｉｒ　ｏｗｎ　ｄｅｆｉｎｉｔｉｏｎ　ｏｆ　ｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ　ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｓ？

An “armed” fisheries dispute is not anything close to a war. You are inflating a single situation in which the threat of armed forces was a useful tool, partly because the conflict was over resources at sea, into a general rejection of one of the cornerstones of modern political science: democracies do not make war on one another.

Ａｎｄ　ｏｆ　ｃｏｕｒｓｅ，　ｔｈｅ　ｕｓｅ　ｏｆ　ｇｕｎｂｏａｔ　ｐｏｌｉｃｉｅｓ　does not carry the potential of escalation to a war or armed conflict..............

The very fact that diplomatic/economic disputes between democracies has led to the use of armed forces to maintain the status quo is damming of the argument that democracies would be inclined to negotiate and talk things over always with each other.

We can easily point to actual historical examples of democracies fighting each other. War of 1812 anyone? You of course would just weasel out of that by claiming that Britain wasn't a "true" democracy. But then again, which country is?

One perhaps could, although I sense that the First World War would present something of a problem to a happy theory.

Which proves the fallacy of seeking absolute, or even "trends" in politics. Actual interests and conflicts from national interests can easily lead to armed conflict, or as a certain　Ｇｅｒｍａｎ　ｓａｙｓ，　ｗａｒ　ｉｓ　ｓｉｍｐｌｙ　ｃｏｎｔｉｎｕａｔｉｏｎ　ｏｆ　ｐｏｌｉｔｉｃｓ　ｂｙ　ｏｔｈｅｒ　ｍｅａｎｓ．

Actually, there can be. It’s dependent upon context and, in the manner that Pablo used the example, completely valid.

Ａｎｄ　ｉｔｓ　ｎｏｔ　ｔｈｅ　ｅｎｄ　ａｌｌ　ｏｒ　ｂｅ　ａｌｌ　ｏｆ　ｄｅｍｏｃｒａｃｉｅｓ．　Ａｎｄ　ｅｖｅｎ　ｉｎ　ｔｈｅ　ｃｏｎｔｅｘｔ　ｏｆ　Ｅａｓｔｅｒｎ　Ｅｕｒｏｐｅ，　ｌｉｂｅｒａｌｉｓａｔｉｏｎ　ｏｆ　ｄｅｍｏｃｒａｃｉｅｓ　ｉｓ　ｏｎｌｙ　＂ｕｓｅｆｕｌ＂　ｉｎｓｏｆａｒ　ａｓ　ｎｅｗｌｙ　ｄｅｍｏｃｒａｔｉｃ　ｇｏｖｅｒｎｍｅｎｔｓ　ｏｆｔｅｎ　ｓｅｅｋ　ｓｕｐｐｏｒｔ　ａｇａｉｎｓｔ　ｔｈｅｉｒ　ｏｐｐｏｎｅｎｔｓ　ａｎｄ　ｔｈｕｓ　ｓｅｅｋ　ｏｕｔ　ｔｈｅ　Ｗｅｓｔ．
Ｔｏ　ｐｕｔ　ｉｔ　ｓｉｍｐｌｙ，　ｓｉｍｐｌｙ　ｅｎｃｏｕｒａｇｉｎｇ　ｄｅｍｏｃｒａｃｉｅｓ　ｔｏ　ｅｍｅｒｇｅ　ｄｏｅｓ　ｎｏｔ　ｉｎｃｒｅａｓｅ US soft power by default. It is the entire context, the entire picture which does.

He said that they tend to be friendlier, and tend to allign more closely to U.S. interests. Your reply was that they didn’t join us as we invaded Iraq. You didn’t meet his point with a rejection; you cited an example of dissonance in foreign policy outlooks and national priorities. The powerful counterexamples are, of course, post-war Western Europe (after 1945) and post-Cold War Eastern Europe.

No. I showed that they aren't neccessarily friendlier. India and Malaysia are prime examples of this, creating the Non Aligned Movement led by India during the　Ｃｏｌｄ War. India was also more closely aligned to　Ｓｏｖｉｅｔ　ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｓ　ｐｏｓｔ　ｉｎｄｅｐｅｎｄｅｎｃｅ，　ｄｅｓｐｉｔｅ　ｔｈｅｍ　ｂｅｉｎｇ　ａ　ｄｅｍｏｃｒａｃｙ．　Ｍａｌａｙｓｉａ　ｉｓ　ａｌｓｏ　ｎｏｔ　ａｌｉｇｎｅｄ　ｃｌｏｓｅｌｙ　ｔｏ　ＵＳ　ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｓ．　Ｓｉｍｉｌａｒｌｙ，　Ｓｏｕｔｈ　Ｋｏｒｅａ　ｌｉｂｅｒａｌｉｓａｔｉｏｎ　ａｎｄ　ａｄｏｐｔｉｏｎ　ｏｆ　ｄｅｍｏｃｒａｔｉｃ　ｐｒａｃｔｉｃｅｓ　ｈａｖｅ　ｃｏｎｃｉｄｅｄ　ｗｉｔｈ　ａ　ｇｒｅａｔｅｒ　ｓｗｉｎｇ　ａｗａｙ　ｆｒｏｍ　ＵＳ　ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｓ　ｖｉｓ　ａ　ｖｉｓ　Ｎｏｒｔｈ　Ｋｏｒｅａ．　Ｔｈｉｓ　ｉｓ　ｃｌｅａｒｌｙ　ｐｒｏｏｆ　ｔｈａｔ　ｉｔ　ｉｓ　ｔｈｅ　ｎａｔｉｏｎａｌ　ｉｎｔｅｒｅｓｔｓ，　ｐｏｐｕｌａｔｉｏｎ／ｌｅａｄｅｒ　ｗｉｌｌ　ｔｈａｔ　ｈａｓ　ｍｏｒｅ　ｉｎｆｌｕｅｎｃｅ　ｏｎ　ｗｈｅｔｈｅｒ　ｔｈｅ　ｃｏｕｎｔｒｙ　ｉｓ　ａｌｉｇｎｅｄ　ｏｒ　ｆｒｉｅｎｄｌｙ　ｗｉｔｈ　ｔｈｅ　ＵＳ．

What’s your point? You indicated that the Phillippines wasn’t important, today. I pointed out that it was.

Ｂｕｌｌｓｈｉｔｔｅｒ．　Ｉ　ｐｏｉｎｔｅｄ　ｏｕｔ　ｔｈａｔ　Ｐｈｉｌｌｉｐｉｎｅｓ　ａｓ　ａ　ｄｅｍｏｃｒａｃｙ　ｈａｄ　ＮＯＴ　ｂｅｅｎ　ａｌｉｇｎｅｄ　ｗｉｔｈ US interests, mainly, the USN　ｄｅｓｉｒｅ　ｆｏｒ　ｎａｖａｌ　ｂａｓｅｓ　ｉｎ　Ｓｕｂｉｃ　Ｂａｙ．　Ｓｉｍｉｌａｒｌｙ，　ｓｈｅ　also pursued her own interest in trade balance between the two, with Phillipines wishing to continue the previous trade status quo from the era where she was a colony.

He said that many of them would be closer to us, by default. That tends to be true. The typical mechanisms are transparency (which would reduce our fears about their intentions) and access to the same flow of information, as already stated.

By WHAT default? The fact that western democracies desired US power to resist soviet influence no longer applies in the post Cold war era. In such an era, US interests may very well be more damaging, and even in the past, US interests have come into conflict with other democracies national interests and thus caused a shift away from the US, namely India and Malaysia.
You're simply ignoring the context that US and Western democracies interests were aligned, and the significant cultural/political/economic links this created. Similarly, the fact that as nations liberalise, the US is no longer seen as the land of freedom and oppurtinity as such freedom is now available in their own countries, weakening US soft power further.

Let’s consider a number of examples. If democracy were stronger in Iran? The U.S. benefits.

lolbat! You do know that the average Iranian populace is actually PROUD of their potential nuclear status? That if they had their way, they would actually want Iran to become a nuclear power? How would this benefit the US again?

In Venezuela? The U.S. benefits.

Right. The new Venezuelan government is simply going to cave into US economic interests simply because its a democracy........... I can see that happening if the democratic government requires US support to stay in power, but otherwise, bullshit.

[Adrian Laguna]

Adrian Laguna asserted that Russia and the USA would be a lot closer if not for American Russophobia, I pointed out that this isn't a logical assumption. Even under ideal conditions the USA would keep Russia firmly at arms length. The time for the two nations to be close was the 1990s, when their new society was still inchoate and there was a possibility to positively influence them.

American Russo-phobia in the '90s lead the Russia being kicked when they were down rather than helped join the greater community of nations, compromising America's interests in the long term. Certainly short-sightedness contributed, it did benefit the United States in the short term, but when you compare the way post-Cold War Russia was treated with how post-WW2 Germany was treated, one can't help but suspect Russio-phobia played a hand.

Also, you are strawmaning my argument. I said the major factors were Russo-phobia and the US's policy of exporting democracy. Furthermore, "a lot closer" doesn't mean best friends forever, just friendly relations (however, see below).

I don't think that Russian and the USA should be enemies by any means, but I do think that Russian politics and policies make them a rival. Obviously we should stop fucking them about, but they still aren't going to be our friends.

Stuart has said that America and Russia make for natural allies, but I don't know how he arrived at that conclusion, and I am unable to arrive at that same conclusion independently with the information I have at hand. I can see that both nations have an interest in keeping South-West and Central Asia stable, but that's ground for only cordial relations. Intellectual integrity thus requires me to concede that implying friendship was overstating my case, but I continue to hold that self-defeating American policy/attitudes are a major cause of friction between the two States.