« Assorted | Main | Poorly designed objects »
Time inconsistent agreements
Matt Yglesias proposes an exchange:
There's an obvious deal to be cut here -- NATO membership for the Baltics is a done deal, but we can return Russia's "near abroad" to Russia in exchange for Russian cooperation on Iran and North Korea, or else we can have a series of standoffs across a wide Eurasian arc. Some would call this appeasement and, frankly, the shoe fits decently. It strikes me, however, as preferable to either going to war with Iran or to having Iran build a nuclear bomb.
I might add that Natasha still thinks I promised to take out the trash every evening.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on November 29, 2006 at 05:12 AM in Current Affairs | Permalink
Comments
Hmm I don't think this is really the US's deal to make. The eastern european countries are trying to get into the EU, which almost certainly means movement away from Russia. I don't see how the US can convince the EU and aspiring countries that a nuclear armed Iran is worse than a Russian dominated eastern europe.
Posted by: Factory at Nov 29, 2006 6:31:16 AM
How in the world could the trade happen? What is Russia really going to do about Iran that is going to stop Iran from getting the bomb?
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at Nov 29, 2006 11:20:07 AM
The eastern european countries are trying to get into the EU, which almost certainly means movement away from Russia. I don't see how the US can convince the EU and aspiring countries that a nuclear armed Iran is worse than a Russian dominated eastern europe.
He is, I believe, referring the former Soviet republics in Asia such as the -stans and Georgia.
Posted by: John Thacker at Nov 29, 2006 12:26:58 PM
I would have to agree with Yglesias regarding a deal with Russia. We’re fighting a war, excuse me, rebuilding a splintered Iraq with no exit strategy, worried about nuclear threats from both Iran and North Korea, which both are capable and evil enough to attack us, as well as stationing our troops at all of our other military bases around the world. What we don’t need is to worry about a hostile Russia. Russia is better equipped, better trained, and much larger than the Iraqi insurgents. We would be adding another nuclear foe to our country, one we truly don’t need. If they will aid our efforts against Iran and North Korea, let them keep the Ukraine and Georgia and any of the other Russian federations that they want. As Yglesias pointed out, Iran and North Korea are much larger threats than the Ukraine.
Posted by: Marc Burrell at Nov 29, 2006 3:49:26 PM
If they will aid our efforts against Iran and North Korea, let them keep the Ukraine and Georgia and any of the other Russian federations that they want.
Mighty big "if" there, though, hence the title of the post. (Also from the US perspective.) There's very little reason to believe that such a deal would be stable from either perspective. Why would the US not be willing to change its mind once Iran and the DPRK were taken of; conversely, what's to keep Putin from re-establishing control and then failing to really aid efforts on Iran and the DPRK?
Posted by: John Thacker at Nov 29, 2006 4:23:54 PM
What is Russia really going to do about Iran that is going to stop Iran from getting the bomb?Since bush, the pro-Israel lobby and the neocons want to bomb (preferably nuke) Iran; Russia and China stand in the way of any UN Security Council resolution allowing the US to attack. Also, Russia could stop selling anti-aircraft missiles to Iran that are designed to shoot down cruise missiles and stealth bombers, and to stop selling Iran those 200+ mph torpedos.
Posted by: Peter at Nov 29, 2006 8:10:58 PM
I really don't care, and I have a hard time understanding why anyone would care, what random bloggers are "proposing" that people they don't know (and who have exceedingly little reason to listen to random bloggers) should do about issues that will only exist in the short run. It's one thing to blog about what is going on in the world, to observe, analyze, praise, ridicule, and so on. Fine. It's also one thing to have ideas or theories about fundamental issues that will be around for the long run, and thus one's ideas might somehow over time filter into society, into education, into the debate, into the democratic process, and make a difference. Great. But to "propose" policies for the U.S. government to implement with regard to concrete matters over the short run seems quite absurd. Even sitting Congressmen have rather little influence on the U.S. government's foreign policy in the short run, and everyone at the (massive) State Department is chock-full of their own ideas already (hello, that's why they came to Washington in the first place).
So who exactly is it in government that we think reads young Mr. Yglesias's blog, drops their glass of port, shouts, "That's it! That's how to deal with Putin on today's issue! My own ideas on the matter were so dumb!" and rushes off to start doing the hard work of changing all the minds and patterns necessary to implement the Yglesias Doctrine before the whole NATO-Iran-Putin issue becomes moot? Who *could* it be? It seems like it must be no one. Please, anyone, correct me if you have evidence to the contrary, but I know of no evidence that any blog-based practical "proposal" has ever substantially shifted or could ever shift enough minds within a six- or twelve-month time span to noticeably alter short-run U.S. foreign policy.
Posted by: Jason Briggeman at Nov 30, 2006 2:47:58 AM
Replica Gucci Jewelry
Gucci Replica Jewelry
Tiffany Jewelry
Replica Tiffany Jewelry
Posted by: aion kina at Mar 20, 2009 9:36:27 PM
thank you. Beatifull Archile !
sohpet - muhabbet - sohpet-çet - sohbet - chat - sohbet kanallari - sohbet - kızlarla sohbet - sohbet chat - sesli sohbet - sesli chat - kamerali sohbet - kamerali chat sohbet - chat - sohbet - sohbet odaları - sohbet kanalları - mirc indir - mirc - bedava mirc - burç - burc - siir - haberler - Sohbet - sohbet siteleri - Müzik Dinle - mp3 Dinle - Dizi izle - Dizi izle - yonja sohbet - sohbet sitesi - sohpet sohbet - ajans
Posted by: bytamer at Jun 12, 2009 8:10:40 PM
