Putin arranges Obama visit to find out about flexibility offer

NightHawkeye · Nov 13, 2012

Putin says "Come visit". Obama says, "when?" Putin: Obama Plans to Visit Russia | The Weekly Standard

"US President Barack Obama has confirmed plans to visit Russia at the invitation of his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, the Russian president’s spokesman said on Tuesday," the Russian outlet reports. "Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Obama made the statement when Putin called a second time to congratulate the US president on his reelection."

LOL ... who saw that coming so soon? :doh:

Rion · Nov 13, 2012

I hope he buys Obama dinner first.

Thekla · Nov 13, 2012

Maybe Matt Romney will go along
NYT: Mitt Romney wants ‘good relations’ with Putin, son told Kremlin ally

HiLo · Nov 14, 2012

Hope they are negotiating space for work camps in Siberia, for all those who have signed secession petitions.

Rion · Nov 14, 2012

HiLo said:
Hope they are negotiating space for work camps in Siberia, for all those who have signed secession petitions.

Ah, the "Love it or leave it" of 2012.

Nabobalis · Nov 14, 2012

Rion said:
Ah, the "Love it or leave it" of 2012.

You mean the same one of 2004?

Rion · Nov 14, 2012

Nabobalis said:
You mean the same one of 2004?

That's what I was referencing.

Touma · Nov 14, 2012

So....You want the US to snub the invite of one of the most powerful leaders in the world?

Rion · Nov 14, 2012

Touma said:
So....You want the US to snub the invite of one of the most powerful leaders in the world?

Why do you try and put words into other people's mouth? NHE was just showing that Putin's interested in finding out how flexible Obama really is.

Touma · Nov 14, 2012

Rion said:
Why do you try and put words into other people's mouth? NHE was just showing that Putin's interested in finding out how flexible Obama really is.

Putin says "Come visit". Obama says, "when?" Putin: Obama Plans to Visit Russia | The Weekly Standard

"US President Barack Obama has confirmed plans to visit Russia at the invitation of his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, the Russian presidents spokesman said on Tuesday," the Russian outlet reports. "Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Obama made the statement when Putin called a second time to congratulate the US president on his reelection."

LOL ... who saw that coming so soon?

Really, Rion? Because he said nothing about Obama flexibility outside of thread title. He highlighted the fact that Obama was going to visit Putin, and then said "Who saw that coming so soon".

Now, the news article mentions nothing Putin wanting to find out flexibility, so you are wrong on that.

Rion · Nov 14, 2012

Touma said:
Really, Rion? Because he said nothing about Obama flexibility outside of thread title. He highlighted the fact that Obama was going to visit Putin, and then said "Who saw that coming so soon".

Now, the news article mentions nothing Putin wanting to find out flexibility, so you are wrong on that.

Yes, really. NHE said nothing about snubbing Putin.

HiLo · Nov 14, 2012

Anything to bear false witness against the President to make him something he's not. "He's meeting with Putin! See, he is a communist!" :doh:

Gxg (G²) · Nov 14, 2012

Thekla said:
Maybe Matt Romney will go along
NYT: Mitt Romney wants good relations with Putin, son told Kremlin ally

Everyone wants good relations with Russia...and thus, it's dumb for anyone to make it out as if it's a bad thing for Obama to meet with Putin when others have as well. And seeing that Russia is a key ally of Syria when it comes to the Syrian Orthodox Church, it's no surprise that the president would meet with the leader of Russia who has been said to be represenative of the Russian Orthodox Church he is a member of since Russian Orthodoxy is the leading voice in the nation...and is very concerned for the stances the U.S takes with Syria when it impacts a part of their heart. They were not for the U.S arming Syrian Rebels and were very involved with shaping policy....(more shared on the issue here in #37 , #410 and #415).

Additionally, more was shared here/at the following for reference:

As said best elsewhere in one of the references (for a brief excerpt):

as The New York Times explains, theres another reason at play that has more to do with politics than religion:

MOSCOW As the West sought to pressure the Kremlin recently to help stop the killing in Syria, diplomats from Damascus were ushered into the heart of one of Russian Orthodoxys main shrines.

Opening an exhibition devoted to Syrian Christianity in a cathedral near the Kremlin, they commiserated with Russian priests and theologians about their shared anxiety: What would happen if Syrias president, Bashar al-Assad, was forced from power?

It is clear by now that Russias government has dug in against outside intervention in Syria, its longtime partner and last firm foothold in the Middle East. Less well known is the position taken by the Russian Orthodox Church, which fears that Christian minorities, many of them Orthodox, will be swept away by a wave of Islamic fundamentalism unleashed by the Arab Spring.

In his warnings, Patriarch Kirill I invokes Bolshevik persecution still fresh in the Russian imagination, writing of the carcasses of defiled churches still remaining in our country.

This argument for supporting sitting leaders has reached a peak around Syria, whose minority population of Christians, about 10 percent, has been reluctant to join the Sunni Muslim opposition against Mr. Assad, fearing persecution at those same hands if he were to fall. If the churchs advocacy cannot be said to guide Russias policy, it is one of the factors that make compromise with the West so elusive, especially at a time of domestic political uncertainty for the Kremlin.

Someone once said George Soros was the only American citizen who has his own foreign policy, said Andrei Zolotov Jr., a leading religion writer and chief editor of Russia Profile. Well, the Moscow patriarchate is the only Russian entity with its own foreign policy.

Three and a half months ago, intent on achieving a commanding win in presidential elections, Vladimir V. Putin sought support from Russias religious leaders, pledging tens of millions of dollars to reconstruct places of worship and state financing for religious schools.

But Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the patriarchates department of external church relations, did not ask for money. The issue of Christianophobia shot to the top of the churchs agenda a year ago, with a statement warning that they are killing our brothers and sisters, driving them from their homes, separating them from their near and dear, stripping them of the right to confess their religious beliefs. The metropolitan asked Mr. Putin to promise to protect Christian minorities in the Middle East.

So it will be, Mr. Putin said. There is no doubt at all.

In a blog post today, Walter Russell Mead notes the involvement of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russias policy toward Syria and points out that it reflects a role that Russia has taken on in the past:

Syrias Christian communities are ancient. It was in Antioch that followers of Jesus were first called Christians and through the ages, under one ruler or another, Christians have survived persecution and marginalization in the place we now know as Syria.

Russias concern for Syrian Christians is also nothing new. Although the Communists were more interested in hounding and enslaving religious believers than protecting them, under the czars Russia was officially recognized by the Ottoman sultans as the protector of Orthodox Christians throughout the Turkish empire. In the 18th and 19th century Russian concern for these Christians (married to a concern for its geopolitical ambitions) frequently shaped Russian policy towards the Ottomans and the West. The Crimean War at one point brought Russia into war with Britain, France and the Ottoman Empire over a quarrel between Russia and France over their rights to represent and protect Ottoman Christians in the Holy Land.

The concern for the fate of Syrias Christian community is well-placed. In the wake of the downfall of Hosni Mubaraks regime in Egypt, there has been a serious increase in attacks on the nations Coptic Christians by people loosely identified with the now politically powerful Muslim Botherhood. The fate of the Copts has been further put into doubt by the death in March of Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria, who had been the spiritual leader of the nations Christians for more than 40 years. Should future political developments in Egypt lead to a more Islamist government, then the Coptic community could find itself further oppressed. No doubt, Syrias Christians, who make up some 10% of the nations population, are fearing a similar fate for their community, as do their allies in the Russian Orthodox Church and elsewhere.

The other thing worth pointing out in connection with the Russian position on Syria and the role that religion plays in it, is the fact that Russia, and Eastern Christians in general, are viewing this through a different historical prism than the West:

Bitter religious warfare and memories of Islamic persecution are one of the forces that hold Orthodox Christians in the Balkans, Russia and the Middle East together. The long Islamic conquest of the Orthodox world, the destruction of Orthodox empires and kingdoms and the subjugation of Orthodox Christians to alien Islamic rule remains a vibrant memory. It connects the Serbs, the Greeks, the Greek Cypriots, the Russians, Bulgarians and many others and Czarist Russias role in breaking Islamic rule and restoring freedom to Christian communities in the Balkans is remembered.

Linked to that memory are memories of Western Christian treachery and betrayal. From the Fourth Crusade, ostensibly sent to protect Eastern Christians but turned into a piratical assault on Constantinople, to memories of how the westerners made their help conditional on Orthodox submission to the authority of the Popes, a history of betrayal shapes the Orthodox political mind in many of these countries.

Todays western support for democracies in the Middle East that turn into Islamist states fits into this historical pattern in the view of many people in the Orthodox world. From Serbia and Moscow, the dangers seem much more immediate than the dilettantes in Washington understand. Turkeys neo-Ottoman return to Islamist policies, Islamism rising across the Arab world, short sighted Western policies that stigmatize and oppress Orthodox resisters against the Islamic surge (Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo, Russians in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Dagestan), or that stab eastern Christians in the back (unfair EU austerity in Greece, support for Islamists in Egypt and Syria, the destruction of the ancient Christian community in Iraq following the US invasion): all these revive memories and trigger reflexes that were already old in 1800.

What this suggests is that viewing the Russian response to the events in Syria as simply an example of one dictator sticking up for another, or Russia sticking a thumb in the eye of the West, is mistaken. The fact that the Russians didnt undertake any real efforts to stop the intervention in Libya suggests that theres something more at play when it comes to Syria. Part of it, no doubt, involves the fact that Syria provides Russia with its only real warm water port in the Middle East, but part of it clearly is being influenced by the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church is returning to its historic role of playing a close role in the affairs of state in Moscow.

Gxg (G²) · Nov 14, 2012

Thekla said:
Maybe Matt Romney will go along
NYT: Mitt Romney wants good relations with Putin, son told Kremlin ally

Although all we can do is speculate as to what the president is meeting with Putin about when it comes to good relations (as many other presidential cannidates have wanted to do), it may have to do with something that occurred some months ago. As he told Russian President Medvedev, "After my election I'll have more flexibility"

President Obama asks for space on missile defense

Many were acting as if it meant some conspiracy that Obama was hiding something..but I'm not really thinking it'd be wise to assume that there's some sort of conspiracy as if President Obama is going to somehow be radical since his stances consistently have often leaned toward moderation in many respects.

In regards to what he was talking to President Medvedev was speaking with President Obama on, it was in regards to Space/Missile defense.

For the full dialouge:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but its important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

When asked to explain what President Obama meant, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes told ABC News that there is room for the U.S. and Russia to reach an accommodation, but there is a lot of rhetoric around this issue there always is in both countries.

A senior administration official told ABC News this is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, were about to have a presidential and congressional elections this is not the kind of year in which were going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So theres an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying.

For anyone thinking he was speaking in "code" to mean that he as a U.S President is going to be extremely radical/"come out" about any of his views, I think people would be reading into things FAR more than warranted.

HiLo · Nov 14, 2012

In all likely hood, it's in regards to the European defense shield where contrary to conservative beliefs, Russia does have some valid points on why this program concerns them. I'm just glad we have a President who doesn't bully nations into accepting our positions but rather puts a premium on diplomacy. Obama now has "more flexibility" to work out the details in the best interest of all nations affected by this defense shield. Future Presidents should take note. This is how you run foreign policy.

Sistrin · Nov 14, 2012

Touma said:
Really, Rion? Because he said nothing about Obama flexibility outside of thread title. He highlighted the fact that Obama was going to visit Putin, and then said "Who saw that coming so soon".

The point here is simple. Following this visit Obama will announce another round of cuts in the number of nuclear weapons the United States will maintain. As in, the United States will decrease its nuclear stockpile again. Not that anyone else will, but we will, because the CinC believes in the liberal fantasy that if only the US disarms, the world will become such a happy place with no more wars and pink unicorns will fly over guilded rainbows.

Touma said:
Now, the news article mentions nothing Putin wanting to find out flexibility, so you are wrong on that.

The reference was to Obama's open mic comment concerning his post election flexibility in disarming the US.

Obama open mic slip: 'After my election I have more flexibility' - YouTube

Gxg (G²) · Nov 14, 2012

HiLo said:
In all likely hood, it's in regards to the European defense shield where contrary to conservative beliefs, Russia does have some valid points on why this program concerns them. I'm just glad we have a President who doesn't bully nations into accepting our positions but rather puts a premium on diplomacy. Obama now has "more flexibility" to work out the details in the best interest of all nations affected by this defense shield. Future Presidents should take note. This is how you run foreign policy.

The defense shield is a big deal...

Illuminaughty · Nov 14, 2012

So he believed he would have more flexibility in negotions regarding the missile defense shield in his next term? Not seeing the big deal.

NightHawkeye · Nov 14, 2012

Illuminaughty said:
So he believed he would have more flexibility in negotions regarding the missile defense shield in his next term? Not seeing the big deal.

Hmm ... I don't personally believe that Obama was restricting his comment to missile defense, but even if he were ... that's still a big deal. ^_^

wing2000 · Nov 14, 2012

The point here is simple. Following this visit Obama will announce another round of cuts in the number of nuclear weapons the United States will maintain. As in, the United States will decrease its nuclear stockpile again. Not that anyone else will, but we will, because the CinC believes in the liberal fantasy that if only the US disarms, the world will become such a happy place with no more wars and pink unicorns will fly over guilded rainbows.

President Obama has never proposed unilaterial disarmament.

And with the exception of George W. Bush, every modern President has sought to reduce our nuclear weapons.

For starters look up:
-the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
-the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty
-the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty

"It is my fervent goal and hope... that we will someday no longer have to rely on nuclear weapons to deter aggression and assure world peace. To that end the United States is now engaged in a serious and sustained effort to negotiate major reductions in levels of offensive nuclear weapons with the ultimate goal of eliminating these weapons from the face of the earth."

-- Ronald Reagan, Oct. 20, 1986

Putin arranges Obama visit to find out about flexibility offer

Work-in-progress

Annuit Cœptis

Thekla

Guest

Newbie

Annuit Cœptis

Nabobalis

Guest

Annuit Cœptis

Well-Known Member

Annuit Cœptis

Well-Known Member

Annuit Cœptis

Newbie

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Newbie

We are such stuff as dreams are made on...

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)

Drift and Doubt

Work-in-progress

E pluribus unum

Similar threads