Comments on: What does Obama’s snub mean for U.S.-Russia relations? Fri, 05 Dec 2014 14:27:05 +0000 hourly 1 By: retroarama Mon, 09 Sep 2013 20:37:28 +0000 Is the cold war being taken out of the deep freeze?
Having caught a cold war chill I never could quite shake, the current frosty relations between Obama and Putin send a shiver down my spine, as childhood memories of the cold war are quickly defrosted. The deepening mistrust and accusations of lying between the US and Russia feels like deja vu all over again. I recall my suburban towns mid-century July 4th parade that was co-sponsored by those Cold War Crusaders of truth from “The Crusade For Freedom” the privately funded donation drive that raised “truth dollars” to support Radio Free Europe. A visual look at truth and the cold war

By: Dhirajkunar Wed, 14 Aug 2013 05:15:31 +0000 Much as Iran Bremmer would like to punch holes on Russia, he should remember (actually he pretends to ignore) it is America and the west to bring Russia on board. Be frank Bremmer – America needs Russia more than the other way round. It needs Russia’s co-operation on Iran, Syria. Desperately. So Bremmer, come out of your artificial hallucination (make others feel you are hallucinated) and think of ideas to bring Russia on board. I would like to see more of your articles focus on how to go in this direction hereon.

By: brotherkenny4 Tue, 13 Aug 2013 20:50:09 +0000 Russia is far ahead of us on institutionalized corruption, thus their influence will wain. Populations with no expectation of justice are not very productive. The US is heading that way too, we now have business leaders preselecting elected officials. Our world influence will sink too, we just have a ways to go to catch up to Russia, but I am sure we will.

By: Bob9999 Mon, 12 Aug 2013 17:56:26 +0000 U.S.-Russian relations did not mean so much that a snub to put those relations on ice until January 2017 really makes much of a difference.

The current U.S.-Russia spat does not approach the most sever category of U.S.-inflicted diplomatic punishment. That category of punish appears to have been inflicted on only two countries since the mid-20th century: Cuba and Iran. Cuba allowed the Soviet Union to place nuclear missiles 90 miles away from the U.S. mainland, and Iran took an embassy full of U.S. diplomats hostage and paraded them around on television in blindfolds for more than a year. Since then, Cuba and Iran have experienced what amounts to a diplomatic death sentence,with the suggestion that the status of those countries vis-a-vis the U.S. will not change until the offending regimes are no longer in existence. Russia’s situation is nothing like that, and it continues to have much better relations with the U.S. than the Soviet Union ever did.

By: pyanitsa Sun, 11 Aug 2013 18:22:40 +0000 “North American energy revolution that looks set to keep expanding supply”

Putting your hopes on shale? Read below:

“…we are hearing far too much euphoric talk about 100-200 years of natural gas … ‘, Deborah Rogers, Shale And Wall Street, Was The Decline In Natural Gas Prices Orchestrated? s/2013/02/SWS-report-FINAL.pdf


While acknowledging that shale has dramatically reversed “the long-standing decline of US oil and gas production”, this can only:

“… provide a temporary reprieve from having to deal with the real problems: fossil fuels are finite, and production of new fossil fuel resources tends to be increasingly expensive and environmentally damaging.”

Despite accounting for nearly 40 per cent of US natural gas production, shale gas production has “been on a plateau since December 2011 – 80 per cent of shale gas production comes from five plays”, some of which are already in decline.

“The very high decline rates of shale gas wells require continuous inputs of capital – estimated at $42 billion per year to drill more than 7,000 wells – in order to maintain production. In comparison, the value of shale gas produced in 2012 was just $32.5 billion.”

From “Shale Gas Won’t Stop Peak Oil, But Could Create An Economic Crisis”, Nafeez Ahmed Ph.D.,

By: justinoinroma Sun, 11 Aug 2013 16:03:59 +0000 “reset” was even spell wrong when the “very strong first term Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton” presented the “reset” button to her Russian counter part – incompetence from the beginning = incompetence at the end – 3 more years of Obama incompetence

By: MarkDonners Sun, 11 Aug 2013 01:48:54 +0000 Obama is the ultimate con artist. A clue is him signing the “Monsanto protection Act” to destroy the future health of Americans and the environment while proclaiming himself a “green president” and his nasty hobby of murdering children and families weekly with his Obama drones while proclaiming himself a “peace president”. Obama is a psychopath that conned his way into the presidency.

By: Kailim Sun, 11 Aug 2013 00:49:39 +0000 “Obama made the right decision — and more importantly, he did it at the right time. By snubbing Putin when he did, Obama will allow Secretaries of State and Defense John Kerry and Chuck Hagel and their Russian counterparts to work back up from this low-water mark when they meet this week. If he had waited to snub Putin, it would unwind any progress that might come out of the current meetings. Obama clearly understands there is more room for productivity among senior diplomats than between the heads of state, where the relationship has always been icy, and any shortcomings are higher profile.” Your opinion is an absolute baloney to me, Mr. Bremmer.

By: AZreb Sat, 10 Aug 2013 23:21:58 +0000 It is not only the “snub”, it is the childish and petty remarks by Obama that make this situation so untenable. No diplomacy, no statesmanship – just like a little kid reverting to childish insults when he doesn’t get what he wants. No wonder so many in other countries have no respect for the USA.

By: OUTPOST2012.NET Sat, 10 Aug 2013 15:45:37 +0000 Here is how I see the Obama foreign policy from Moscow.

The Prime Directive of Obama in the foreign policy: to prevent engagement of the U.S. into new war(s) and to complete the involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. By any means.

It was his Prime Directive. It remains the same.
It doesn’t take much effort to involve the States into FOUR wars at the same time:
– in collapsing Iraq;
– in disintegrating Syria;
– in never-changing Afghanistan;
– in Iran approaching the time of leaving the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

To start another war? That’s easy! It doesn’t need much: a good MSM campaign – and here we go!

What, in fact, requires amazing sophistication is to stay away from the rules of engagement – while keeping in mind the interests of the U.S. society, divided as it is.

If you look at the Obama/Clinton’s foreign policy from this stance, you would understand clearly every step they made.

This policy is perfectly understood in Moscow. All PR-prepared “disagreements” are not substantial.
Because the interests of BOTH countries coincide: no new military engagements anywhere