There are two basic scenarios here that I see, both of them extremely bad for US national security (something I care about, and everyone reading this should too because it is core to our safety). *
1. Obama made a huge back-channel concession to Russia to get them to deny Snowden asylum. He had to do something to get Putin to decide not to shelter Snowden, and it would likely be an extremely painful concession. Most likely something security related in eastern Europe, probably BMD.
2. Putin cannot keep Snowden from releasing information and has done what he can to bind Snowden to Moscow. By forcing Snowden to stop publishing, he can keep any revelations from being released and instead give him a thorough debriefing to gain sole access to a treasure trove of counter espionage intelligence.
This is bad. Very, very bad.
(*)Understand that every country spies on every other. Germany moaning about us spying is highly hypocritical because they do the same exact thing to every ally. So does France to Germany, the UK to France, so on and so forth. Hell, Israel spies on us and we spy on them. Spying is core to our safety in the modern age, and has been core to the safety of every country since the days of the roman empire.
There are plenty of other scenarios possible, including one dictated by Occam's razor:
3) No backchannel negotiation of any sort has taken place. Putin is just looking at the situation pragmatically and he understands that harboring Snowden would cause more harm than good to Russia.
This reminds me of a story that happened in 2012 where thieves managed to steal the secret recipe of Coca Cola and offered to sell it to Pepsi. Pepsi immediately called the FBI and had the thieves arrested ([1]).
Putin is exactly in Pepsi's situation: gaining knowledge of the confidential information that Snowden detains has very little benefit and very, very high cost. Simply not worth it.
Not really. Putin is former FSB and Russia's interests always are defined by having a security state. Today, during the Soviets and before with the Tsar, Russia has always used a heavily authoritarian regime to maintain security. They must in order to maintain sovereignty.
While there could be simple pragmatism here, Putin does not operate as a pragmatist and it is in his direct interest to keep the leaks to a minimum so that they can be the sole ones to know of how it operates.
After all, if they know how we're spying and their own adversaries don't, they're better off.
I'm having a very hard time parsing what you wrote and trying to understand how the tsar/soviet era (or anything you say in that comment) is relevant in any way to the current Snowden situation.
Russia has been playing the Great Game in its sleep since Peter The Great. This country is always changing and always staying the same.
So while the ideology of the high command may change you always have very strong central government which is chasing Russian interests with great zeal.
Understand that every country spies on every other. Germany moaning about us spying is highly hypocritical because they do the same exact thing to every ally. So does France to Germany, the UK to France, so on and so forth. Hell, Israel spies on us and we spy on them. Spying is core to our safety in the modern age, and has been core to the safety of every country since the days of the roman empire.
At the risk of being proven wrong in the (near) future I challenge your statement. I doubt the German government or an intelligence agency would dare to bug an US embassy, the headquarter of one of your parties or whatever comes closest to the EU buildings supposed to be bugged. Equally I doubt they are in the business of mass surveillance.
There is a huge difference between USA and Germany (and probably many other European countries) - we don't have this paranoia that everyone is against us (justified or not). People don't care about terrorism. Admittedly I have never been to the USA and can not judge how much a concern this really is in the general population but the impression that arrives on this side of the ocean is that there is a widespread fear. There are of course people dealing with terrorism - we don't simply ignore the problem - but the general population really does not care. I am also not old enough to judge if this was different when Germany experienced terror attacks, for example by the RAF from the 1970s to the 1990s.
I think the USA was a very different place before 9/11. I read the recently leaked NSA IG Report and what it says about the time before 9/11 is very different from what the current situation seems to be - they are talking about what they can not do and what court orders they need and so on. But then 9/11 happens and they go completely nuts.
>At the risk of being proven wrong in the (near) future I challenge your statement. I doubt the German government or an intelligence agency would dare to bug an US embassy, the headquarter of one of your parties or whatever comes closest to the EU buildings supposed to be bugged. Equally I doubt they are in the business of mass surveillance.
All intelligence services are in the business of mass surveillance, period. If they're not, they aren't a good intelligence service. The simple fact is that with the way the world is today, it's foolish to blindly assume that your allies are always acting in your best interest. They are, obviously, going to act in their own best interests, but it's important to know when your interests coincide, and when they don't. And it's more important to know that now than any other time.
The difference between today and 30 years ago is that there isn't a Warsaw Pact for NATO to oppose. Keep in mind, every major player in the Warsaw Pact is now either a member of NATO, or in a "partnership for peace" with NATO. The current major "adversary"(and I use that term very, very lightly) is China, who enjoys good trade relations with the entire world, to the point where open conflict with China would be so disastrous to everyone involved(including China), that it's completely off the table.
That's why this kind of spycraft is even more important now than ever. Large scale military movements are easy to see. But knowing things like what the EU as a whole is going to do with trade agreements, or if the Chinese are talking to the Russians about a new oil pipeline, is hugely important.
All intelligence services are in the business of mass surveillance, period. If they're not, they aren't a good intelligence service.
Isn't it the other way round? You fail at targeted surveillance and have to resort to mass surveillance?
The simple fact is that with the way the world is today, it's foolish to blindly assume that your allies are always acting in your best interest. They are, obviously, going to act in their own best interests, but it's important to know when your interests coincide, and when they don't. And it's more important to know that now than any other time.
I mostly agree - usually the best you can expect is that someone is acting in common best interest. But there are also some exception like help after a natural disaster where states might indeed act in your best interest.
The difference between today and 30 years ago is that there isn't a Warsaw Pact for NATO to oppose. Keep in mind, every major player in the Warsaw Pact is now either a member of NATO, or in a "partnership for peace" with NATO. The current major "adversary"(and I use that term very, very lightly) is China, who enjoys good trade relations with the entire world, to the point where open conflict with China would be so disastrous to everyone involved(including China), that it's completely off the table.
For Germany China is an important trade partner with between 5 % and 10 % of the total import and export volume. Stopping all trading relationships will without doubt have a noticeable effect but I don't know if it will be our if I would call it disastrous.
That's why this kind of spycraft is even more important now than ever. Large scale military movements are easy to see. But knowing things like what the EU as a whole is going to do with trade agreements, or if the Chinese are talking to the Russians about a new oil pipeline, is hugely important.
Yes, it might be interesting to know, but obtaining this information by spying at others is not legal. In this world it is also important to have some money at hand but that makes a really bad justification for robbing a bank. Just because you want something does not mean you can have it or are even entitled to have it. If law and justice means something to you, deal with it, otherwise you are just opportunistic.
> There is a huge difference between USA and Germany (and probably many other European countries) - we don't have this paranoia that everyone is against us (justified or not).
I don't think we in the USA do, either. Don't presume that the American people are "steering the ship" of the government. The government is completely out of control. We have let go of the steering wheel. Not all that surprising... the US is basically a 3rd world country, if you consider the whole population. (As a side note, that's also why something like universal health care cannot work as well here as it can in Germany.)
Yeah, I don't think it's as much a "widespread fear" as much as "widely accepted as a legitimate excuse for exceptional acts by government".
Most people aren't really that terrorized, but when the government (which is pretty distinct from median Americans) does stuff that's unprecedented or otherwise eyebrow-raising, it's generally accepted by most as an explanation.
I think it's more of a circumstance where it's made to seem that society cares a lot about preventing terrorism (via media channels), so individuals go along with stuff thinking that most OTHER people are afraid/terrorized/in crisis, even if the majority is not terrorized/apathetic/et c.
Interestingly, this state of affairs is also congruent with it then seeming to foreigners like the US population is actively afraid, because there's no good way to stop the media message at the borders.
>I doubt the German government or an intelligence agency would dare to bug an US embassy,
well, not at least with "Made in Germany" bugs and wires directly leading to the intelligence agency HQ :)
There is a gentlemen's agreement between such a great allies as UK, Germany, US, ... - they spy on each other embassies, parties, government offices, etc... because Germany spying on Germany is illegal in Germany, so to workaround the law UK or US would do the job and exchange the results.
>1. Obama made a huge* back-channel concession to Russia to get them to deny Snowden asylum. He had to do something to get Putin to decide not to shelter Snowden, and it would likely be an extremely painful concession. Most likely something security related in eastern Europe, probably BMD.
Realistically, that's not much of a concession, even though the Russians will play it up as such. It'll be a political hit for Obama from the 10 people who still care about it in the US, but in terms of international politics, it won't be all that much. Think about it this way: Russia is one of the largest oil producing nations in the world. They supply most of Europe. Why would they nuke their paying customers?
The BMD interceptors that are currently planned on getting put in eastern Europe have a very questionable test record, are stupidly expensive, and, in all honesty, were a needless provocation of the Russians when they were planned during the Bush administration. Removing them would save a lot of people a lot of money and de-escalate a silly situation.
I disagree. The BMD systems are an essential way for Poland and other eastern european countries to counter Russian influence by guaranteeing a US military presence and negating the effect of short-range missile deployments.
Bush started it for good reason - it is in the US' best interests to keep Russia from becoming dominant over eastern European countries. They already use natural gas as a major level over countries (remember when they switched off the gas due to a 'pricing dispute'?).
We want to mitigate Russian influence in their periphery as no one in Europe or the US wants another warsaw pact. Russia wants to dominate them because their security stems from having a large buffer between them and germany (or anyone else for that matter.
You sound like you're stuck in 1982. The biggest geo-political headache for Putin is not maintaining a useless "buffer" with Western Europe, but the growing Chinese influence in the East. Look at the map: the soon-to-be superpower shares a fairly huge border with Russia with precedents of isolated clashes in the 60s. And there are no buffers to "dominate".
No, look at Russia's geopolitical moves since the 1800's all the way until today. They have a buffer with China already called Siberia. And yes, they are concerned about China anyway (as well they should be).
That's where I grew up. I can assure you, nobody in Russia sees its own territory hosting multiple critical industries with half a dozen cities with >1M population as a "buffer" against China.
"Siberia" is not a well-defined region, BTW, kind of like "Wild Wild West" in the US - more like a general direction they used to send expeditions to, like 200 years ago. Just pointing out how weird your comment seems.
Either you're trolling, or your mental picture of that part of the world needs an overhaul.
The heartland of Russia is west of the Urals. While Siberia has a ton of value, it is also a buffer. The Ukraine & Belarus are the same.
Think about it this way - how is China going to go rolling into Moscow? By holding Siberia, they have an effective buffer against incursion into the most valuable parts of the country.
> That's where I grew up.
Whereabouts? I'm honestly curious as to your experience in Russia and what it was like.
> Either you're trolling, or your mental picture of that part of the world needs an overhaul.
No to both. Why would I be trolling? To me this is a discussion and I'd like to know more about your viewpoint.
Why would China want to go rolling into Moscow? It's full of people and has nothing to offer to a conquerer. A much more practical trophy would be something like Sakhalin island! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakhalin#Economy
The point I am trying to make is that Russia is not an aggressor. They're facing the opposite challenge: too much land, too many resources and the shrinking population. They see the raise of China in the East and the threat of islamic fundamentalism in the South. Why on earth would they think of attacking Germany under these circumstances?
If anything, Russians have expected the West to become their partner dealing with those challenges, first after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and especially after the 9/11. But the continuing Cold War era rhetorics and missile deployment plans in those stupid "buffers" make it easy to understand why Putin is disillusioned and annoyed with the West.
I'm referring to the region east of the Urals, primarily along the southern frontier. Pretty much just west of Baikal to the Pacific. That is often considered Siberia as a whole, though more local definitions I'm not aware of may define it differently.
Bush didn't start anything in that part of the world for a good reason. Look what those trillions of dollars got us. For me it was friends with PTSD or other traumas or are still there waiting to come home to their families.
BMD was just Reagan's Star Wars 2.0. It wasn't clever or strategery, just more of the same nonsense to pay defense contractors.
Sorry but this college professor act just really falls short.
> Sorry but this college professor act just really falls short.
I'm not a college professor; nor am I acting like one.
I'm going off of 13 years of research into geopolitics. You're entitled to your own opinion and I don't begrudge you that - but don't begrudge me mine.
They are not essential for Poland or other EE country. They are a tool in the US game to weaken Russian influence in the region.
For Poland and the rest of EE, it does not matter. Either Russia, or US domination, both are bad for the local interests. They cannot gain much, but they can become victim in the process.
The thing is, they want a security guarantor that isn't Russia. Russia tends to dominate; the US tends to accelerate the economy. By having a US military presence, they are much more secure from domination by Russian interests (political, economic and security). This also means that western companies will feel more secure and invest further in their economies - something they all want because it brings rapid growth that tends to be better sustained.
> Realistically, that's not much of a concession, even though the Russians will play it up as such. It'll be a political hit for Obama from the 10 people who still care about it in the US, but in terms of international politics, it won't be all that much.
Are you joking? Do you not remember how Republicans attacked Obama during the election for being cozy with Russia? There is a big block of older voters who grew up in the cold war who will flip at something like that.
The problem with #2 is that Snowden isn't publishing this stuff, the journalists that he already gave thousands of documents to are. So I wonder if this statement from Putin is either ignorant of that, or intended to sound far more beneficial than it ever could be.
1. Obama made a huge back-channel concession to Russia to get them to deny Snowden asylum. He had to do something to get Putin to decide not to shelter Snowden, and it would likely be an extremely painful concession. Most likely something security related in eastern Europe, probably BMD.
2. Putin cannot keep Snowden from releasing information and has done what he can to bind Snowden to Moscow. By forcing Snowden to stop publishing, he can keep any revelations from being released and instead give him a thorough debriefing to gain sole access to a treasure trove of counter espionage intelligence.
This is bad. Very, very bad.
(*)Understand that every country spies on every other. Germany moaning about us spying is highly hypocritical because they do the same exact thing to every ally. So does France to Germany, the UK to France, so on and so forth. Hell, Israel spies on us and we spy on them. Spying is core to our safety in the modern age, and has been core to the safety of every country since the days of the roman empire.