'Obama can't afford a fair trial for Snowden' - Stephen Cohen

[dipsydoodle]

Who’s Edward Snowden more of a problem for now, Russia or the US? Has he sent US-Russian relations into a tailspin or did he just reaffirm the sad state of affairs? Is the 'Russian Reset' dead?

Today we discuss the fallout from the Snowden case with Stephen Cohen, Professor of Russian Studies and History at New York University and Princeton University.

http://rt.com/shows/sophieco/snowden-case-us-russia-307/ includes 27 minute interview with Professor Cohen.

[datasuspect]

1. they won't try him

they will disappear him.

[Thinkingabout]

2. Exactly, wanna bet he will watched each and every day. Snowden remaining in Russia is

the cheapest out for the US.

[el_bryanto]

3. I wonder why they don't dissappear Greenwald

Or other critics of this policy in the US.

Bryant

[OnyxCollie]

4. Greenwald et al. are "users," not "suppliers."

[KoKo]

6. Cold War Philosophy...Times have Changed Internationally. eom

[datasuspect]

12. dunno

ask the thousands of mostly innocent muslim men from around the world still languishing in our extra-judicial purgatories around the world.

[n2doc]

14. Oh, I think they will try him

In the manner of Bradley Manning. Keep him locked up incommunicado for a few years, then put on a quick show trial and lock him away in solitary for the rest of his life. Protocols must be followed!

[morningfog]

16. Agreed with all of that, except that the sentence will be either solitary life or execution.

[Catherina]

5. Embedding the video here for lazy people like me

Very interesting. Thank you

The American political policy media establishment wants a good relationship with Russia once it’s on America’s own terms. And it’s very clear what that means, because it has meant the same thing since the Soviet Union – Russia should be a junior and subservient partner to American interests. Whatever is in the American interest, Russia should help promote. So, if America decides to expand NATO to Russia’s borders, Russia should accept this as a very good idea to its own security. If America decides to build missile installations in Europe or on ships that threaten Russia’s nuclear security, Russia should understand that that’s really against North Korea or Iran, and it doesn’t affect Russia. If the US believes that the overthrow of Assad in Syria will bring peace to the Middle East, Russia should agree.

The problem is, Russia doesn’t agree. Russia is a different civilization, but the bad precedent was set – I don’t like to criticize your leaders because it’s your problems -by Yeltsin, who agreed almost on everything. And so Washington got into a habit of getting what it wanted. But even ambassador McFaul has said on a several occasions during the “reset” which he claims he invented, “We’re going to negotiate with Moscow, and see what they can do to promote our national interests.” Fine – but that’s one hand clapping. A real negotiation, real diplomacy, is not that. It is that we go to Moscow and say “Here are our interests, will you help us?” And then Moscow says, “We might. Here are our interests. Will you help us?” And then they do something for each other. Washington doesn’t do anything.

I would defy anybody who thinks I’m being unpatriotic –just tell me one major concession that Moscow has received from Washington since the end of the Soviet Union? Just one? And when I ask this question, at all just, leading places of the American establishment, I do get one answer: “We gave them financial loans in the 1990s.” Yeah, they were onerous loans which only Putin, because of high oil prices, could finally pay back. Although Washington forgave Poland’s communist-era debt, it never forgave any of Moscow’s debts. We have never given Russia anything. By the way, Putin says that over and over and over again, and Washington says, “Why is he so anti-American? “ He is not anti-American, he just made a very simple point that any major leader would make – that a relationship is a two-way relationship

...

The reality is that Obama got what he wanted from the “Reset” – he got Russian help in supplying NATO forces in Afghanistan. He got tougher sanctions against Iran. He got Moscow’s cancellation of the C-300 defense system, I think. The problem is, once again…what did Moscow get in return? Nothing. They wanted a compromise on missile defense. They wanted the end of NATO expansion and an end to American democracy promotion in Russia. But Washington refused. So the “Reset” failed, Washington got what it wanted, and now we are starting all over again…The new détente – we used to call it “détente” during the Cold War – is going to fail unless American policy changes. It’s a sad story, but it’s a true story.

[KoKo]

8. Thanks, Catherina... Obama said "Move Forward" but his supporters want to set us

BACK to Cold War which is dead. It's "Resource Wars" now...and we don't RULE like we did after WWII.

All our Major World Powers are dealing with GLOBILIZATION. They are all in on it...and it's left to "The People" of all these countries to see what works BEST FOR THEM...and not the old "Cold War Model" for rearranging countries in the West's Model.

The Youth of the World don't have the overhang of "Cold War" and they will MAKE their Societies in Their Own Image....whether it suits USA/GB or NATO.

We are going to have to decide how to CHOOSE with this New System...and a Youth who knows little of relevance in Their Life to Hitler/Stalin/Fascism and the Aftermath.

THEY WANT...JOBS AND OPPORTUNITY...along with Many New Generation Americans who are PAST THAT "OLD STUFF." They want to CREATE THEIR OWN...for better or worse ...and inspite of History...(which sadly they need to know...because they won't move forward much without understanding the PTB from the Last Century)...to move forward.

IT IS A MIXED BAG....

[Catherina]

10. The Cold War morphed into PNAC, the same people brought that to us

Snakes like McCain never change their venom.

When the Egyptian Revolution first started, the FIRST people Obama called for consultations in the White House were the PNAC folks.
I had a thread about that. Then we rocked Libya and now Syria before going on to Iran. Those 3 countries are the ones on the PNAC list that Bush didn't get to. What change?

I agree with you, my faith is in the youth who aren't buying the bullshit. They'll have plenty of support, solidarity in the trenches, from older folks like you and me. I think they know more about fascism than we give them credit for. They've been sounding the alarm the loudest. Barrett Brown, Bradley Manning, Ed Snowden, Aaron Swartz, Jacob Appelbaum, Julian Assange, Michael Hastings...

I made my choice long ago. The exploiters of this world can kiss my ass.

[mick063]

7. Russia can look you in the eye and declare loyalty to Assad

Certainly that should cause more tension than accommodating Snowden.

Unless, of course, Snowden can cause humiliation.

This is where you separate the wheat from the chafe. Theoretically, from a diplomatic standpoint, Syria should carry much more diplomatic weight than Snowden. If it does not, then Snowden retains information that is more damaging to individual politicians (or perhaps even corporations) than to our nation as a whole. If there is humiliation to be had, it should be over the wacked priorities. They should feel ashamed.

[KoKo]

9. Don't get your connection of Snowden to Syria, though.

Perhaps you could provide further insight.

Snowden is about US Spying Internally and using Externally of Surveillance gathering to a Massive Extent (and we still don't know how massive it is).

But, this doesn't have to do ...except "tangentially" with Syria and our policies towards that country as Foreign Policy...which is not "NSA" SPYING ON US CITIZENS AND their CONTACTS GLOBALLY!

[mick063]

11. Here is my connection

Putin has publically stated that housing Snowden may be problematic with respect to US relations. The President's Press Secretary has hinted that the President's scheduled trip to Russia may exclude a visit with Putin in Moscow based upon the President's displeasure with Putin granting Snowden refuge.

With both sides taking an opposite stance in Syria, with both sides maintaining opposite investments in Syria, one might conclude that in serving the best interests of their respective nations, they would reference Syria as the catalyst for cooling relations. No mention of Syria with respect to the recent rift. Only reference to Snowden.

As a US citizen, I believe the Syria differences should rate higher in the scale of "diplomatic rift" than the Snowden issue. We are spending treasure and resources to further the Syrian coup. Russian cooperation may have eased our expense and Syrian loss of life. For example, Russia could have gone as far as to take their pal, Assad, into exile and save much bloodshed. Russia could have taken sides with the President in the United Nations. Russia could have put economic pressure on Assad. Much more significant with respect to resources, treasure, and blood costs, in my estimation, than bringing Snowden back for trial.

This leads me to believe that Snowden's damage is less about damage to the United States with respect to security, and much more about damage to specific individuals. In other words, folks are putting their own interests above the nation's interest. This is about avoiding political humiliation. This is about maintaining money flow to surveillance contractors. This is not about prioritizing the best interests of the American people.

Hence, the diplomatic priority is "out of whack". The President is willing to make a personal call on Putin with Syria as an obstacle, however he indirectly threatens to snub Putin with Snowden as an obstacle.

[marions ghost]

13. Unfortunately I have to agree

"This is about avoiding political humiliation. This is about maintaining money flow to surveillance contractors. This is not about prioritizing the best interests of the American people."

[marions ghost]

15. Convincing argument

that we are living in a different world. People who press for Snowden to come back to the US for trial don't understand that.

Cohen believes that Snowden would not get a fair trial in the US. He compares the case to Ellsberg, who was exonerated and his testimony changed things. Cohen does not think this would happen for Snowden.