My fiancee spoke with me today in a panic over the possibility of escalating tensions between the USA and Russia eventually leading to a closing of the borders between our countries. She was very worried that should this happen, she would not be able to see her family once she arrives in this country (we still wait for NOA2).

I tried to reassure her that when it comes to the actions of our respective governments there is very little the two of us can do, so why should we worry over if's and maybe's. I completely understand her worries and anxiety over the possibility of not seeing her family again should the worst happen, and would really like to chalk this up to rampant hysteria on her part, but none of that makes me feel any better.

I'm just looking for comments, I guess, on not only this possibility but perhaps on similar topics the membership of Visa Journey may have experienced.

Thanks everyone!

Kevin

The possibility of the US and Russia closing borders is almost nonexistent. First and foremost is the simple matter of money. There's a lot of western money pouring into the FSU right now, and quite frankly it's money that drives international policy.

Also, the current tensions between the US and Russia are just that. It's a lot of chest pounding and hand waving. The Shrub is going to be out of the Whitehouse in a year, and his ability to make any serious trouble wanes with each passing day. Putin, on the other hand, is only growing in power, but he's gotten to where he is because he's smart and ruthless. He has no interest in cutting off the US because it's simply bad for his power base. And whoever the next US President is, they're going to be way too busy (hopefully) fixing the messes left by this administration to push the stupidity of missile defense in Eastern Europe.

Your fiancee has nothing to fear. If she were Iranian, she'd have a real reason to worry. But if there were a list of countries to worry about borders closing to the US, Russia would be pretty far down there.

So tell her that moxcamel says it's still okay to marry you.

I plan on sending this thread, and your comments in particular, to her immediately! I'm curious how long it will take her to understand the meaning of 'The Shrub'....

Thanks for your comment moxcamel, and for so succinctly stating that which I fumbled over.

I fully agree with the above statement - the possibility of closing borders is negligent. There is too much business and money involved and the people who control all this money also control the power. It is not all about politics, but more about the money, and the business that is going on now between Russia and US is virtually impossible to stop...

The liklihood of that happening is nil. I mean, even during the cold war there were flights from New York to Moscow starting in the early 60s! During most of the cold war, Americans were free to travel to Russia, though being the enemy, not many people did it.

I am trying to think of countries which have closed their doors to Americans..... I can't think of one. Even in an almost worst case future event, family members would have legit reasons to travel in and out of Russia.


If I were to be inclined to worry about anything.... it would the political future of Russia.
(many forecast a much more Authoritative Regime is on the horizon).
I rather think Russia in general and Putin in Specific sees the weaknesses of Democracy and wants to build a Hybrid style system.

Cuba, Iran and North Korea, but those are restrictions from the US, not the other way around.

USA closed the door on Cuba, but I don't think Cuba closed the door on USA...

I understand the anxiety of your fiancee. My wife told me just last night that their is a possibility that Russia will restrict travel to and from Ukraine. She is pretty worried since her brother's family is in Russia and so is her father. The sad part of all of this is that Putin is consolidating his power and preparing for the change in presidency. His plan to become prime minister just states that the next president of Russia will be a puppet of Putin.

My brother in law is hoping to move back to Ukraine but is waiting for his pension consideration to be finalized. Then he can sell his business, home and move his wife, daughter and mother in law to Ukraine. He's hoping to live in Crimea.

Perhaps your fiancee has heard this rumor and has it confused with restricting visas to America.

Yesterday, Red Dawn came on TV. I've been telling my wife about this movie since before she got here and trying to explain to her the seriousness of what it meant when I was five-years-old.

And then I realized how cheesy it really was and how bad special effects were back in the '80s. She was like "why we watch this stupid movie?" But, the message was there. Anyway, there was no message because it couldn't hold her attention for more than a few minutes. I guess it's a "guy movie" and furthermore, it's a 20+-year-old "guy movie." (On that note, AMC's showing all the classic war movies this weekend for Veteran's Day..... and then the Cool Hand Luke 40th Anniversary special is on later this week.)

The Cold War never really affected average every-day people the way it was made out to in the movies and on the news every night. Sure, there are political ramifications of tensions over things, even now, but for the average people, it's no big deal.

And even if they were to close the borders, she's still Russian and could go back whenever she wanted. Barring a situation like North/South Korea, which would have to be preceded by a huge war and therefore likely not to happen, there would always be travel authorized for nationals visiting family members.

Thanks Slim. I just watched 'Cool Hand Luke' for the very first time, with my 16 year old son, last night. I remember "Red Dawn" very well though I have not watched it in years and years. I graduated high school in 1979, simply convinced that nuclear war between the USA and Russia was inevitable.

I understand that as a Russian citizen she could always return to Russia, but what about the flip side? If relations between our countries were very very bad and she traveled to Russia, would she be allowed to return, as the wife of a US citizen? I don't think it's anything that would ever happen, but the more ammunition I have in the form of knowledge, the better Natasha and I can rest at night.

Cool Hand Luke, great movie, huh? A "guy movie" if there ever was one.

A "Red Dawn-esque" scenario was definitely on the minds of more than a few people during that time period. It seems to me there were two separate camps on this one; the first thought it was inevitable, the second gave it no thought at all. (Guess we were wrong!)



Things would have to be very very bad, and completely different. We're talking similar to how they were in the '40s and '50s when people could "disappear" for talking about certain things or going to "meetings" or things of that nature. Tensions probably will never be that high again although there are some politically motivated "incidents" in Russia, it's not likely that she or her family will ever be in danger simply for being married to an American. However, they better watch out what they say about Putin!

If there ever is a time when tensions start to get bad and family members are in danger, that's when the U.S. offers asylum to family members and others connected to your spouse. (Satellite touched on this above.) But, it's all about money now, so there's really no worries. Someday though, it could change. But if you look at the political climate around the world, both the U.S. and Russia are far more worried about other countries than each other. We will probably always be "arch rivals" on the world stage, but the two biggest guys working together will always be more powerful than all the little guys combined. They know that, we know that, and it's not likely to change.

In the hypothetical situation that relations broke down so badly that we returned to cold-war style relations with the FSU, I think it would be impossible to know how travel restrictions would play out. It's possible that relations would be so bad as to dis-allow travel in either direction, both directions, or no directions. Unfortunately governments are stupid and reactionary, and it really depends on who is in power and what kind of information is being fed to them.

Fortunately it just aint gonna happen in the foreseeable future.

EDIT: Cool Hand Luke = Ultimate guy movie. One of my favs.

My son and I both enjoyed it very much. There's more I'd like to say, but I'd hate to give spoilers to those who haven't seen it yet, so I'll remain quiet.

Thanks for the continuing comments, they are very soothing (and completely logical!).

Not going to happen. Thoses with the money and power in Russia have an interest in being able to travel, so restrictions will not happen. Most people already can not travel, as they are poor and can't leave Russia anyway. This is basically how it worked in Soviet times - those with power had no trouble travelling. The poor couldn't, as they were charged several years (as much as 30) salary for an exit visa. The US passed Jackson Vanik in 1974 to address this, which is still law in the US. The Kremlin hates this, as it also keeps them out of the WTO.

When I was a young boy, we lived in a house with a fully completed bombshelter in the back yard. The threat was certainly real enough for thousands and thousands of Americans to construct such bunkers in their own yard during the 60's.

As I have said before, it is a little far-fetched to be foreseeing a time in the near future where people are cut off from travel between the USA and the USSR... err I mean Russia.

However, I don't think you can rule anything out due to SOME people making money off our relationship now.
'Idealogy" always trumps money and as Russia assumes more and more industry under the wing of the Govt, that factor becomes more diminished.
Under Putin certain wealthy businessmen were jailed chased out of country and had their (ill-gotten) industries taken from them.

It is for this reason I say anything is possible.

These things usually take years to fully shift, when you see the country shifting, it would then be the time to start the process to get out.

It even took Years for Nazi germany to evolve into its full self, many Jews did see the coming storm and left homes and businesses. Others stayed at great cost.

What's not being said here is the outside factors that will undoubtedly affect Russo-American relations more greatly than anything else - the third (and subsequent) country factor.

Who cares what's going on between Russia and the U.S. when China starts to engulf it's neighbors. And when Pakistan and India go at it, even if we (quietly) choose different sides to make money off of, we're still going to be holding hands on the White House lawn or in the halls of the Kremlin when we "attempt" peace for the sake of all humanity.

There's way more at stake than just keeping the peace. Both of our nations are so greedy, it's almost impossible for an escalation of tensions to reach proportions where nationals married to foreigners would be barred re-entry.

I have one word for it. Paranoia. My husband is one of those older generation Americans with memories of bomb shelters and Cold War and all that stuff, and quite frankly, this was the major thing that kept driving us apart. Some people just can't relax.

I grew up during the Reagan era. It was a foregone conclusion that we were all going to die in a nuclear exchange. I mean, there wasn't really a doubt in anybody's mind, and I'm sure a majority of Russians felt that way too. My father started to turn a root cellar into a bomb shelter but never finished the project. I think a lot of us felt like it was probably better to die during the initial exchange than to try to live in a post-nuclear holocaust. Obviously we didn't all walk around with long faces and doom and gloom, but it's really hard for people who didn't live through that era to understand that we really did think that a nuclear exchange between the US and USSR was an inevitability. I still wonder how it never happened. I'm convinced that it had very little to do with Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, and a lot to do with heroes like Stanislav Petrov.

I can't imagine what it would be about that era that's driving you and your husband apart, unless of course you're an unapologetic Communist, and then yeah, I can see what his problem might be. And the reason I say that is because while we despised the Soviet government (and the feeling was mutual), we loved the people of the Soviet Union. And while both nations were fiercely competitive (I still get teary-eyed over the Miracle On Ice) we also felt a certain kinship with them. If for nothing else than we knew that they'd have to go through the same mutual assured destruction scenario that we were going to have to go through ourselves.

Anyway, I hate to sound like my father, but "you kids" don't know how good you've got it with your terrorism and global warming! Back in my day we didn't worry about airplanes flying into buildings. We worried about global thermonuclear war. While we walked 10 miles to school in the snow. Uphill. Both ways. ...

Your comments about the "certainty of a nuclear exchange" and how few voices were available to add calm is one reason, I am 80% certain in a decade we will be amazed the whole world (actually the .. just the western world) were certain that Global warming was going to destroy us all.

For some reason the voices of doom and gloom always seem to have the microphone.

My G_d, could you imagine if the Global warming experts were around during the years of the Dust bowl era, they would have charged us all a ton of money (taxes) implemented their plans and then took all the credit with Nobel prizes and magazine covers a few years later after the weather normalized.

Hmmm...I don't think you understand. The "voices of doom and gloom" had very good reason to be doomy and gloomy, because the threat was VERY real. From the 50's to the early 90's, the world was literally a heartbeat away from a nuclear exchange. The fact that it didn't happen doesn't mean that the threat was over-hyped or manufactured, it means that we got very very lucky and that a few brave men like Stanislav Petrov kept cool heads.

As far as global warming goes, I work in a weather and oceanography facility in Northern California. I'm not a climatologist, but I work with some of the brightest climatologists in the world, and I can tell you that they're convinced that global warming is real, and they have the numbers to prove it. These aren't a bunch of liberal hippies out hugging trees. They work for the Department of Defense.

Nope, they didn't.



You do understand that communism and the Soviet system are not the same thing, don't you?

Well, you are obviously a lot older than me, so it's very hard to relate. It may seem at first that generation gap is easy to overcome, but it's not.

I bet if you talked with relatives who grew up in the 80's they'd tell you differently. I spent much of the late 80's and early 90's in the Navy in a job where I...er..."studied" the Russians a lot. I'd never tell you that I know your people better than you do, but from my vantage point the average Russian and the average American had a lot in common when it came to cold war fears.


Yes.

My brother-in-law did the same, but in the Air Force.

Americans tend to take things more seriously, in my opinion. We didn't get half as paranoid after all our terrorist attacks as you got after 9/11. I may be full of it, but it's my impression. It can be wrong, and solid arguments against it may very well convince me otherwise.

No, I think you're right. Americans do tend to overreact, and our reactions over 9/11 are a perfect (and shameful) example.

Russians (like I need to tell you this ) tend to be more stoic in the way they handle a situation. You see what needs to be done and you do it, even if what you need to do is simply accept it and make due the best you can. A lot of this has to do with the fact that Russians have had to face just about every kind of adversity there is, and that's just over the last hundred or so years. The Russian Revolution, for example, is just something we have nothing to compare to. Americans have been very fortunate. We have never really had to face true adversity. So we're not very good at handling adversity, and a lot of times we are childish and do silly things like invade the wrong country. I wish we were better at handling adversity, but we're not.

There was this thing called the "American Revolution."

And the American Civil War, the bloodiest war the US has ever seen, which was not so different.

Agreed but we have no "institutional" memory of either of these wars. For most Americans the Civil War is all about the Gettysburg Address (which most Americans have never read or even know what it's about) and Gone with the Wind. I read a survey sometime back where 70% of responding high school kids believed George Washington fought in the Civil War. That's sad.

For sheer bloodiness, the Russian Revolution probably beats the American Revolution and the American Civil War combined and several times over. And that's just one example of Russian upheaval. We've never had to experience the likes of World War I, nor the sheer death toll in World War II. The Soviet Union lost over 20 million people in WW2. The United States lost just over 400,000. Post WW2 was almost as bloody. Nobody knows how many died to Stalin, but it was in the millions. It could in fact be worse than the Nazi Holocaust.

As I say, we have nothing to compare this sheer loss of humanity to. What's more, the Russians study it from an early age. (this may be less true these days, which would be a shame) There is a clear institutional history, a connectedness to their past that we lack, and I think that's to our detriment. We simply don't know how to deal with adversity when it comes our way, and so we overreact because most Americans have nothing to compare it to.

Over 500,000 died during the civil war, it was hardly a trivial event.

The American Revolution was similar to the Russian one, we both had a King, and both got rid of him. Our new government just lasted a bit longer.



Again, I would have to disagree. The 116,000 Americans who died during WWI would probably disagree as well. The Russians avoided the worst of it, as the government collapsed during the war. Most Russian deaths were from the revolution that began during the war.

The British, French, and German losses during the Great War were truly disgusting. I've been to many of the WWI battlefields. Entire generations of young men were wiped out in Canada, New Zealand and Australia fighting this war.

Canadians still certainly remember it, probably moreso than WWII. I have a red poppy for Nov 11th.



Actually the Soviet Union lost over 20 million before WWII even started. By almost every academic tally, Stalin killed far more Russians than Hitler did. (I don't think either of them were very nice people.)

After WWII was not as bloody. After Stalin's death, the purges ended almost completely.



History in Russia has still largely been whitewashed and altered. Many Russians would not believe that the US and UK even fought in World War II. Much of the destruction in the Soviet Union was a result of the poor planning and poor strategy of the Soviets at the beginning of the war. Remember, the Soviets were an aggressor in this war (they annexed Finland and Poland, which both caused great losses on thier own, and sped up the German offensive).

Still a sore spot with my (Finnish) family.

I would hope we are done with the "cold war" era

Some of the statements in your post are not entirely correct, and the one in bold is just plain wrong. I really don't understand why you came to this conclusion.

In a sense it was similar, but on the other hand, it was entirely different. We're talking about the October revolution of 1917, correct? There were three revolutions at the beginning of the 20th century, 1905-07, February 1917 and October 1917. The bloodiest thing was the Civil War that followed the one in October, and the Intervention. No one ever remembers the Intervention...

I don't think Russians are in any way "stoic" or anything like that - we just don't give a crap most of the time. I certainly don't, unless I'm being pushed. Then I push back

I don't doubt they do believe it's real, in fact this type of group-think backed up with "science of the day" has, historically happened over and over on down through time yet we always have the utmost confidence in the latest round of science... as if we have "finally arrived."

Perhaps this time they will be correct, but I can promise you if they are not, there will be no public flogging, no one will ask "how they could have been so certain and yet so wrong".... Nope, it will be on to the next Doom and Gloom story line.

Um...I didn't say that it was.

Actually, I believe it was more like .........................600,000.
Thats a lot of friggin people, I think Iraq is right around 4000.

It was a big deal. It was the first case of modern warfare, machine guns, etc. The US was a much smaller place then, there were only 27 million of us at the time. We are ten times larger now, it would be like 6 million Americans dying if such a war happened today.

4,000 people, or 4,000 Americans?

I guess we're not counting Iraqis and others as people anymore. Too bad, because they sure count themselves as people.

Documented Iraqi deaths is somewhere around 80,000. The actual toll is probably closer to a half million, as most deaths go un-reported. Also, in order to qualify as a statistic you have to die in a very specific way that is narrowly defined by the occupying...er, I mean coalition force in such a way as to keep the statistics low.

-------------------
Sure people are people.
We can count civilian deaths in Iraq as well, only problem is, the "numbers" are hard to know because groups at both end of the spectrum seem to be adding or minimizing according to their
political goals.

Since 5 American wars were mentioned here ... why is it you only feel the need to count civilians when "Iraq" came to the table?

Someone with more time than me please post civilian casualties for some other wars.

Because it's also the time that I came to the table. There are a whole bunch of good posts here and there would be a lot of replies I could've made, but when I checked this thread out, the most recent stream of discussion shifted to Iraq.

Plus, I lived in the Middle East for over a year and I believe the whole situation over there is completely misunderstood by the average American with most folks here thinking the death toll for that war is somewhere near 4000 because that's what they hear on TV. They fail to make the correlation between the number of people dying there and what it would mean if the same number of people were killed in our country as a result of our government being toppled by a foreign invader.

If you guys want to really point fingers and talk numbers, how about blankets infected with smallpox?

The figures I quoted in my posts about the Russian Revolution and WW2 were combined military and civilian deaths.


I spent 6 months in the Middle East, and completely agree with you. The problem is complex on so many levels, but most Americans think it's just about a magnetic ribbon on their SUV. Kinda goes back to the other posts where I was saying Americans have no sense of their own history. In actuality, Americans (in general) have no sense of any history whatsoever. And so we keep repeating not only our own mistakes, but the mistakes of others.

Funny how time served in the AO changes your perspective, isn't it? It's kind of like trying to explain having a Russian fiancee or wife to someone who's never been outside the U.S. "Wow, so she's like, from one of those catalogs or something?"

I spent 6 months in the Middle East, and completely agree with you. The problem is complex on so many levels, but most Americans think it's just about a magnetic ribbon on their SUV. Kinda goes back to the other posts where I was saying Americans have no sense of their own history. In actuality, Americans (in general) have no sense of any history whatsoever. And so we keep repeating not only our own mistakes, but the mistakes of others.
[/quote]

-----------------
It's absolutely complex with no good options.
I am stunned at people who claim to care so much for the Iraq people (not referring to Mr.Slim) and without hesitation want total troop withdraw.
When the blood flows, what will they do... probably the same things the Nam protesters did when we Pulled out of Viet-nam... Silence, while slaughter began and continued on.

No more songs or marches, no more student demonstrations, no nothing. Most people did not even know about it until years later, even the News packed up and moved on. Meanwhile something like a million were killed. Meanwhile the "give peace a chance" bumper-stickers began to curl at the edge and fade away.
They didn't care about yellow people anymore than anyone else did.

Great movie on the true life story of one Vietnamese who lived through it and made to to america (only to be killed on the streets in California) was The Killing fields.

Sorry to challenge your history, but "The Killing Fields" was not about Vietnam. It was Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge. The man who ultimately escaped became a New York Times photographer, and was ultimately killed in a car crash.

It had absolutey nothing to do with America or our military.

We watched it in my 8th grade geography class, I'm quoting this from memory (but I'm fairly certain that I am correct)

You beat me to it, but yeah. The Killing Fields was about the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.


Most people who advocate troop withdrawal--and I'm one of them--advocate a responsible troop withdrawal. Not overnight, but over a reasonable amount of time. One thing I learned about the Arabs while I was in Saudi Arabia (I worked for Lucent) is that they are in no hurry to get anything done unless it's absolutely imperative. The reason you see the Iraqi government doing nothing is because they feel no sense of pressure. The pressure is all on the Americans. Now, you give them an absolute date when there wont' be any more Americans and I can guarantee they'll start getting stuff done. They have way too much to lose not to.

Unfortunately this administration has painted themselves in a corner through their own gigantic egos. They refuse to do "timetables," despite the fact that the diplomatic corps "on the ground" has urged it time and time again.



Um...what?!?! We are talking about the Vietnam war, right? If you were talking about Korea, I'd agree. But nobody's forgotten Vietnam. I mean, nobody except the people running the Iraq war. Everyone else remembers.

Thanks for the correction of detail, but I "thought" I had Read he was killed in front of his Apt in Cal. Oddly enough I cant seem to find mention of the cause of his death, even at http://www.dithpran.org... not even a mention of his death but this detail is irrelevant to my point.

While I am quite certain even today debate goes on as to the events of Political/military actions, I think my main point still stands (at least I hope) and that is, JFK and later two more Presidents sent or oversaw the military action to combat the spread of Communism in that part of the world.
When we pulled out of that part of the world one of the biggest human loss of life took place, and all those who claimed to care so much for the people in that part of the world just kinda lost interest, they seem to trade their CS&N albums for James Taylor
I am quite certain if this were to happen AFTER Bush heads back to Crawford, we would get the same response.
It's all about Politics (domestic) not only do these phonies not care about Iraq, they don't really care of about our Soldiers either. If they did all these rock stars would have gotten together to raise money for causes benefiting the Military or their families.
It galls them that huge numbers of troops there Joined the military After the war started and continue to join.
From the voices I hear, this is the opinion I have drawn anyway.

<<<Um...what?!?! We are talking about the Vietnam war, right? If you were talking about Korea, I'd agree. But nobody's forgotten Vietnam. I mean, nobody except the people running the Iraq war. Everyone else remembers.>>



Actually, I was talking about The slaughter that took place after we pulled out.


It's a small point but the "The killing fields" was no more about the Khmer Rouge than "The Pianist" was about Hitler.


I suspect we will unfortunately be in Iraq for a long time to come. Especially when you consider the top teer candidates Running for 08 have said as much.

We are both mistaken. The actor who played Dith Pran was murdered in LA.

Dith Pran has worked at The New York Times since 1980, and reports of his death (by me) were wildly exaggerated.

You guys are all in the right general area....

The very existence of the Khmer Rouge and the slaughter depicted in "the Killing Fields" was directly influenced by Vietnam. U.S. presence in the region only exacerbated the whole situation and the subsequent pullout ended up placing the U.S. on the "same team" as the Khmer Rouge.

Kind of like how we were on Saddam's team. (And the Taliban's team. Noriega's team. et al.)

Certainly Iraq, it's neighbors, and the aftermath are all going to be affected by the U.S. pullout as well.

Ah yes, because if there's anything our military needs, it's more money. (kidding)

Actually there are many charities that benefit our military veterans and families. The Yellow Ribbon Fund is the one that comes to my mind first, but there are many others. There's another group where you can send care packages to soldiers. I can't remember the name of it off-hand, but I've sent several care packages that way.

Also, the money these "rock stars" raise typically goes to children and other civilian victims of war. If you want our military and their families to be taken care of, you should demand it from our government. National Guard soldiers who fought shoulder-to-shoulder with their Army/Marine counterparts have their VA benefits turned off after 12 months. The VA is constantly understaffed and underfunded, (Walter Reed anyone?) and of course there's the infamous "you go to war with the army you have" line that pretty much summed up why our troops were sent into combat with inadequate armor. I'd like to see some of the "rock stars" of Washington step up to the plate (and I include the Democrats who lied when they said they were going to change directions) and start really caring about the troops as other than photo ops.


No. It galls them (the peace movement) that huge numbers of troops continue to be killed and maimed over a war about oil and egos. Also, recruiting for the Army has dropped off to dangerous levels. The reason you hear that they are meeting and sometimes exceeding their quotas is because 1) they have "adjusted" recruiting targets to much lower levels than pre-war and 2) they have drastically lowered the requirements for entry into the service. Talk about Vietnam all over again. I just heard a report on Friday that the Army is facing a huge shortage of West Point graduates, because most graduates are resigning their commisions after their obligation is up. This is potentially devastating to an all-volunteer Army because they depend on this pipeline for future leadership.


You should get new voices. (sorry, couldn't resist... )