"These unnecessary concessions represent at a minimum, strategic naiveté on the part of Obama about relations with Russia. ... The weakening of Poland and the Czech Republic in relation to Russia represents a more serious threat than the benefits of Obama's new shield."
Russian President Medvedev has acknowledged recieving a letter from President Obama, but says there was no offer of a 'quid pro quo' on the U.S. missile shield and dealing with Iran's nuclear program.
Whenever he had the
opportunity this weekend - and since he was making the talk show circuit, he
had many such opportunities - the American president discussed his
administration's decision to abandon construction of elements of an anti-missile
shield in the Czech Republic and Poland, and to explain that this had nothing
to do with Russia.
If not, it's clear that the
Russians have yet to pick up on this, because all week in Moscow, people have
been celebrating and welcoming the “concessions” made to Russia by the American
administration. These unnecessary concessions represent at a minimum, strategic
naiveté on the part of Barack Obama about relations with Russia. And at
the same time, it is an unfair blow to loyal allies like the Czech Republic and
Poland, as well as Eastern Europe in general.
The core of the matter is -
at least officially - finding the best way of counteracting the threat of an
Iranian long-range missile attack against the United States or her European
allies. According to Obama, the decision to abandon the European shield is
based on new information, according to which the danger of Iran developing
long-range missiles will not manifest until 2015-2020. Rather, an attack with
short or medium-range missiles is considerably greater. Given this, the
administration in Washington says it has decided to build a more flexible
system of mobile interceptor batteries that can be land- or
sea-based, and can be positioned in Turkey and perhaps in the Balkan
States. This, the White House says, would be a far cheaper and viable technical
solution than the system envisaged for the Czech Republic and Poland, which hasn't
demonstrated its functionality.
Moreover, it was said in Bucharest
that the new system would be more advantageous for Romania, since the new version
would cover Romanian territory in a way the previous one would not. All of these
arguments are erroneous. In the first place, it isn't clear that U.S.
intelligence on Iran's capacity to build long range missiles is correct. The
American intelligence services have provided erroneous data before - and not only
once. In addition, if North Korea has succeeded, it will be much easier for Iran
to make the needed technological progress. Second, the system in Europe was ready
to be installed and, in addition, the agreement of the two countries had
already been obtained, so it was a good win. Furthermore, the southern flank
was to be protected by a mobile system achieved in cooperation with NATO about
which talks among the Alliance were well-advanced.
The possibility that NATO
countries would have assumed a significant portion of the burden, including the financial
one, destroys the argument of relative costs. In addition, a report of the
Congressional Budget Office, published last year, estimated that the “Bush
shield” in Central Europe would cost $12.8 billion, whereas the ship-based roll
out of the “Obama shield” would cost $21.9 billion. For Romania, NATO protection
would have been a satisfactory level of security. Instead, the weakening of
Poland and the Czech Republic in relation to Russia represents a more serious
threat than the benefits of the new shield and, therefore, Bucharest must show
solidarity with these two countries.
Under these circumstances,
why has the American administration agreed to make such unnecessary concessions
to Russia? One possible answer is Obama’s hope that Moscow will join American
efforts to constrain Iran's nuclear program - a “bargain” already proposed last
winter in a "secret"
letter leaked by the Kremlin from Obama to Medvedev. But in the absence of
a U.S.-Russia agreement to this effect, and given that Moscow has already
declared it will not support a more severe sanction regime against Tehran, the
American president has demonstrated by his unilateral act that he regards his
wishes to be realities.
Another possible explanation is
the talks regarding the control of the nuclear arsenal, the success of which
has been linked by Russia to the abandonment of the anti-missile shield. The
problem is that the United States obviously has less need than Russia to reduce
its stockpile of missiles and, therefore, has superior bargaining power on the
issue, making this concession useless and unnecessary.
Obama is demonstrating great
naïveté if he imagines that giving up the shield will "buy" Russian
good will. In Moscow, foreign policy is made in terms of "zero-sum"
and, in its view, it has won and can now afford to raise.
In recent days, Russian leaders have said they expect additional concessions from
the United States. In exchange several days ago, after Moscow announced it
would cancel the installation of Iskander missiles in the enclave of Kaliningrad
(which would have been Russia's answer to the shield in the Czech Republic and
Poland). Yesterday, Russian Chief of Staff Nikolai Makarov
came back and said that he has yet to make a decision on this: Russia is up 2-0
[see video below].
Finally, it isn't only Eastern
Europe that is vulnerable to an increasingly aggressive Russia, but the North Atlantic
Alliance as well. NATO is in the midst of revising its Strategic
Concept (a conference dedicated to this just ended in Lisbon), which
seriously considered plans for defending countries that joined in 2004. If one
talks, for example, of the Baltic States and Poland, such plans would have to take
account of the most likely enemy: Russia.
By abandoning the shield, the
Obama Administration undermines the confidence of the Baltic States and the
Poles that the allies will respect their commitments in the event of Russian
aggression. Of the poor Georgians, little more can be said.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
It has been said many times
that Obama announced the abandonment of the shield on the very day that Poles
commemorated the 70th anniversary of the invasion of Poland by Stalin’s troops
after the Molotov-Ribbentrop
Pact. That was the moment in which the first folds of the Iron Curtain fell
across Europe. It took 50 years of Cold War, President Reagan's Strategic Defense
Initiative (the anti-missile shield known as “Star Wars”), and, especially,
Polish Solidarity, to trigger
its collapse. By allowing Moscow to form a sphere of influence in Eastern
Europe, President Obama has given Russia the chance to erect the Iron Curtain
once again.
Posted
by WORLDMEETS.US
[Editor's Note: Under the Molotov-Ribbentrop
Pact of August, 1939, between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, Northern and
Eastern Europe were divided into German and Soviet spheres of influence. Poland
was to be split between Germany and the USSR. The German attack on Polish soil
began on September 1, 1939. The Russian attack began on September 17. That is
why most historians mark 1939 as the start of the war].
