Mar 28 2007
Bush eases Russia’s paranoia
With our planned expansion of the missile defense shield to Central and Eastern Europe, Russia initially vehemently protested. At one point they even pronounced in bellicose language that all the anti-ballistic missile sites in Central and Eastern Europe would be “targeted”. They claimed that the proximity of our missile defenses so close to their territory would be a direct threat upon Russia. Furthermore, they claimed, it would upset the post-Cold War strategic balance of power and could possibly stoke up another Cold War.
Like many of our “allies” and enemies, Russia has a proclivity to view our dominance as a threat, that looming specter of the tyrannical hegemon. Last week Mark Pekala, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, said that “extensive talks were under way with Moscow, and that U.S. officials were open to the idea of merging the missile shield with a Russian system.” But he was at pains to state that in these discussions, “There‘s no quid pro quo.”
Bush today tried to allay Russia’s fears— for the moment at least.
MOSCOW (Reuters) -
President Bush on Wednesday told Russia’s
Vladimir Putin he was ready to discuss his plans for an anti-missile shield in Europe and Moscow said it had received the offer “with satisfaction.”
ADVERTISEMENT“Putin laid out the reasons for Russian concerns about U.S. plans to create anti-missile defense bases in central Europe,” the Kremlin said in a statement after the two leaders spoke by telephone at Washington’s initiative.
“In this connection, the U.S. president’s expression of readiness for detailed discussion on this subject with the Russian side, and for cooperation in the interests of joint security, was received with satisfaction,” the Kremlin said.
The United States wants to build a radar station in the Czech Republic and a missile battery in Poland under a plan to expand its defenses against ballistic missiles which could be fired from what it calls “rogue states” like
Iran or
North Korea.The plan has drawn strong opposition from Russia, which sees the missile shield as a threat to its security and an encroachment on its former sphere of influence.
When each country holds a few thousand thermonuclear devices, as Elmer Fudd would say, we should move wary, wary slowly.
I think GWB is doing the smart thing by talking to Putin. Putin may not like the decision the US makes but letting him know the WHY behind the decision is smart.
Greg,
Yes, I think it’s smart that we’re trying to make our intentions transparent considering the history between the US and Russia. However, any way you cut the cards, Russia’ll lose some influence in the region from our expansion.
Our missile shield would take care of intermediate missiles from Iran and longer range missiles from North Korea, but it would also serve a duo purpose. Russia can’t threaten the Czech Republic willy-nilly with nuclear weapons, even if it can threaten them conventionally. (It remains to be seen how effective the Russian Topol-M missiles would be against our missile shield though…)
Russia and the Czechs having problems? Really? Got a link? What influence Russia may lose they make up for with all their natural resources. Putin is a lot of things, stupid isn’t one of them.
What do you think of the new hostage crisis?
Greg,
I don’t have a link readily available for the situation between the Czechs and the Russians. From what I understand of Russia psychology, the Russians view all Slavic peoples are one of their own. The fact that there are different nations is incidental. Also, from what I understand, the tension between Russia and their former Soviet satellite nations are still uneasy. The fact that Putin can cut off energy to Europe at a whim doesn’t help matters and neither does his government’s rash declaration that they’ll “target” every country housing our missile defense shield. If I come across more information alluding to it, I’ll be sure to pass it along.
As for the hostage crisis, well, I don’t see what more I can contribute to the discussion. I think we are, in a very, very real sense seeing a replay of the late 1970’s. The Leftists are going insane, doing things that seems to be from sheer spite, since it doesn’t even make political sense. Our citizens are being attacked across the globe. China and Russia are committing a, de facto, arms race with us.
The hostage crisis, to me, is just like record that’s skipped. We’re back in the late 1970’s with energy being a problem again, but the difference this time around is that the world is not as civilized as it was then. When people threaten us with, “I swear. I’ll do it!”, the question people should be asking is, “What won’t they do?”
I believe we are on the verge of a tipping point globally and domestically. Domestically, we’re at a crossroad and there are only two paths to take. One would take us into a spiritual revival and renaissance, a return to the very culture that fashioned us. This, of course, does not preclude calamity visiting us, but at least we remain viable as a people.
The other path is less appealing. When the late 1950’s with it’s clean-cut, objective morality tipped into the long-haired, relative morality of the 1960’s counter-culture, it came in an avalanche and almost all at once within two years. We might be at another juncture similar to this. Only time can tell.
As for the Iranians hostage situation, I speculate that the British subjects will be thoroughly brainwashed. The British in their continuing moral bankruptcy and hysteria will do nothing, except perhaps ask for our assistance on their behalf. Blair will eventually attempt something but his Parliament will try to stop him for fear of general war with Iran. For the moment, this is what I think will happen probably within the next 4-6 months. This is my initial impression, but I’d have to read much more. I’m probably way off base here, but that’s what I think.
The targeting part is pure bluster, it does not take much to target a place with an ICBM even for the Russians, I had not heard about this mentality of theirs so thanks for the info. It looks like Blair is getting stronger in his statements about the hostages. I doubt this will go on for months. They sailed halfway around the world to take the Falklands back after all. Iran needs to be careful on this one. There is still some bulldog left on that island.
Perhaps you’re right about it not taking months for a resolution to this crisis. But as to the Brits, well, they are not what they used to be. If their plans go through, they’re scuttling virtually half of their navy. This will reduce them down to a coastal defense force around Great Britain. As it stands now, and definitely within the next couple of years, they don’t have the resources to mount an effort like the Falklands.
Case in point, when we initiated the navy blockade of North Korea a couple of years ago, the Lord Admiralty said they could maybe, maybe contribute a frigate and that’s it. The royal navy, which is still the basis of their projection of power, may still look impressive on paper, but if they don’t reverse it and reverse it immediately, they’ll be paper tiger in fact.
This is the reason why I don’t know if the Brits have the gumption to force a resolution to the hostage crisis. I don’t know how far they has declined since I last checked, but their military seems awfully weak, and we all know that negotiating from a weak position in today’s world can be catastrophic for any nation.
It seems the only reliable base for British power and influence is their submarine and nuclear force.
[…] Commentor Greg Laurich opined in my previous post that, “There is still some bulldog left on that island.” […]