It’s certain the U.S. president didn’t promise his Russian counterpart he would abandon missile defense, but he did express his desire for closer cooperation with Moscow. That dialog is necessary so he can change the focus of his foreign policy from Iran to Afghanistan.
President Obama’s offer to terminate plans for a Central European missile defense shield against possible Iranian attack may be understood as a response to Russian threats. Former Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov announced in July 2007 that Russia would station medium-range missiles in the Königsberg region in the event the United States continued with plans to station a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. President Dmitri Medvedev repeated that threat on November 5th, the day after Obama’s election victory.
Medvedev’s statement was a variation of the specific Russian invitation to coordinate future policies. Obama put out enough signals during the campaign indicating his desire for a new direction in bilateral relations to catch the attention of both Putin and Medvedev. The repeated threat implied that a new direction wouldn’t happen until both sides had addressed the issue of the missile shield. That was presumably contained in the letter Medvedev sent to the new U.S. president and to which Obama replied three weeks ago.
This wish for a more expanded discussion originated from an analysis of something Obama said in a keynote speech on July 15, 2008 when he was still on the campaign trail. Referring to Russia, he said, “But instead of threatening to kick them out of the G-8, we need to work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert; to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material; to seek a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; and to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global. By keeping our commitment under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, we’ll be in a better position to press nations like North Korea and Iran to keep theirs. In particular, it will give us more credibility and leverage in dealing with Iran.”
Obama said nothing about missile defense. A few days later in his Berlin speech, he restricted his comments to saying he hoped to work with Russia “wherever possible.”
A Kremlin spokesperson said Obama did not offer to renounce missile defense. Of course he didn’t – that would have been a unilateral advance payment. Within the framework of his overall policy as outlined in mid-July, however, missile defense would be made redundant. There are numerous indications that this is the message Washington wanted to transmit both to Moscow and the NATO allies.
Medvedev has also sent signals that while Russia is serious about new approaches to the West, it will also use its own power to shape those approaches. Just in the past few weeks, Russia’s allied Commonwealth of Independent States put limits on the supply routes used by NATO forces in Afghanistan by refusing NATO the use of air bases on its territories. This was done in order to ensure the continuation of Russian aid. Prior to Obama’s inauguration, Pakistan operated similarly. It had repeatedly closed the Khyber Pass, ostensibly for reasons of security. The pass had been the sole land route for supplying U.S. troops in Afghanistan. This use of this kind of pressure is part and parcel of international diplomacy.
On Tuesday, Russia announced it was opening rail lines for non-military shipments to the Hindu Kush. That’s a meaningful positive signal because NATO supplies enter via NATO member Baltic states and from there are routed through Russia and Uzbekistan to Afghanistan. Moscow had severely criticized the admission of those Baltic states into NATO. Medvedev’s decision to accept America’s use of those NATO ports amounts to saying much is possible if cooperation is given first priority.
Missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic will be up for renegotiation if the United States and Russia ever find common ground on the Iran issue. Russia will then bring a number of topics to the foreground such as Kosovo, Ukraine and Georgia. Moscow wants to stop the policy of encirclement. Washington is looking for financial relief with its many unnecessary trouble spots. Both sides have good reason to find agreement.
the industrial military complex in america must always have a country or countries to fear. it must keep americans thinking that mega military expense is for their freedom.
just as the medical profession must keep americans thinking they have the best medical care in the world. corp profits depend on it.
a person in america goes bankrupt every 30 seconds due to medical costs and we are ranked behind every industrialized country.
we also have 47 million americans without health care insurance. and corp insurance companies look for ways to not pay a claim or look for preexisting conditions so they dont have to pay.
corp fascism has come to america as these corporations control the politicans which need their money for reelection.
america is like a teen ager with much to learn about worldly affairs. to an america visiting another state is worldly.
the sad part in a republic the politicans are only a reflection of its people.
but we are learning that is the law of progress in action. will we stay a super power? no, we are bankrupt now only china keeps us afloat so we can buy their stuff.
soon that will run out then more printed money then inflation then we will be in the same economic shape of germany after world war 1 when hitler came into power.