Rocket to Russia
This seems to me like a welcome dose of realism from the Obama administration:
President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons, American officials said Monday.
The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev was hand-delivered in Moscow by top administration officials three weeks ago. It said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.
This seems to have gone down during the Burns/McFaul trip to Moscow and I think it illustrates what I was saying about McFaul a couple of weeks ago—he combines a keen interest in democracy-promotion with a realistic understanding of Russia. What was so distressing about the Bush administration’s approach to this sort of thing wasn’t really that they put some kind of “ideals” ahead of “interests” but that they had no capacity to set priorities or ever make offers that had any chance of securing a “yes.” I can’t say whether or not Russia will accept this deal. But the deal would, if accepted, promote American interests. And, importantly, accepting it would also promote Russian interests thus making it at least plausible that they’ll say “yes.” It’s how diplomacy should be done.
100 Responses to “Rocket to Russia”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Then we are to believe that ObaMessiah sees a nuclear Iran as such an existential threat to Europe and Israel that we require an unproven and destabilizing “missile defense” system in Eastern Europe?
Or do you mean “realism” in ReaganSpeak?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Damn, that’s genius. If Russia takes the deal, we 1) don’t spend a boatload of money on this crappy missile system, 2) have the political cover to make that cut, and 3) don’t have an Iranian nuclear program to worry about.
If they don’t, the Russian government gets to explain to its people and to the world why preventing that American missile system they’ve been demonizing for so many years needs to take a back seat to making sure a country led by fundamentalist Muslims near Russia’s borders has a nuclear attack capability.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
JT,
Try to see the whole board, and try to think more than one move ahead.
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
What the hell is going on? This is squarely at odds with Clinton’s Iranian remarks the other day… who is thinking this stuff up?
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
So without Bush’s threat of a missile defense system we would have had no cards to play, and Obama would have had no place to argue from. Like calling your mother an idiot for birthing you.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Rock over London
Rock on Chicago!
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
They won’t accept the deal and they may have already indicated as much publicly. It seems like a sweet deal if you buy the military’s assertion that the missile defense shield is an effective weapon system. In reality, Russia’s really not that concerned about the missile system from a tactical standpoint, but they’ve very much enjoyed raking the U.S. over the coals and driving a wedge between the U.S. and Europe over this issue.
It’s like abortion and the Republican party. It’s a great issue when you can hammer away at the courts and those rascally Democrats who appoint “activist” judges. Unfortunately, it’s an enormous loser of a political issue when voters actually get to determine whether abortion is legal.
The Russians like the idea of balancing U.S. interests in the Middle East by supporting Iran (so do the Chinese). They don’t see a nuclear-armed Iran as a big strategic threat, so why do the heavy diplomatic lifting? Remember, most countries don’t irrationally care about the foreign policy of Israel. They don’t really feel a moral imperative to participate in sanctions, so the U.S. will have to offer up even more to make Russia happy.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Apparently not that secret a letter.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
I am glad that Yglesias welcomes doses of initiatives that don’t work and have no hope of working.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4068869,00.html
Whoever McFaul is, his understanding of Russia is anything but realistic.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:06 pm
This is smart. Obama doesn’t want to spend money on a program that he doesn’t believe will function and antagonizes other nations. Rather than simply cut the program and take flak from Republicans for weakening the countries defense Obama is trading it for better diplomacy. Its like when a football team trades a player it doesn’t want for a draft instead of merely releasing him. This way we at least get something for our trouble.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I am glad freddybak links to things he hasn’t read:
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I think Hillary Clinton hinted in this direction a few weeks ago. I think it was in her public meeting with the Czech Republic foreign minister on Feb. 10. That was before the Burns/McFaul trip.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
In reality, Russia’s really not that concerned about the missile system from a tactical standpoint, but they’ve very much enjoyed raking the U.S. over the coals and driving a wedge between the U.S. and Europe over this issue.
And now, with this letter becoming public, it becomes a great deal harder for Russia to do that. Obama just reframed the debate into one about Russia choosing to have a nuclear Iran AND a missile system in Eastern Europe. Rejecting this overture makes it obvious that their sturm and drang about this missile system is just a political show. It’s tough to cast the Yankees as the big bad interlopers in Russia’s sphere, when all they have to do for us to drop the whole thing is to stop helping the Iranians build a nuclear weapon.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I disagree, this is not how diplomacy is done…unless you really like the model of the Bush administration.
Sending a hack like McFaul over there just insults the Russians. Thanks to fools like him, we’ve got a Russia that is hypersensitive to U.S. efforts to “democratize” the country (i.e. destroy their country).
This is similar to what the Bush administration did when they sent over one of the President’s hack friends (fund raisers) prior to the start of the Iraq war to “negotiate” with the Russians. Understandably, the Russians were insulted and nothing got done.
What you need to do is send someone along the lines of an Averell Harriman — someone who the Russians respect and someone who respects Russia.
But of course, we won’t do that, because we’ve got Hillary and her merry band of Wilsonian/neocons running the foreign policy of this country. I think you might have gotten the indication of how well this has worked with the Russians coming out and embarrassingus in public on the issue.
That all having been said…Missile defense is not going to be the price for Iranian cooperation. We’re going to have to pay a lot more than that. A few years ago, that would have probably been worth it…but now…with the Iranians about to turn the screw and the Russians not willing to do anything besides slow down the reactor, we’re getting nothing while simultaneously destroying what was left of our relationship with Eastern Europe (and quite possibly NATOs future).
Its too late to stop the Iranians (and that’s not the administration’s fault). And it’s not too late to begin to repair our relationship with Russia. But we need to be a lot smarter than this…and with Hillary at the helm at State, we’ve already screwed up our foreign policy further.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I’m glad JM takes everything the trustworthy Russians say at face value.
To the extent that we are talking about any concrete proposal without seeing the letter itself, we know that it’s a trade: we give up the missile shield, they stop helping Iran. Medvedev said he is not interested in haggling (commonly known as negotiating) over this. Obviously, unlike JM, I won’t take this at face value. The fact that he sees positive signals from Obama is fine, but it doesn’t have any meaning for this particular proposal. The missile defense sheild (unfortunately) is not going to protect Europe from the Russian threat. The Russians still hate it, however, because of a complex set of reasons mostly having to do with propaganda. They do not win the propaganda war if they have to stop their cooperation with Iran in order to get us to scrap the missile shield. In fact, it undermines their entire argument as to why they have a problem with the sheild in the first place. They literally have no interest in cooperating here. But of course, we should listen to knowledgable and oh so analytical people like Yglesias and people he links to. Maybe JM and Yglesias should actually think about the issues and people’s actual motivations instead of just bolding text in articles and taking it at face value.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
And for you guys that are arguing that these efforts put the ball in Russia’s/Iran’s court…you really need to grow up.
The point of all of this is to see if we can prevent Iran from developing a weapon. We’re not some far east country that’s interested in how the world perceives us on this issue.
As I said, it’s too late to prevent these guys from going nuclear…SO DON’T OVERPAY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE GUYS THAT SEND TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
“I’m not interested in haggling” = pretty good opening line in a negotiation.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:35 pm
We’re not some far east country that’s interested in how the world perceives us on this issue.
Are you completely out of your mind? Have you been in a coma for the last two years?
Let me bring you up to speed: we just elected Barack Obama to the presidency. I hear that, once or twice, he has made references to suggest that we actually do care how we’re perceived in the world.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
joe,
ON THIS ISSUE.
The point of sending this letter was to see if we could secure Russian aid so to PREVENT IRAN FROM GOING NUCLEAR.
It is not a win for the United States if the world decides that it’s nice that we decided to try and sensibly speak to Russians. A win is PREVENTING IRAN FROM GOING NUCLEAR.
Also…With respect to the “world,” just who are we talking about here? Will NATO be happy about this? Will Eastern Europe view us more positively? Just who is it that’s going to view us more positively over this…AND WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO OFFER US.
Can they send troops to Afghanistan? Can they join us in sanctions on Iran (if we decided to go down that route)?
Feeling good about yourself is not foreign policy. Nor is it realism. I’m all for diplomacy, but diplomacy needs to be either a win for us or a win win for us and the people we’re negotiating with.
This is clearly a loser.
And as a side note…I’m not some nutty neocon that thinks that the only way to stop Iran is to bomb them…Or that we need to aggressively push Russia to run their country the way that WE WANT THEM TO (McFaul).
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
@2 Ed Smithe:
Formatting: Use the buttons below to apply basic HTML styles. Or use these tags directly:
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
ugh. comment fail.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Ed Smithe,
Feeling good about yourself is not foreign policy.
I understand that you feel this way. What you might have picked up on over the past couple of years is that Barack Obama does not, and does in fact perceive improvements in how other countries perceive us to be important for our security and geopolitical standing.
Casting Russia as the bellicose party, while we strove to work out our differences, helps us. It helps our standing in Europe and around the world. Embarrassing them over their unwillingness to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions helps us – and not only by improving out image, but by raising the cost of Russia’s policy of aiding and running interference for Iran.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
I’m waiting Scythia…Locked and loaded.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
I’m glad freddybak can read people’s minds. It saves him from needing one of his own.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
But on the substantive points, Ed:
1. You do realize the U.S. has multiple foreign-policy goals right?
2. How exactly are we losing anything in this proposal? Just because we might not get everything we wanted? Foreign policy isn’t a binary, zero-sum game (cf. joe @ 19).
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:54 pm
N/m, joe said it better. Respond to him pls; I’m returning to lurking and snark.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Joe,
We’re talking about trying to ensure that Iran doesn’t go nuclear…We’re not talking about a broad strategic objective that the U.S. doesn’t look like a bunch of bullies.
Moreover, you’re not considering what an action like this will do to our standing in Eastern Europe. The President has said that he places priority on Afghanistan…Really? Because he just told the Poles and NATO that they’re just not as important an ally to us and they’d like to be. That’s not going to be received well in Poland, that just spent the last eight years having to deal with a President that treated them in much the same way (as second-class citizens).
BTW, how many troops has Russia sent to Afghanistan? Also, do you think that the administration was happy about the Russians putting that letter out to the press?
I think the President is a realist at heart…I really, really do. But the people he has running his foreign policy are terrible. Perhaps not as dangerous as the Bush administration, but equally dumb.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Ed,
I appreciate the fact that you disagree with Barack Obama’s oft-stated vision of foreign policy. For now, we’ll just have to agree to disagree about that.
My point is that this is a successful implementation of his foreign policy vision.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
scythia/Joe,
What are we getting? I’ll tell you what we’re not getting…We’re not getting a happy Eastern Europe or a happy NATO that put themselves out on the line to support this insane MD proposal.
Don’t get me wrong…This terrible thing was the creation of the Bush administration.
BUT, it’s up to the Obama administration not to compound a mistake but getting nothing in return for completely dissing our allies.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
We’re losing a missile shield … that doesn’t work. See? Liberals don’t care about national security.
Or something.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:03 pm
scthia,
Also, what are those multiple goals? Are they to not get anything from the Russians in exchange for further destroying our relationship with Eastern Europe and NATO — thereby further complicating our difficult efforts in Afghanistan, which places at risk our strategy to keep a footprint in that area of the world so to both prevent al Qaeda from regrouping and Pakistan from falling off a cliff.
In short, yes, I do realize that we have more than one foreign policy goal.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
What are we getting?
If it works, Russian cooperation in stifling Iran’s nuclear program; a cooling of tensions between us and Russia; and a few more ticks in our popularity rating, at a time when we could really use them.
If not, we still get those ticks, while Russia drops a few pegs, and their propaganda about American aggression becomes much less effective.
We’re not getting a happy Eastern Europe or a happy NATO that put themselves out on the line to support this insane MD proposal. We had to twist more arms than George the Animal Steele to get our NATO allies on board with this missile defense nonsense. It’s immensely unpopular among the publics in eastern Europe. You think the governing parties in Poland and Cz haven’t noticed what happened to the Bushite parties in Britain and Spain? We’d be letting them off the hook with this.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Joe…Complete the thought. We’re losing a missile shield that doesn’t work…And then…
It’s not that liberals don’t care about national security, it’s that their emotional thinking prevents them from considering consequences.
There’s no such thing as a free lunch. I’m sorry to hoist that one on you, but as one of the laws of nature (thermodynamics) it’s kinda important to consider.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Are they to not get anything from the Russians in exchange for further destroying our relationship with Eastern Europe and NATO
Why do you keep saying this? The proposal, as it is being reported, was that we would get Russia’s help in sitting on the mullahs’ nuke program – a program that is and always has been hugely dependent upon Russian help. Getting Russia to stop helping, and even put pressure on them, would be a huge deal.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Joe…Complete the thought. We’re losing a missile shield that doesn’t work…And then…
…and then, the Russians end the Iranian nuclear weapons program, the populations of Poland and the Czech Republican say “Yay!” and Barack Obama bestrides the globe like a colossus while everyone waves little American flags.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:12 pm
joe,
If it works…But already it hasn’t worked because we hurt our relationship with Eastern Europe and NATO.
And you’re wrong about the popularity. How do you think it got sold? The Poles in particular padded the deal with another Article V, money and technology. Trust me…it was very well received.
Moreover, how do you think this looks to a bunch of folks that we’ve sold down the river once again? Do you think that stuff just fades with time?
Propaganda against America? What are you talking about? Actions speak louder than words, and given the fact that we’re keeping 50,000 folks in Iraq, I don’t think that our actions on this issue effect that one iota.
You guys place to much faith in intangibles. All of this to look better to a bunch of people you can’t even define. I’ve told you who this is going to piss off and why that matters. You guys are telling me that folks at cocktail parties who have no power are going to hold the idiot US in higher regard? SO WHAT.
I’m all for public diplomacy and improving America’s tattered image, but not at the expense of my national security interests.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Joe,
Why do you think the Russians released this letter to the media…BECAUSE THEY WANT MORE.
And you know what. Considering how stupid some of these people at State are, they might just get it.
And again…I’d like to hear some analysis as to what Russia is going to do with Iran…Stopping production on their nuclear reactor does nothing to their ability to field a weapon. Let’s say they stop selling the Iranians weapons…AGAIN, SO WHAT.
You need to connect the dots for me. What can the Russians do? Can you answer that? Because if you can’t, then you’re idea of quid pro quo ought to be simply, Quid.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Ed Smithe,
Your position is all so clear now – you are basing it all on a misunderstanding about the popularity of missile defense in Eastern Europe. You think it’s something they very much want.
It’s not.
The public hates the idea. The political class accepted it in exchange for NATO membership. If it goes away, the people cheer, and the political leadership struts around saying they got NATO membership and didn’t even end up with the unpopular missile bases.
Propaganda against America? What are you talking about? Are you kidding me? I mention that Russia is engaging in a propaganda war to cast us, both among Russians and in the world, as bad guys intruding on their sphere, and your response is “Huh? What are you talking about?” Are you kidding me?
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Joe,
Why do you think the Russians released this letter to the media…BECAUSE THEY WANT MORE.
No shit – one party in a negotiation wants more? Wow! Gee willikers, I never woulda thoughta that!
I’m arguing for diplomacy – you claim you support diplomacy – and “but the other guy is gonna try to get more” is supposed to be some kind of imposing rejoinder?
OF COURSE THEY WANT MORE. SO DO WE. THAT’S WHY IT’S CALLED NEGOTIATION.
And at this point, if you don’t consider improving our standing in the world, and the blunting of our competitors’ propaganda efforts, to be a goal worth pursuing, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:24 pm
What can the Russians do?
Cease technological assistance. Cease material assistance. Support an international containment/embargo/disarmament system from their perch as a permanent member of the security council. Isolate Iran diplomatically.
Sound like a whole lotta quo to me.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
joe from Lowell…
I thought my sarcasm was plain to read. Your notion that Barry’s little song and dance is anything more than window dressing is just absurd.
The problem with linking the missile defense system to Russia’s help with Iran are multitude but here are a few:
Russia knows that when push comes to shove and for a variety of reasons ObamaNation will not build the missile defense system it in effect threatens Russia and Iran with. To do so would not only be foolish it would be criminally stupid and counterproductive. It would simply invite an arms race with all of our proclaimed “enemies” which is the exact opposite of ObaMessiah’s stated aims.
And you do recall, yes?, that it was Eisenhower’s missile defense shield in Turkey which was the proximate cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis. If you have forgotten I assure you Obama has not.
Further we have nothing to give Iran of sufficient value to convince them not to go nuclear. All we can do is threaten to hurt them and that is just more perverse incentive.
For us or our client Israel to attack Iran will create so much world wide pain and dislocation that its only rationale would be to bring on WWIII and thus solve the depression/recession/whatever.
Iran will build a bomb, thankfully, and we will not build a missile defense shield on Russia’s borders.
To blindly accept every fart from the ObaMachine as meaningful and signifying is masochistic at best though in Matt’s case it is simply sycophancy
And PS We must always remember Barry’s admiration for Reagan.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Joe,
Your study is from February of 2008, before Radek Sikorski revealed to the Polish public what they got for it. I have friends in Poland…let’s wait for the next poll to see how the Polish public reacts to the U.S. selling them down the river.
As to what the Russians want…What more are you willing to give up. Suppose I told you that the Russians weren’t willing to budge unless we kept our money and influence out of Central Asia…Would you be willing to give up Central Asia for this?
Thirdly, none of those accomplish our objective…Let me remind you again…We want to make sure Iran doesn’t go nuclear. Short of force, that’s not going to happen (and neither side is willing to use force.
Tech assistance? On what? On their heavy water reactor that the Iranians themselves are building at Arak? Cease material assistance…again, on what? On the facilities that are already up and running? Support an international….again, ON WHAT? How are you going to disarm someone when you don’t have anything that they want…and are unwilling to use force (or are you willing to use force?…I’m not for the record). Isolate Iran diplomatically…Oh, you mean like we have for the last 30 years which has enabled them to produce a nuclear weapon? For how long? Does that include an investment freeze? Does that include Europe?
You’re not doing anything for your argument here. Clearly you haven’t worked on this as much as some of us have.
I’m not a Russian expert, but I do know this. They know that the President is hard up for a diplomatic victory on Iran…and so they’re going to ask for the sky and probably get it. Again, WHAT ARE WE GETTING IN RETURN. You don’t negotiate to lose…or is that how you conduct diplomacy?
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
JT, good post. You sound realistic…and that’s good to see.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Not popular in Prague, either. 70% opposed in a RECENT poll.
As to what the Russians want…What more are you willing to give up. Make me an offer. For now, I’m willing to give up this crappy missile defense program. Maybe there’s a deal to be made, maybe not. It’s worth pursuing.
Tech assistance? On what? I’m not going to bring you up to speed on the history of Russian assistance for this program, or the ongoing Iranian need for foreign assistance and material. You can educate yourself, or not. Up to you.
Isolate Iran diplomatically…Oh, you mean like we have for the last 30 years which has enabled them to produce a nuclear weapon? They haven’t been isolated diplomatically for 30 years. Once again, educate yourself on the subject of Russian/Iranian relations, particularly in the area of nuclear research.
You’re not doing anything for your argument here. Actually, I think I have. You seem to be a bit hot under the collar, and no wonder. You’re reduced to asserting counterfactuals about the popularity of the proposed missile system, and about Russian/Iranian cooperation, and constantly abandoning old objections while raising new, every more narrow, ones.
Again, WHAT ARE WE GETTING IN RETURN. I’ve answered this question many times; you’re just pretending I haven’t, because you don’t have a response.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Ed Smithe Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
JT, good post.
LoL. Game over, man. You just raised your white flag.
You’re turning to a guy who writes “ObaMessiah” and congratulating him on his clear-headed thinking.
The term “flushed out” comes to mind. But you’re not a neo-con, and really, you’re a big supporter of diplomacy. Why don’t you just make a Munich reference so we can go on with our lives?
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
BZZZZZT. Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts.
This is who Ed congratulates for his realistic thinking.
March 3rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Joe,
No doubt, the program is less popular in the Czech Republic (not the least of which was because they felt they were getting a sub-standard deal compared to the polls). But you’re also ignoring the consequences to the leadership…in other words, Czech politicians stuck their neck out because the U.S. asked them to (on admittedly a dubious proposition). Do you think that when the President asks them to do something like that again on say an unpopular conflict like Afghanistan…They are 1.) More likely, or 2.) Less likely to stake their careers on it?
Now, let’s go through this. On tech assistance, you clearly don’t understand it. The Iranians have an indigenous capability to mine, refine, and enrich Uranium that is running NOW. They are not using the Russians on that one. With respect to their heavy water reactor, they are not relying on ANY RUSSIAN HELP. In other words they have all the tools to produce a nuclear weapon. Have you heard of the term breakout capability…They’ve crossed that. So…You need to go back to the books on that one.
No. 2.: Isolate Iran diplomatically. Now that they have the ability to produce a weapon, just how does that hurt them? North Korea has been diplomatically isolated by nearly every nation in the world (save China), and they’ve managed to not only become one of the most dangerous nations on the planet, but detonate a crude nuclear weapon. And let’s say we succeed in getting Russia on board, does that mean will get Europe (specifically Germany) on board? Or Italy? Or India? Or China? Again, that does nothing for us.
No. 3.: Yes, I am a bit hot under the collar because I’m having to continue to further elaborate (unnecessarily) on why your wrong. It’s like speaking to a broken record. You obviously don’t understand this, and yet you’re more than willing to waste your energy, for the sake of arguing, to try and prove that you do. That is most frustrating. I have children at home…I go through this with them every day…and at some point it gets very tiring.
Do yourself a favor and read up on this. You’re throwing out points without the facts (or the experience) to back them up.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Joe,
If you’ve noted my posts I refer to the President as the President. Moreover, I didn’t praise JT for that…I should have been more specific in my praise for this point:
ussia knows that when push comes to shove and for a variety of reasons ObamaNation will not build the missile defense system it in effect threatens Russia and Iran with. To do so would not only be foolish it would be criminally stupid and counterproductive. It would simply invite an arms race with all of our proclaimed “enemies” which is the exact opposite of ObaMessiah’s stated aims.
And you do recall, yes?, that it was Eisenhower’s missile defense shield in Turkey which was the proximate cause of the Cuban Missile Crisis. If you have forgotten I assure you Obama has not.
Further we have nothing to give Iran of sufficient value to convince them not to go nuclear. All we can do is threaten to hurt them and that is just more perverse incentive.
Minus the needless ad hominem attacks, that makes sense.
I realize that you’ve constantly been ruined after each quote that you’ve made. And I realize the temptation to follow JT’s ad hominem attacks is great, but that’s not going to make me any less right or you any less wrong.
And for the record, I don’t support democracy for democracy sake. If you’ll look at my previous posts, you’ll find, quite convincingly, that I’m anything but a neocon…which needless to say, you have more in common with than you think.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
And now Obama agrees with the Russians: that’s not what the letter said.
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2009/03/obama_says_report_on_letter_to_russia_inaccurate.php?ref=fp4
So many minds to read, now.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:12 pm
… and who thinks liberals have “emotional thinking,” very technical, that.
… and who has friends in Poland, so he, like, knows, ‘n stuff.
So now both the Russians and the Americans have disavowed the swap rumor, but dumbass still thinks it’s a Russian ploy. You can’t fix stupid.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:36 pm
JM,
Good rebuttal.
Tell me, if you received a private letter from the President of the U.S. on an issue such as this one, would you disclose its contents to the press?
Secondly, Obama didn’t say that the letter didn’t say that, he said that they “mischaracterized” its contents. In other words, damage control because he believed that they would play nice with us. Even Mike McFaul knows that the Russians don’t play nice, why didn’t the President?
As for your emotional thinking…it’s the opposite of analytical thinking…you know, facts to back up your arguments? Let me give you an example…In the post above you said that “that’s not what the letter said.” But, that’s not what Obama said the letter said, he simply said it was mischaracterized. Why did you make that leap? The reason, IMHO, is because your brain, in an effort to satisfy the emotional need to be right in this case, or perhaps the emotional need to believe that the President is incapable of making a serious mistake in this instance, decided to make that connection despite THE FACTS. That’s emotional thinking. It’s not based on an honest accounting of the facts, because those facts would interfere with how your brain/heart would like the world to be…not how it is. We realists have tried again and again to help you with this, but it’s pathological.
Do yourself a favor and read on Death and Dying by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross. That’s the pathology we’re talking about here.
On the Poland quip…Funny, that’s how our intel services get their best information from around the world. I know that you guys are still stuck on the Clinton-era decision to spend more money on fancy satellites and fancy technology (you know the kind that our previous President used to spy on you and I), but the reality is that human intelligence is the best kind of intelligence in the business. No one is saying that it’s 100%, but a poll from 2008 that preceded all of the benefits that Poland received for the MDS is just piss poor. Again, the facts may not suit your emotional hang-up with being right…That’s something that we’re just going to have to work through.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm
So now, Ed, you’ve gone from the missile system being “very well received” in Eastern Europe to it being something the leadership had to “stick their necks out” for – as I called it. To answer your question, I think the publics and leaderships of our newer NATO allies will be more likely to back us up if we show sympathy towards the enormously negative attitude the public has to the system, and if we let the leaderships off the hook we put them on.
70% opposed. George Bush’s negatives never hit 70%. Think about that.
Now, let’s go through this. On tech assistance, you clearly don’t understand it. I’m not interested in you talking down to me. You didn’t even have any idea the Russians provided assistance, or that they were the Iranian’s diplomatic partner. Tell it to JT.
No. 2.: Isolate Iran diplomatically. Now that they have the ability to produce a weapon, just how does that hurt them? North Korea has been diplomatically isolated by nearly every nation in the world (save China) So your argument is “it wouldn’t hurt them; look at North Korea.” Except, as implausible is that is, your argument is even worse, because Russia IS Iran’s China. And once again, you move the goalposts, from arguing that Iran wasn’t diplomatically isolated, to arguing that it doesn’t matter if they’re diplomatically isolated.
And let’s say we succeed in getting Russia on board, does that mean will get Europe (specifically Germany) on board? Or Italy? Or India? Or China? Yes, Russia’s the keystone. They’ve been Iran’s diplomatic lifeline, and their refusal to support a sanctions regime has convinced everyone else that it would be useless for them to support such a regime, because the Russian pipeline would render their own sanctions pointless, and serve only to cut them out of the market.
Yes, I am a bit hot under the collar because I’m having to continue to further elaborate (unnecessarily) on why your wrong. Yeah, whatever, chief. I’m not the one who keeps having to change his arguments, and explain why it doesn’t matter that my previous argument was wrong. Tell it to JT; he seems very impressed with you.
I realize that you’ve constantly been ruined after each quote that you’ve made. Right. That’s certainly how this thread has gone. Keep beating your chest, and maybe everyone will forget what they just read.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Do our intelligence agencies get their information in a manner that leads them to believe our proposed missile defense installations are very popular in Poland and the Czech Republic?
(Sorry, couldn’t resist. Please, keep explaining to me how much more you now about this subject. And also too, how you’re not a neo-con, and truly treasure diplomacy.)
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:44 pm
The reason, IMHO, is because your brain, in an effort to satisfy the emotional need to be right in this case, or perhaps the emotional need to believe that the President is incapable of making a serious mistake in this instance, decided to make that connection despite THE FACTS. That’s emotional thinking.
Shortly after
And you’re wrong about the popularity.
FACTS, Ed. Look them up, then spout off.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
And because I know you won’t spend the time to read a book that you might not agree with, I’ll give you a brief synopsis.
Ross developed the five stages of dying: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. In other words, for the human mind to accept its mortality, it must purge everything that in essence gives it a rationalization to ignore reality. So you first deny that your dying and then you get angry, and then you ask God for more time…and then, finally, you get depressed, because reality starts to finally overwhelm your ego. Acceptance is a bit of a wildcard, but I digress.
What Ross may or may not have realized is that this model has broad application to all types of thinking outside of mortality. For example, this argument. You guys have, in varying forms, gone through denial and anger (you haven’t quite reached bargaining). The reason? Because your egos can’t admit that the facts (i.e. reality) are not in line with how you perceive the world.
Don’t worry, it’s all very human…but it doesn’t really help you (or this nation) if that’s how you approach real problems.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Ed, were the Black Knight in that Monty Python movie?
You really do seem to think you haven’t lost this argument.
March 3rd, 2009 at 3:50 pm
The reason? Because your egos can’t admit that the facts (i.e. reality) are not in line with how you perceive the world.
Missile Defense was very well received in Eastern Europe! The Poles and Czechs are demanding we build it!
Iran needs nothing from Russia, nothing! Diplomatically, materially, technologically – nothing!
And also, you guys just can’t admit the facts.
So cute.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Joe,
January 2008 study…find me one from January 2009. You don’t understand the history of this, and are twisting variables to suit your argument.
On the tech assistance, you have no answer for the FACT that they can make a weapon without any foreign assistance TODAY. Moreover, I never posited that Russians never provided them with assistance…Finally, I’m sorry that I’ve hurt your ego…that’s what happens in the real world when you have no idea what you’re talking about. If you knew anything, you’d know that the Pakistanis are more responsible for their indigenous capability than the Russians EVER WILL BE. Please stop spouting out bullshit on this point YOU ARE WRONG.
You’re wrong about Russia being their China. Do you know how much investment they receive from China, from Germany, and from India? If anything, the Iranians give far more money to the Russians than they receive in investments. Again, you don’t understand this and YOU ARE WRONG.
Obviously you don’t understand Europe one iota…This is an area where I am an expert. Russia is the keystone of NOTHING. The Europeans (Germany) are not going to abandon their position unless the U.S. offers full diplomatic relations and full trade. Perhaps the administration will do that, but it won’t matter because Iran already possesses the capability to produce a bomb. They calculate, quite rightly, that the U.S. will come around eventually since that’s what we do with nuclear powers eventually. How do I know this…Because I worked with the German government over it. Did you work with a European government on this issue? If not, then YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN.
Finally, I don’t keep changing my arguments, I keep giving you more and more details when you come at me with the bullshit that you clearly make up. With respect to the Czechs, you’re probably correct that MDS is still relatively unpopular in that country…but that has more to do with the FACT that the Poles got a much better deal and the Czechs feel as though we underbid them. Nevertheless, when the US goes to Russia and says to Russia that we’re willing to abandon these efforts because we think that Russia (who gives us NOTHING w/ respect to Iran) is more important to please IN THIS CASE than our Eastern European allies who have had citizens killed on our behalf in one idiotic war (Iraq), they are, understandably going to be very upset. Not the least of which is because they’ve been abandoned like this again and again and again.
If you actually knew anyone from that region, you might realize that this stuff is a bit touchy given their history. In psychological terms, I’d liken it to PTSD, which everyone is an expert on thanks to our previous President. When people have PTSD, you don’t throw them back to the wolves. That’s what we’re doing for NOTHING.
Now, as a realist, I’m not inherently opposed to doing this…But it had better be for a good reason. After a number of hours, and many posts, you and your Wilsonian friends have come up with NOTHING. Instead, it’s…well, if it works…
SUPPOSE IT DOESN’T WORK. Again, you guys need to consider consequences. Actions devoid of consequences are immoral. Ask the previous President and his boys about that…they made a business of thinking with their hearts rather than their heads.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Joe,
Keep responding like a child. The more you can write on this without a serious argument, the more that people will realize how little you understand any of this.
Do us all a favor and leave the running of this world to the adults. 18 year-old children are better off ignoring all of this.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:10 pm
The reason? Because your egos can’t admit that the facts (i.e. reality) are not in line with how you perceive the world…Joe,
Keep responding like a child.
Lol. Maybe you should lie down for a bit.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Oh Joe,
Here’s the IHT analysis on it. It would appear that the “left-leaning” New York Time Company appears to agree with my analysis.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/03/europe/shield.php
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Hmmm, I imagine they’ll be dancing in the streets…
“Both countries have strong memories of Soviet domination and a history of centuries of dismemberment or foreign occupation.
Nikola Hynek, a defense expert at the Institute of International Relations in Prague, noted that without the radar system, there would be no U.S. soldiers in his country. “The government here is becoming very anxious,” he said.”
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
And for what Joe…How does Russia help us with Iran?
Can you just give me one serious item? I’m just looking for one?
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Why don’t you do the administration a favor and start posting on the IHT boards with your brilliant analysis. Maybe the administration will give you a job at the Russia desk along with Michael McFaul…
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Joe,
January 2008 study…find me one from January 2009.
I’m sorry, wouldn’t January 2008 be even closer to the time that missile defense was, ahem, “very well received?”
On the tech assistance, you have no answer for the FACT that they can make a weapon without any foreign assistance TODAY. So you keep asserting. In great big capital letters. Yet oddly enough, neither the Russians nor the Iranians seem to feel that way.
Finally, I’m sorry that I’ve hurt your ego Man, are you barking up the wrong tree. This is awesome, watching you try to fight rear-guard action like this.
You’re wrong about Russia being their China. Do you know how much investment they receive from China, from Germany, and from India? Investment, sure, but military assistance? Diplomatic interference at the UN and elsewhere? Sure, Iran has trading partners, but that’s not really the issue here.
Obviously you don’t understand Europe one iota…This is an area where I am an expert. Oh, clearly. Like how you knew how immensely popular the idea of American missile defenses on European soil were among our new NATO allies.
Russia is the keystone of NOTHING. Ah, clearly, it must be true, if you’re using the capital letters again. Certainly, there’s no need to address the point that the Russians have sunk all the efforts to date to create a unified response to Iran. Let’s just ignore that you’ve offered neither a word nor a thought to refute this point; after all, you’re a very important person. Or I should say, a VERY IMPORTANT PERSON.
Finally, I don’t keep changing my arguments, I keep giving you more and more details when you come at me with the bullshit that you clearly make up. With respect to the Czechs, you’re probably correct that MDS is still relatively unpopular in that country… LOL, in the space of one and a half sentences, you tell me you don’t change your argument, the contradict your initial statement about missile defense bases being popular there! I love it.
…but that has more to do with the FACT that the Poles got a much better deal and the Czechs feel as though we underbid them. Except that the polling I provided earlier shows that it is unpopular in Poland, too. Whoops. Seriously, use The Google. I searched under “Poland missile defense poll” and “Czech missile defense poll.” You’ll find articles that not only refute your statement about the popularity of the proposed stations, but go on to explain the sources of that unpopularity. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and are making stuff up, which is why you won’t offer any evidence for your positions.
Nevertheless, when the US goes to Russia and says to Russia that we’re willing to abandon these efforts because we think that Russia (who gives us NOTHING w/ respect to Iran) is more important to please IN THIS CASE than our Eastern European allies who have had citizens killed on our behalf in one idiotic war (Iraq), they are, understandably going to be very upset. Make sure you don’t bother to educate yourself on how our allies in Eastern Europe actually feel about these proposals. Just keep assuming it’s popular, and they would be terribly disappointed if it wasn’t built. Most importantly, don’t do the Google searches I just recommended. Heavens no, don’t do that!
SUPPOSE IT DOESN’T WORK. Again, you guys need to consider consequences. You mean like this?
joe from Lowell Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Damn, that’s genius. If Russia takes the deal, we 1) don’t spend a boatload of money on this crappy missile system, 2) have the political cover to make that cut, and 3) don’t have an Iranian nuclear program to worry about.
If they don’t, the Russian government gets to explain to its people and to the world why preventing that American missile system they’ve been demonizing for so many years needs to take a back seat to making sure a country led by fundamentalist Muslims near Russia’s borders has a nuclear attack capability.
or this?
joe from Lowell Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
In reality, Russia’s really not that concerned about the missile system from a tactical standpoint, but they’ve very much enjoyed raking the U.S. over the coals and driving a wedge between the U.S. and Europe over this issue.
And now, with this letter becoming public, it becomes a great deal harder for Russia to do that. Obama just reframed the debate into one about Russia choosing to have a nuclear Iran AND a missile system in Eastern Europe. Rejecting this overture makes it obvious that their sturm and drang about this missile system is just a political show. It’s tough to cast the Yankees as the big bad interlopers in Russia’s sphere, when all they have to do for us to drop the whole thing is to stop helping the Iranians build a nuclear weapon.
or maybe this?
joe from Lowell Says:
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Ed Smithe,
Feeling good about yourself is not foreign policy.
I understand that you feel this way. What you might have picked up on over the past couple of years is that Barack Obama does not, and does in fact perceive improvements in how other countries perceive us to be important for our security and geopolitical standing.
Casting Russia as the bellicose party, while we strove to work out our differences, helps us. It helps our standing in Europe and around the world. Embarrassing them over their unwillingness to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions helps us – and not only by improving out image, but by raising the cost of Russia’s policy of aiding and running interference for Iran.
You should take a few minutes and have a glass of water. You’re getting quite emotional.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:33 pm
From your own link, ed:
“We expect the American side to fulfill the agreement made last year,” said Piotr Paszkowski, a spokesman for Poland’s Foreign Ministry. “Even if the U.S decides not to deploy the interceptors, which is a U.S., not a Polish, project, the government here expects that the U.S will provide Poland with Patriot batteries. This was what was agreed. The two are not interdependent.”
Radek Sikorski, Poland’s foreign minister, who last week held talks in Washington with the U.S. secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton, told Polish television that “the secretary of state said that we are going to carry out what really matters to Poland.” Sikorski said the United States and Poland would go ahead with a deal for “first the temporary and then permanent stationing of a battery of Patriot missiles” in Poland.
“What we would like to be honored is what went along with the missile defense system,” added Sikorski, who was in Washington to win support for his campaign to become NATO’s next secretary general in June, when the post of the current secretary general ends.
Given your expertise on all things European, I’ll assume you’re familiar with the term “own goal.”
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Nikola Hynek, a defense expert at the Institute of International Relations in Prague, noted that without the radar system, there would be no U.S. soldiers in his country. “The government here is becoming very anxious,” he said.”
So, to sum up, the Polish and Czech governments are so eager for a missile defense system that the former don’t care if it’s installed as long as they get Patriot missile systems, and the latter only want it because it means there would be American soldiers in their country.
This is supposed to make Ed’s point, remember. This is the big gun he pulls out – Polish and Czech officials making it clear that they only care about the missile defense system as a symbol of our commitment, and suggesting other ways we could demonstrate that commitment.
And for what Joe Answered over and over and over and over again.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Why don’t you do the administration a favor and start posting on the IHT boards with your brilliant analysis. Maybe the administration will give you a job at the Russia desk along with Michael McFaul…
Ed, did you ever see the video of the guy spiking the football after crossing the five yard line?
Hmm? Oh, no reason. Just asking.
I don’t think you’d feel the need to do this if your argument was holding up on its own merits.
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Joe,
Still no response on the tech front. Is your argument that because the Russians and the Iranians haven’t said that they can produce a nuclear weapon that this implies that they can’t? If so, you’re naiive.
Military assistance? Are you trying to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon or would you just like to ensure that they can’t purchase AK-47s? I thought it was the former…
On Europe, read the IHT article. The liberal NYT spoke to people that live there that agree with what I’ve said. They don’t agree with you. Those are the facts.
On Russia sinking all efforts, just what have they done to do that? Name one thing that prevented Germany from cutting off it’s investments in Iran.
As for popularity, never said it was popular with the population in the Czech Republic, but the deal was/is popular in Poland. It was certainly popular amongst the politicians…That’s my contention. Again, read the IHT article that was written today…if it’s so unpopular, then why isn’t anyone happy about it going away? BTW, my article is from today, yours is from more than a year ago, is it you assertion that nothing has changed in that time?
Moreover, you’re looking at this myopically…completely divorcing consequences from actions. Based on your argument, you believe that our canceling of the MDS will be a popular action in Europe and NATO because people didn’t like it in January of 2008. Can you confirm that?
As for google, I found the IHT article that you apparently missed. It’s in google news…that’s news.google.com
And as for considering consequences…No, you’re not doing that either. If I walk across a busy street blindfolded and I tell you the only consequence is that I might fall down, would you say that I’ve considered the consequences.
Read the IHT article and then follow this over the next few days to next few years. Moreover watch commitments of Polish troops in Afghanistan. I suppose that if they decide to leave, we can ask the Russians to fill their place?
March 3rd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Here’s an article from Voice of America on the issue, in which the head of the joint British-American monitoring agency states that Iran is not at Breakout Capacity, and still needs Russian help to run its reactors.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Joe,
What do you think the Russians view the patriot missile as? Now that you’ve thought that one through, would you trade these batteries for nothing on Iran? Didn’t you realize that the patriot missile is a part of this deal for the Russians?
And yes!! Bravo! You figured out what the Poles and the Czechs were interested in all along. Another tripwire that extends beyond Article V…Why? Because they don’t trust military alliances after their experience in WWII.
Now, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the Russians are as bright, and as quick as you are on this stuff. If you were the dastardly Russians, would you stop at BMD? Or would you insist that there isn’t a tripwire on Polish and Czech soil? Maybe, this is the reason why they put this offer out and told us that they would not negotiate? Have you thought of that?
But the Russians could never be as smart as you could they? They’re just going to go in there and ask for interceptors to be taken away, but not anything that would actually embarrass or Finlandize Poland and the Czech Republic right?
Now, at the end of the day, I might not care that much about that…But I would hope that we would get something…anything valuable in return. Have you thought of something yet that we could demand?
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
And here’s an article in which an actual expert who I used to work with says that they have:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0302/p99s01-wome.html
You really need to learn how to research.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Is your argument that because the Russians and the Iranians haven’t said that they can produce a nuclear weapon that this implies that they can’t? No, rather, my argument is that both the United States and the British say that. Did you not know that? Unsurprising.
Military assistance? Are you trying to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon or would you just like to ensure that they can’t purchase AK-47s? I thought it was the former… You do realize that a nuclear weapon is a military device, don’t you? Nice attempt at a diversion, though. I wouldn’t want to try to address my argument if I were in your position, either.
On Europe, read the IHT article. You mean the one I QUOTED FROM? The one that has the governments shrugging off missile defense, and saying that what they really want is a reliable security guarantee? The one that, unlike what I’ve provided, doesn’t include any public opinion data?
On Russia sinking all efforts, just what have they done to do that? Name one thing that prevented Germany from cutting off it’s investments in Iran. I already did, at 3:39. Russia has used its perch on the UN Security Council to veto efforts aimed at Iran, and made it clear that it would not abide by the sanctions; in doing so, it rendered any unlilateral efforts by individual countries irrelevant. This is not a complicated phenomenon; you’re playing dumb, because you don’t have a reply.
As for popularity, never said it was popular with the population in the Czech Republic, but the deal was/is popular in Poland. It was certainly popular amongst the politicians…That’s my contention. Again, read the IHT article that was written today You mean the one I quoted? The one that includes Polish officials saying that they’re fine with not having the anti-missile bases, as long as we follow through with the other military assistance we pledged? Not only did I read it, I quoted it extensively, because it makes my point and refutes yours.
We had to bribe those governments to accept these bases, with security guarantees, and other military assets that they actually wanted – that’s how popular they are, both among the government and the public.
Moreover, you’re looking at this myopically…completely divorcing consequences from actions So, you’re just going to ignore everything I’ve written on this, and tell me I haven’t address it? Clearly, this is someone confident in the strength of his argument, and the ideas behind yes.
As for google, I found the IHT article that you apparently missed. It’s in google news…that’s news.google.com Yes, great article. That’s why I quoted it. Extensively. It makes my point powerfully, and refutes yours.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
What do you think the Russians view the patriot missile as?
Bush-league tactical defenses that can’t hit ICBMs, and are thus irrelevant to the issues raised by the proposed missile defense system.
Now that you’ve thought that one through, would you trade these batteries for nothing on Iran? I wouldn’t want to try to address my argument about the Iranian’s dependence on Russian help, either. Just keep writing “nothing” and pretending not to notice. Maybe no one reading this will notice what you’re doing.
And yes!! Bravo! You figured out what the Poles and the Czechs were interested in all along. Another tripwire that extends beyond Article V…Why? Because they don’t trust military alliances after their experience in WWII. Which, as the article you so unwisely linked to demonstrates so clearly, can be easily met – much more effectively met, in fact – with other military assets, as definitively demonstrated by the fact that both the Poles and the Czechs demanded those other military assets as conditions of their acceptance of the anti-missile bases.
God, I love that article you linked to.
Didn’t you realize that the patriot missile is a part of this deal for the Russians? Bullshit. You just made that up.
If you were the dastardly Russians, would you stop at BMD? Or would you insist that there isn’t a tripwire on Polish and Czech soil? If I was the Russians, I’d realize that ground forces and Patriot missile batteries do absolutely nothing to reduce my nuclear deterrence capability, while the anti-ICBM system potentially does, so I’d be much more concerned about the latter. Did this point not occur to you, or are you one of those paranoids who thinks that Russia is scheming for a big push to retake the Warsaw Pact countries? That’s it, isn’t it?
Finlandize Poland and the Czech Republic right? Yep, you are. Oh my God.
Bye bye, Bircher.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Oh boy, this post was really good…
On your first point, you need to do better research. The article I just cited was written yesterday. Again, facts are facts…You can’t ignore them to prove your crazy points.
Military assistance means what? Boy oh boy, this is the best that you can come up with? They can produce a weapon. You can’t prevent that. And no, military assistance, in the context of Iran does not mean stopping work on their “civilian” nuclear reactor at Bushere (pardon the spelling). If you negotiated that, you’d look like a moron.
On Europe, read above. You just realized that BMD wasn’t for Iranian or Russian missles…welcome to 20th and the 21st century.
On the UNSC, just what can they do to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon? Can you please, please, please, confirm that that is your objective? If not, then what is it, because the Russians are going to demand a lot for us for nothing.
On Poland, read above. The Russians are going to ask us to remove the tripwires…believe it or not they’ve actually thought through this. How shocking! And yes, that’s why they’re so valuable to them. Again, study history. At 18 years old you have plenty of time to learn this.
On your consequences argument, again, you’re no better than the person that jumps in front of a train and worries about hurting their foot. You obviously haven’t thought this through, which is why your making these discoveries that I would have thought would have been assumed. Now I understand why your thinking this way, you don’t have or understand all of the variables…Perhaps you should consider the opinions of someone who not only does, but has experience to back it up? Is that too much to ask?
And with the article, I fail to see how it makes your point. You seem to think that this is all so unpopular that we’re doing the Easterns a favor. Yet the article says the opposite. Just how is it that it proves your point?
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Awesome, another “own goal” article.
Newsweek correspondent Christopher Dickey writes that Iran hasn’t crossed the red line known as “breakout,” when it might pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and expel UN inspectors. Such a provocation could start a war, given the implacable opposition by the US and others to a nuclear-armed Iran, the article reports.
What Iran has now achieved, says former inspector David Albright, of the Institute for Science and International Security, is “breakout capability.” Perhaps that’s all Iran really wants: enough mastery of enrichment to keep the world guessing about its nuclear defenses without provoking massive retaliation. IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei tends toward this view. But as Albright says, “We just don’t know … I think people should be worried.”
Several experts writing that Iran hasn’t achieved breakout capability, with one saying “We don’t know.
Oh, and as an added bonus, lookie here: The Financial Times reports that a Washington think tank staffed by senior foreign-policy advisers to President Obama has recommended tougher sanctions on Iran. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy warns that Iran is seeking Russian surface-to-air missiles and that Israel may try to hit Iran’s nuclear facilities before any Russian defenses are installed.
But Lord knows there’s nothing the Russians are doing to help Iran militarily, and certainly, there’s nothing we could want from them in regards to Iran.
Do you bother to read these things before linking to them?
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Your posts are getting worse and worse. Now you think that the Russians don’t play hardball? Do you think that after embarrassing the US that they’re negotiating in good faith. Honestly, are you 16? Tell me truthfully, you’ve never had to deal with these guys have you?
You yourself (or perhaps someone else) recognized that BMD can’t hit a Russian ICBM. Even the Bushies admitted as much. Right there your entire argument falls apart. This has never had anything to do with a threat to the Russian nuclear deterrant…This is politics. The Russians don’t care about the defenses, they care about scaring the Easterns into not doing anything to pro-American. That’s why they refer to those guys as their “Sphere of Influence.”
Talk about peering into the mind of a Wilsonian. God, even Michael McFaul isn’t this naiive.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
David Albright that made a number of important discoveries with regard to Iran’s nuclear program. He’s regarded as one of the best experts in the world. I’ll trust his judgement.
Oh and those Russian missiles, you mean the TOR-M1 and the S300? The same ones that guarded Syria’s supposed nuclear reactor that the Israelis destroyed?
Now that we’ve established that you know nothing about defense technology, let me let you in on another secret. Considering that the Iranians have probably thought through that possibility, don’t you think that they’ve reinforced those sites, duplicated and hidden them? See if you can do a search on that one on google…
Oh and while you’re at it, why don’t you do a search on the recent request that the US turned down for bunker buster bombs to Israel. Wonder what those might have been for?
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:34 pm
The article I just cited was written yesterday. Again, facts are facts…
Yes, facts are facts…and the fact is, both articles include quotes from officials from the governments in question saying that they are more concerned with having soldiers, Patriot batteries, and other military resources than the anti-ICBM shield.
Great article. Please, keep referring to it.
Military assistance means what? Boy oh boy, this is the best that you can come up with? Wow, you really don’t read the articles before you post them, do you? Ahem, ” The Washington Institute for Near East Policy warns that Iran is seeking Russian surface-to-air missiles…”
You can keep adopting your defensive tone of superiority, but the evidence just isn’t working out for you, is it?
On the UNSC, just what can they do to stop them from getting a nuclear weapon? Prevent the Iranians from importing the experts and equipment necessary for a weapons program, and impose a very high cost if they cheat – sort of like what worked so effectively to eliminate the much cheaper, simpler Iraqi WMD programs in the 1990s.
On Poland, read above. The Russians are going to ask us to remove the tripwires… Oh, they’re GOING TO, are they? Is that why they haven’t?
At 18 years old you have plenty of time to learn this. WFT are you talking about? When I was 18 years old, Nevermind had just been released. Oh, right – you’re trying to make yourself feel better by insulting me, because of…you know…how this argument is going. Poor baby.
And with the article, I fail to see how it makes your point. Of course you don’t. Playing dumb is the tactic of someone getting his ass kicked.
It only contains quote after quote from defense officials in Poland and the Czech Republican saying that their concerns are with other military assets, not the missile defense system itself.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
From the article in question:
Poland, which adopted a much tougher negotiating stance – agreeing to accept U.S. interceptors only if its own air defenses were upgraded – struck a much calmer tone after learning of the U.S. offer to Russia.
“We expect the American side to fulfill the agreement made last year,” said Piotr Paszkowski, a spokesman for Poland’s Foreign Ministry. “Even if the U.S decides not to deploy the interceptors, which is a U.S., not a Polish, project, the government here expects that the U.S will provide Poland with Patriot batteries. This was what was agreed. The two are not interdependent.”
The thing speaks for itself. The Poles only agreed to the system in exchange for air defense upgrades.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:48 pm
It’s a little whack to carry on about the “threat” of Iran developing nuclear weapons while we escalate a nuclear arms race with Russia. The missile shield is not likely to work as a shield, but can be used as an offensive weapon in a first strike to take out Russian missiles. We should scrap the missile shield and Star Wars, and rededicate ourselves to the ABM, the NPT, and a treaty to ban weapons in space. Working toward arms reduction is wise.
We need to recognize Iran’s right to develop nuclear energy and their right to defend themselves with conventional weapons. We should also strengthen and support all monitoring groups and deal with the problems of accounting for all nuclear wastes and fissile material.
As a veteran of nuclear forces, I find emotional reactions guiding nuclear policy to be very frightening. We need to lead by example. We have over 10,000 nuclear warheads and can deliver them anywhere. We can’t be innocent.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:52 pm
I can’t debate naivety. Your naiive to believe that all the Russians want is for us to remove BMD. Again, this has nothing to do with shooting down Russian ICBMs…I thought that you knew that…apparently you just figured it out.
On the Iranian weapons program they can do everything without any assistance from the outside. You might think that they can’t, but you haven’t cited anything that says that. I’ll stick with David Albright. You can stick with the “government officials” that are concerned about saying something that’s classified.
On Iraq, the U.S. destroyed that capability in Gulf War I. The UNSC just made sure it didn’t come back (as well as kill a whole bunch of innocent people). How is the UNSC going to shut down Iran’s facilities? Maybe collective security will really work this time around if they say no.
On what the Russians have asked…There’s no firm proof to suggest that they have or haven’t. My assumption is based upon my perception that they wouldn’t ask for anything less than that. If indeed they do, I’ll be the first to say that the Russians are morons. The problem is that they are not normally moronic.
As for insulting you…I didn’t realize that age was such a touchy thing with you. Me, I’m 32 and have worked in Washington in one capacity or another for some time. I’m sorry that that hurts you, but I was curious. I guess you’re not eager to share that information.
As for the article, you only quoted it half way…see if you can finish this paragraph. It’s your contention that BMD (and that’s BMD writ large since we need to specify the pieces of an issue which everyone besides you understands goes beyond interceptors) is unpopular in Poland and the Czech Republic, yet the IHT article that you’re so fond of quoting says that they are concerned that we’re going back on our pledges. The article disagrees with you. One of you is wrong. I’m willing to bet that IHT got this one right.
March 3rd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Joe,
Since you don’t work on this issue, let me explain something to you. When we say missile defense in Washington/DC Area, we’re referring to the whole package…not solely the part about the interceptors.
That’s why the Poles made that clarification, because they know that it means the whole deal…not just the part that they don’t care that much about.
Again, my assumption is that you understood what they’re talking about…You don’t. Your trying to lawyer something that no one is lawyering around here.
It’s like when the President talks about the stimulus. When he says stimulus, he’s not just referring to the stimulating parts of the stimulus bill, he’s referring to the whole bill that contains a bunch of sections that do nothing to stimulate the economy.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Now you think that the Russians don’t play hardball? Oh, I see, that old pose. If I don’t accept every speculative assertion you make without the slightest bit of evidence about the evil intentions of an adversary, than I’m just a naive child who doesn’t know how the world works. Heads up, chief: it’s not 2003 anymore, and it doesn’t work anymore.
The Russians’ concerns and interests have been made very clear over the past couple of years; they’re worried about other powers imposing on their sphere of influence. In this case, they don’t want us eroding their deterrence capability with a missile defense shield. You think maybe this can explain why their complaints about the anti-missile system are so loud and obvious, while their insistence that we not station Patriot batteries and troops in Poland and the Czech Republic exist only in your imagination?
You yourself (or perhaps someone else) recognized that BMD can’t hit a Russian ICBM. No, I made that point about the Patriot batteries, not the missile defenses at issue here. Do you even understand the difference? I’m starting to doubt it.
And what’s more, this missile system CAN hit “a” Russian missile; the reason it’s not currently much of a threat to their deterrence capability is because the Russians wouldn’t launch “a” missile, but several hundred, and the system most certainly doesn’t have that capability – yet. Of course, given a decade or two, who knows what capabilities it would have? Given that their nuclear arsenal is pretty much the only thing that gives Russia the status of a great military power – and that this system was first imagined and developed for the purpose of shooting down Russian missiles – it’s not difficult to figure out that they’d consider it a threat to them.
The Russians don’t care about the defenses, they care about scaring the Easterns into not doing anything to pro-American. Um, Ed? They joined NATO. They’ve sent their troops to fight beside ours in war. They’ve spent a great deal of money achieve inter-operability with our forces. They have entered into a mutual defense treaty with us. You’re aware of all of that, right?
David Albright that made a number of important discoveries with regard to Iran’s nuclear program. He’s regarded as one of the best experts in the world. I’ll trust his judgement. Yes, and he says “We don’t know.” As does Mohammed al-Baredei, whose judgement on these matters is at a pretty high point right now.
Oh and those Russian missiles, you mean the TOR-M1 and the S300? The same ones that guarded Syria’s supposed nuclear reactor that the Israelis destroyed? I only know what I read in YOUR article, chief – the one that says the Iranians want to buy Russian air defense missiles. It’s ever-so important to me what you think, but you know what’s even more important? What the Iranians think, and want, and do.
Now that we’ve established that you know nothing about defense technology, Apparently, I know more than you, since I can tell the difference between Patriot missiles and the anti-ICBM system proposed for Eastern Europe. As can the Poles, I’ll remind you again.
….let me let you in on another secret. Considering that the Iranians have probably thought through that possibility, don’t you think that they’ve reinforced those sites, duplicated and hidden them? See if you can do a search on that one on google… The Iranians seem to feel differently. They seem to think the Russian anti-air missiles are worth having – which matters a great deal more than your deflections, and efforts to puff up your ego after the beating it’s taken today.
Oh and while you’re at it, why don’t you do a search on the recent request that the US turned down for bunker buster bombs to Israel. Wonder what those might have been for?
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Joe,
1. Your naiive.
2. I said perhaps someone else. The reality is that it can’t hit a Russian ICBM which completely sinks your argument about this being a strategic threat. And your line about maybe, maybe, maybe is classic bargaining. Maybe they’ll never be able to shoot down an ICBM. Care to disprove that?
3. You need to read Clausewitz. You’re the same as every neocon that doesn’t consider politics as a variable. That explains their problems with BMD in this case. Tell me, have they raised a stink over Aegis or BMD in Alaska? The answer is no.
4. If NATO (Article V) is so important to the Easterns, then why did they ask for American troops on their soil? You don’t understand how they think, stop throwing darts in the dark.
5. We can dispute whether or not they have “breakout capability…” but what you can’t seem to dispute is their indigenous capability to produce an atomic weapon. Find me an article that says that please.
6. Those missiles are an insurance policy…do you really think that’s their sole line of defense? They learned from Osiriq, please trust me on this one…you’re wrong.
7. And no, you don’t know more than I do about either or those systems. You’re just confounded by the complexity of it all because you can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. This has nothing to do with shooting down Russian missiles, this is politics. And until you wrap your brain around that, you’re going to make yourself look like a fool for making this argument.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Your naiive to believe that all the Russians want is for us to remove BMD.
There is no evidence of the Russians making any other demands about the disposition of our forces in Eastern Europe.
On the Iranian weapons program they can do everything without any assistance from the outside. You might think that they can’t, but you haven’t cited anything that says that. I’ll stick with David Albright. Your own article, that you so unwisely linked to, says otherwise. Again, you need to read these things before you link to them. This is twice now.
On Iraq, the U.S. destroyed that capability in Gulf War I. The UNSC just made sure it didn’t come back Wow, you really are ignorant! You are unaware of the weapons stocks and program equipment destroyed by the UN teams after the Gulf War? You are seriously going to strike this pose as a knowledgeable expert, and you are unaware of the Iraqis destroying their remaining chem/bio equipment after Operation Desert Fox? Seriously? Good Lord!
On what the Russians have asked…There’s no firm proof to suggest that they have or haven’t. Ah, so you’re just going to assume it. How intellectually respectable.
The Russians aren’t morons, indeed; that’s why they’re not going to stick their necks out and take the chance of being seen losing a confrontation with us over anything less than a vital security interest, like maintaining their nuclear deterrence capability. Not some AA batteries. Which is probably whey they, you know, haven’t done such.
yet the IHT article that you’re so fond of quoting says that they are concerned that we’re going back on our pledges. Pledges OTHER THAN the anti-missile bases themselves. Would you like me to quote the Polish official again – the one why says that what’s important are the Patriot systems, and that our agreement to install them is “not interdependent” with the ABM system? You don’t have to choose between me and the article; it makes my point precisely.
That’s why the Poles made that clarification, because they know that it means the whole deal… And now, I destroy you.
“Even if the U.S decides not to deploy the interceptors, which is a U.S., not a Polish, project, the government here expects that the U.S will provide Poland with Patriot batteries. This was what was agreed. The two are not interdependent.” You can keep pretending that this is a matter of me not knowing what I’m talking about if it soothes your flayed ego, but the quote could not be more clear. The Patriot defenses are “not interdependent” upon the ABM system. The Poles are fine with not having the interceptors, as long as they get the Patriot system. Your argument that they can’t be separated is thoroughly, completely, obviously refuted by the very article you linked to to try to prove your point! Hilarious!
It seems very important to you to keep believing you know so much more about this than I – so I’d recommend that you just stop now, while there is still a ghost of a chance you might be able to keep believing that.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:30 pm
1. Your naiive. And you’re so rattled you can’t spell anymore. Oddly enough, I feel great.
2. I said perhaps someone else. The reality is that it can’t hit a Russian ICBM which completely sinks your argument about this being a strategic threat. They can hit a Russian ICBM right now – though not with a high degree of probability yet. The technology is also improving all the time, and the Russians are sufficiently scared of the threat that they’ve singled out this – and not any other military threat – as what they’re going to raise hell about. You can blather about how little threat this poses to the Russians’ nuclear capability all you want, their behavior demonstrates beyond any doubt that they don’t share your opinion. Hell, the threat of “Star Wars” so shook to the Kremlin that they enterer into the ABM treaty, but now we’re supposed to believe, in the face of that AND all the noise coming out of Moscow about this program, that they aren’t really scared of it? That’s ridiculous.
3. You need to read Clausewitz. You need to not be in the middle of getting your ass kicked before striking this pose looks anything but pathetic.
4. If NATO (Article V) is so important to the Easterns, then why did they ask for American troops on their soil? WTF are you talking about? I singled out the Poles’ statement about Patriot missiles and the Czechs about soldiers on their soil to make my point. You’re arguing with a straw man – the mutual defense treaty was only one of a long list of points, along with actual joint operations, that I mentioned. I guess the actual argument I made was too much for you.
5. We can dispute whether or not they have “breakout capability…” but what you can’t seem to dispute is their indigenous capability to produce an atomic weapon. Find me an article that says that please. What is this supposed to mean? Did you just make up an different definition of “breakout capacity?” BTW, thanks for acknowledging that you were mischaracterizing the article before.
6. Those missiles are an insurance policy…do you really think that’s their sole line of defense? Of course not – nor have I ever stated as such. I raised the issue of Russian air defense missiles to refute your incorrect assertion that the Russians can offer us nothing in our efforts to coerce Iran. Your opinion about the usefulness of those missiles doesn’t matter – they’re just one of a long line of examples of the cooperative military relationship between the Russians and Iranians, that the Iranians value and depend on.
7. And no, you don’t know more than I do about either or those systems. You’re just confounded by the complexity of it all because you can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. Yawn. This has really become all about your insecurities, hasn’t it? I get that a lot.
And until you wrap your brain around that, you’re going to make yourself look like a fool for making this argument. I’m perfectly happy with how I look after this argument. You, on the other hand, seem like you’re about to start throwing things.
ha ha.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Doh, not ABM treaty, Reykjavik Accords. Duh.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Anyway, I’ve got to go grab some dinner. It’s been fun. On this end, anyway.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Joe,
1. You’re wrong about the article. What it says is that they may not have produced enough uranium. In other words, when they’re done enriching the uranium they have (which they can do) they will have enough to produce a bomb. Please read the articles.
2. I’m sorry, I should have said that as a result of Gulf War I (or Desert Fox which was negligible) the US and the UN gained the ability to destroy their CBN program. Again, you’ve got to take over Iran before you can do that. Do you think that a well-worded resolution will push them to let us in to their country? Oh wait…I know…’We don’t know until we try.’
3. Lose a confrontation with us? What are you talking about? The Russians just told us to piss off on a letter that was sent to them by the President of the United States. Does that sound like a country that’s worried about “losing a confrontation?” Get this through your head…They’re not China. They don’t care about face. They have the upper hand and they’re going to use it. A good friend of mine, a Russian expert, said about the Russians that they’re either at your knees or your neck. Does it look like they’re at our knees. Again…Naiiive.
4. No, no, no, no. The only thing you’re destroying is your credibility. When the US and Russia talk about missile defense in Poland, what they mean is the whole thing. The Poles know that…hence, they say ‘ok, fine, we can live without BMD, but don’t pull your troops out.’ Why do you think they say that? Is it because they’re certain that we understand that the two are not interdependent. Or perhaps, might it be that they are firing a shot across our bow and saying, “DON’T EVEN THINK ABOUT NEGOTIATING OVER THE TROOPS THAT YOU’RE SENDING OVER HERE.” This gets back to my question…which you still haven’t answered, “WHY DO THE POLES AND THE CZECHS WANT US TROOPS IN THEIR COUNTRY WHEN THEY HAVE AN ARTICLE V COMMITMENT THROUGH NATO?”
Answer that question and then, God willing, you should understand why they made that comment.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Yeah, it was entertaining.
I hope to see you back on this forum when we find out what the Russians really want.
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:14 pm
The silliest thing about the missile shield is that it only prevents the Russians from using their theater ballistic missiles and their tactical weapons.
So instead of creating the possibility of a war that starts conventional, moves up to the tactical and intermediate range level of nuclear, and then stops because the two sides realize that continuing would result in the destruction of life on Earth, we are now back at the absolute worst possible scenario of:
A. Conventional war that goes badly for one side or is stalemated
B. Losing power lashes out or stalemated power decides break the deadlock
C. Fall back on SS-18s, SS-19s, Trident IIs, and Minutemen. Rocks fall, everybody dies.
Jesus, I love the fact that both my sister-in-law and my brother work in high energy physics and physical chemistry and so can explain how much bullshit this system is.
Unless the system can stop the SS-19s, which it can’t, or on their side, the Trident IIs, it’s useless. Because the SS-19s can be railroaded and you can’t find a fucking Ohio Class. So there’s always second strike capacity. Stupid stupid stupid!
March 3rd, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Oops, I made a mistake, the SS-24s are, or rather were, railroad.
But the Soviets (I will stop calling them the Soviets when the KGB, oh, sorry, the *FSB* stops running the place) can always build more if they want to. Which they will if we persist in a moronic policy of defending the western part of their Empire.
(Disclosure: I’m a Ukrainian on my Dad’s side – Ukrainian, not Russo-Ukrainian – and I’ve despised the idea of an western-oriented Ukraine my whole life. It’s ridiculous to think we’ll ever back them up. Same with the Poles. So they’d be better off cutting a deal with the Sovs for autonomy, since the Russians don’t particularly want Poland or Ukraine.)
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:05 pm
The anti-ballistic missiles can surely hit a missile that is still in its silo. It’s just a matter of calculation.
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:09 pm
The ABMs aren’t ICBMs with large yield warheards.
Because that’s what the Soviet silos were hardened up to. As are ours.
March 3rd, 2009 at 9:23 pm
It’s debatable whether or not Cheyenne Mountain could stand a direct hit from an ICBM—especially considering the electronics involved. I think this idea of a “hardened” silo is conventional thinking in nuclear war—an approach that was being peddled when people were being told they could brush the fallout from their food and it would be O.K. It’s all an untested tit for tat, pathological game of mass murder.
Missiles are missiles. It’s no good to say these are “little missiles” when they are in Russia’s backyard. Our reaction to the early Soviet ABM system was MIRVs. Continuing this nuclear arms race is just stupid.
March 3rd, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Now that was some hilarity! So, ed and joe, do you guys do birthday parties? Would I need to pay ed more since he’s the butt of all the jokes?
March 4th, 2009 at 1:15 am
Just another example of Obama’s stupidity in foreign policy.
Yes, Russia would like the US drop the stupid Bush missile program. Yes, they would shaft Iran if they could to achieve that.
No, they can’t shaft Iran.
First of all, they can’t renege on their deals with Iran for the Bushehr plant. Bad for business. Not to mention that the Chinese would love to take up the slack for Iranian oil.
Second, Russia has other ties with Iran that it would be bad business to shaft Iran over.
Third, Russia knows Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.
Fourth, Russia knows they aren’t going to influence domestic Iranian production of missiles, so that part of the deal was just ridiculous.
Russia will look at this proposal and say, “Now how can we con this moron into thinking we’re helping the US on Iran when in reality we aren’t?”
Because they’re going to laugh at Obama’s lame foreign policy approach.
March 4th, 2009 at 3:41 am
Apparently President Medvedev agrees with me:
Russia Won’t Haggle Over US Missile Defense Plans