US to Scrap Eastern European Missile Defense
Vltava River, Prague, Czech Republic (cc photo by kruhme)
This is welcome news if true:
Washington will scrap plans to put anti-missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic and is looking at alternatives including Israel and Turkey, a Polish newspaper reported Aug. 27, citing U.S. officials. The U.S. plan, intended for defense against attacks from Iran, has met with fierce objections from Russia, which regarded the eastern European bases as a threat to its own security.
Per Robert Farley, this plan never made any sense largely because it’s proponents actually couldn’t make up their mind as to whether they meant this as a provocative anti-Russian move or not:
No one could ever conclusively argue why these bases were a good idea; they were supposed to deter Russia, but at the same time weren’t aimed at Russia, and couldn’t possibly have stopped a Russian attack. They were supposed to defend from Iranian missiles, even though no one could ever figure out a plausible reason why Iran would fire ballistic missiles at Europe. Eastern European missile defense was, in short, insane; it was conceived by missile defense fanatics in the United States, and abetted by policymakers in Poland and the Czech Republic who wanted a clear signal of US commitment to their defense.
Poles and Czechs wanting a clear commitment from the United States is understandable, but there are other ways we can offer that. The best approach to dealing with Russia on these big strategic issues is to move forward with bilateral nuclear arms reductions. If we can come up with workable theater missile defenses in key regions, that’s great, but then we should honest-to-God not get them mixed up with the issue of Russia.
45 Responses to “US to Scrap Eastern European Missile Defense”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 28th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Sure, you’re not a Laplander living in the shadow of Russian missile silos.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Yes and no.
The part about not putting it in Europe is very welcome. The idea of Israel or Turkey instead just prolongs a wickedly stupid idea.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:14 am
As ron says.
And to the degree that the US is settling concerns with Russia in order to get a freer hand with Iran, it’s worth remembering that in fact we don’t want a war with Iran, nor US troops etc in Israel which would make us at war with Iran if the Israelis attach Iran.
Speaking of Iran, here’s Marty Peretz avoiding the opportunity for a fix for one of his political prejudices:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-spine/beware-do-not-read-if-all-you-want-intellectual-fix-one-your-political-prejudices-ser
August 28th, 2009 at 10:19 am
It’s so cute how you did an entire post on missile defense and pretended the entire time that missile defense actually works.
Maybe if we replace the missile defense with our Bad Guy Destructinators or a team of mutants with special powers, Russia won’t be so upset. But missile defense! Surely you can understand why they would fear such a powerful technology!
August 28th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Jeffrey Davis,
If I were a Lapplander I would fear Russian missile silos MUCH less than I would fear the tyranny of bloated Brussels bureaurats or late-capitalist Washington neocons.
Russia is protecting Lapplanders from two swollen and self-entitled empires, one in Washington and one in Brussels, as well as from the potential threats of Jihadism in the future. If the Lapps don’t like it they can go f*ck a reindeer.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:42 am
It’s so cute how you did an entire post on missile defense and pretended the entire time that missile defense actually works
It won’t work against an attack consisting of hundreds of missiles (ie., an attack from Russia). But I was under the impression the technology showed promise with respect to the odd missile or two.
This is welcome news if true:
It is welcome news. One just hopes we’re getting in something in return.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:49 am
“Showing promise” is, alas, a long damn way from “working.” We’ve sunk uncounted billions into NMD, and it has never once completed a successful end-to-end test under realistic conditions. If the North Koreans tell us weeks in advance of exactly when they will be firing a single missile at us, give us complete trajectory information, and maybe stick an beacon on the warhead so we can find it easier, then _maybe_ (if the booster doesn’t get all pouty and refuse to even launch) we’ll be able to knock it out.
That’s your “operational” system.
And why were we going to such trouble to piss the Russians off over something that doesn’t even work?
That’s not hard–pissing the Russians off was the _point_. That passed for statecraft in the Bush years.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:49 am
How about we just the Russians have it all back. All of their influence, empire etc. Because, Poles and Czechs wanting to not have some piece of mind as to the aggressive empire next door [and here we go about how Amerika is the most aggressive terrorist empire eva] is really cumbersome to Obama’s desire to hang out with Medvedev.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Missile defense is like bag checks. Even though it can’t, yet, reliably guarantee that the missile will be shot down, the strong possibility that it will work serves to deter actors from taking that route.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:56 am
Re: [and here we go about how Amerika is the most aggressive terrorist empire eva]
Freddy Bak,
Please tell me which is the ONLY nation to ever have used nuclear weapons in warfare.
In light of the extermination of the Native Americans, the war in Vietnam, and the extension of brutish American imperialism throught South and Central American nations, one would think you people would be ashamed to indulge in this jingoistic nonsense. One would be wrong. The superpatriots have no shame.
August 28th, 2009 at 10:57 am
So we transform our anti-Russian move into an anti-Iranian one. Great.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:02 am
?
Is Russia threatening to nuke the reindeer or something? And how are Lapps guarded by missile defense way south in Czech-land?
August 28th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Spokeytown,
Baby Jesus cries when you ask tough questions about Missile Defense. Why do you hate Baby Jesus?
August 28th, 2009 at 11:11 am
“If I were a Lapplander I would fear Russian missile silos MUCH less than I would fear the tyranny of bloated Brussels bureaurats…”
I think you indeed would, Hector.
I also think if you were an early 30’s German, you would have feared the Social Democratic Party MUCH more than you would have feared any other force on the German political scene.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:15 am
@8: If you had read the entire post you were responding to, you would have read the following sentence:
Poles and Czechs wanting a clear commitment from the United States is understandable, but there are other ways we can offer that.
Whether Russia is an “aggressive empire” or not (and I can certainly see how Poles and Czechs might fear that it is), we have many options for guaranteeing the security of Polish and Czech borders, if indeed we choose to do so.
I think we ought to think twice about getting into the global-security-guard business, but at least it does get some use out of our decision to spend such a huge amount of money on military hardware relative to the rest of the world. Military hardware is one of the few industries in which we are a global leader and being armsdealer to the world, security guard to the world, or both would get some use out of that fact. And if we are going to guarantee anyone’s border security, the Poles and Czechs are no worse a choice than anyone else.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:31 am
“We have many options for guaranteeing the security of Polish and Czech borders, if indeed we choose to do so.”
Like, say, entering into a mutual defense treaty with them in which we are obligated to regard as an attack on one of them as an attack on ourselves?
August 28th, 2009 at 11:50 am
I had always been on the record as saying that the plan was a bad idea to begin with. But this really compounds our mistake. Just what are we going to get from Russia over this one?
Most importantly however, we’ve treated the Poles (and the Czechs to a great degree) like serfs for the last 8 years. This is just going to hurt our relationship with them even more at a time when we need NATO to remain coherant and reasonably effective.
I think, given the damage that this is going to cause, it was probably better to leave it in place and slowly, slowly, implement it. Now we’ve got a pissed off Eastern Europe, and Russia that can offer us nothing in return.
I really hate that the Bush administration put us in this position to begin with, but sometimes you’ve just got to do the lesser of two evils.
August 28th, 2009 at 11:51 am
chris Says:
August 28th, 2009 at 11:15 am
@8: If you had read the entire post you were responding to, you would have read the following sentence:
Poles and Czechs wanting a clear commitment from the United States is understandable, but there are other ways we can offer that.
Whether Russia is an “aggressive empire” or not (and I can certainly see how Poles and Czechs might fear that it is), we have many options for guaranteeing the security of Polish and Czech borders, if indeed we choose to do so.
I think we ought to think twice about getting into the global-security-guard business, but at least it does get some use out of our decision to spend such a huge amount of money on military hardware relative to the rest of the world. Military hardware is one of the few industries in which we are a global leader and being armsdealer to the world, security guard to the world, or both would get some use out of that fact. And if we are going to guarantee anyone’s border security, the Poles and Czechs are no worse a choice than anyone else.
===========================================================
Well seeing that both countries have been members of NATO since 1999, we’ve already been committed to guaranteeing their border security for 10 years. There is no *choosing* unless of course we want to leave NATO. I think that’s where Craig was heading at #16
August 28th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Most importantly however, we’ve treated the Poles (and the Czechs to a great degree) like serfs for the last 8 years. This is just going to hurt our relationship with them even more at a time when we need NATO to remain coherant and reasonably effective.
=========================================================
How have we treated them so badly? Honest question – I’m not sure if you mean the way they got coerced to send troops to Iraq or is there more. I don’t follow those countries closely enough
August 28th, 2009 at 11:55 am
Skeptic,
Missile defense does work, although it is certainly not as effective as its supporters like to claim. Moreover, the development of these systems helps us to make it more effective.
I’m a fan of missile defense is as much as it’s an option for us to turn to (especially with respect to states like NK), but it’s not something that I think is going to (or should attempt to) erase deterrence (which has been far more effective) with a state like Russia.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
[...] Matthew Yglesias: Poles and Czechs wanting a clear commitment from the United States is understandable, but there are other ways we can offer that. The best approach to dealing with Russia on these big strategic issues is to move forward with bilateral nuclear arms reductions. If we can come up with workable theater missile defenses in key regions, that’s great, but then we should honest-to-God not get them mixed up with the issue of Russia. [...]
August 28th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Campesino,
Let me try and give you an honest answer.
Given their commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, NATO, and things like CIA prisons (which I also thought was a terrible idea), what have they gotten in return? They haven’t really received contracts, technology, or the intel sharing they’re looking for, and now, they haven’t received their much desired trip wire.
When you speak with Polish reps, they talk a lot about the US and Poland being “friends…” then they follow up by asking, “is this any way to treat one’s friends.”
I think that as a result of the Bush administration, we set Eastern Europe (maybe with the exception of the Balts) on a path towards a more realistic evaluation of our relationship. That’s not necessarily a complete loss, but it’s always nice to have a relationship with a state where trust is significant variable alongside interests (and I say that as a realist).
A similar thing happened with the “Special Relationship” as well, but for different reasons. Where we could have once said to these nations, “we really, really, need you,” now we’ve got to say, “here’s what you’ll get if you do what we ask.” That’s a huge change from the end of the cold war.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:06 pm
And let me again go on the record and say that much of the blame can be laid at the feet of the Bush administration. I certainly have my misgivings about the Clinton administration, but the damage that they caused with Europe is nothing compared to what those guys did.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
joe from Lowell Says:
August 28th, 2009 at 10:55 am
It won’t work against an attack consisting of hundreds of missiles (ie., an attack from Russia). But I was under the impression the technology showed promise with respect to the odd missile or two.
Missile defense is like bag checks. Even though it can’t, yet, reliably guarantee that the missile will be shot down, the strong possibility that it will work serves to deter actors from taking that route.
===========================================================
I think that’s a good analogy
Attitudes like #4 put you into a technology perfection trap that you’ll never get out of. “We really got gypped on that plane the Wright Brothers sold us in 1909. Didn’t perform anything what we get with F-22s these days.
Reminds me of the old Sen. Proxmire “Golden Fleece” awards. My favorite was a scathing criticism of a $150K grant for robotics research in the early 70s. The robot was the first of its kind, a self-powered and self-controlled gizmo on a cart that could creep across a floor and sense and avoid objects placed in its path. A real step forward. Proxmire said it was a total waste of time and money because it could only go 1/8 of a MPH and typically broke down after about 1/2 hour of operation
August 28th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Campesino,
I think that’s a good analogy. And I say that missile defense is a lot further along than that robot was in the early 70s.
The other thing to think about is the EMP threat. I realize that Heritage is nuts when it comes to that stuff, but they do have a legitimate point on EMPs.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Hector, fear the voices in your head more, son.
August 28th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I also think if you were an early 30’s German, you would have feared the Social Democratic Party MUCH more than you would have feared any other force on the German political scene.
Petey, not that you give a damn, but that’s really unfair to Hector. He’s come out in support not merely of the SPD, but the KPD, who were the only people to offer a serious resistance to the NSDAP-led coalition.
Hector might be a Christian, but he’s also a very committed man of the Left. He’s also no pacifist. Which, admittedly, is very out of place in the US, but certainly in South America, whose somewhat authoritarian Christian Socialists he’s got tons of respect for, or Europe, it’s not unheard of.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I don’t know about ’strong’. I’d prefer a test done under more real world conditions than what has happened so far. And the money dumped into missile defense isn’t quite like that dumped into robotics. Sure you’ll get some improved sensors and code and whatnot, but it’s rather narrow. Robotics research has a few more applications. Including bear nurses, from what I understand.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
[...] more here: Matthew Yglesias » US to Scrap Eastern European Missile Defense Share and [...]
August 28th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Which, admittedly, is very out of place in the US, but certainly in South America, whose somewhat authoritarian Christian Socialists he’s got tons of respect for, or Europe, it’s not unheard of.
No need for the qualifier “somewhat”. They are quite authoritarian, mind you. Didn’t Chavez just toy around with Venezuelan school curricula, in a sort of mock-Mao pastiche-Cultural Revolution last week?
But more seriously though, we can untether the whole problem from current Russia and just look at a historical perspective. Which is to say, Russia, whether Communist or Tsarist, has always been a threat to the Continent. Now, in light of the present situation, especially as it is, after all, the nuclear age with ready-made doomsday machines, the trick is not to get too aggressive.
But nonetheless, it is imperative that we extend the protective shield to as far east as possible when it comes to Russia. Of course, Georgia and other Central Asian cases are pretty much delusional lost causes, but if something can be done to establish a cordon sanitaire at the Polish and Czech frontier, then all the power to it.
Advisably, we should also try to establish the Ukraine within the Western framework. If we can push the Russian strategic frontier to the western border of Russia, then we would have prevented the countries on the European Continent from much of the potential future Russian pressure its throwing its weight around, in the future possibility (a strong one) that it recovers from its post-Cold War funk.
One should also note the Messianic streak in Russian governance. They sort of view themselves as a Third Rome of sorts, and see themselves justified, really, in whatever action they take, no matter how brutal or barbaric. Unlike the Nazis, which were a brief impasse, the Russians are perpetually Messianic. That is a very strong danger to Continental Europe.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
To paraphrase, well, you, there’s no need for a qualifier “of sorts”. They’ve been the Third Rome since Ivan married that Byzantine.
And you might as well post Kennan’s telegram. Russia’s always been an empire, it always will be, and simply changing the tsar’s title to General Secretary didn’t stop it. Neither does calling one a President or Prime Minister.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Here is my relevant post on Eunomia:
I think the real question is what sort of Ukrainian [substitute any ex-Soviet Bloc state) political disposition would advantageous and safety-enhancing for the West in the long term. And to me it seems that the answer would be for it to be completely free of the Russian sphere of influence, which would in turn require it to be within the Western sphere of influence, that being either some sort of special pact or outright membership with the EU (preferrably) or Nato.
Admittedly, current Russian power is much reduced and is not a very serious threat at this point to Western interests. But to regard such a state as being at all likely prevail would be to naively disregard Russian history. Whether be Tsarist Russia or the Soviet Union, the powers to be in Russia, with quite explicit and unequivocal support from the general populace, have historically engaged in expansionary policy. I suspect i has indeed little to do with changing ideology, but indeed a great deal to do with the historical, original psychological root of the Russian empire, which conceived itself as a continuation of the Byzantine state when it was overrun by the Ottomans, indeed, a sort of Third Rome.
No Western country, even the United States with its Manifest Destiny, possesses such an egocentric view of the world, and no other country could fashion as indefatigable or unshakable a psychological self-justification for (sometimes very bloody and gruesome) expansionary activity. That is the real worry one has about Russia; not that it is expansionary currently, but that given its history and national character, it would be most likely expansionary in the future, when it, in control of vast amounts of natural resources and strategic territory, as well as a decently educated population, recuperates the ability to assert itself fully on the European stage, as it has done for the last 500 years and inevitably will try to do given the chance. To absorb Ukraine into the West would, primarily, be a defence of Western Europe, against the recidivism and boorish gestures of a future ascendant Russia.
One notes that without the threat of great Russian power and projection on the European stage, much the mechanisms that enabled both world wars would not have been present. Intra-European power conflicts were much aggravated by the blunt insertion of Russian power on the Continent, which complicated and blurred matters significantly and made much more difficult any lasting resolution. It is, indeed, impossible to have a peaceful Europe with such a leering threat right on its eastern frontier, which, occasionally pretending the friend of parts of Europe (Germany’s in the case of energy politics), causes frictions and fractures within the region.
Now, I don’t believe in Georgian inclusion in a Western alliance, because it is, quite honestly, not on the European frontier and has little strategic or historical relevance for either Europe or America. And indeed, given its tiny size, it would be impossible to defend seriously as a ally at a distinctly difficult flank of Russia. But the eastern European frontier is a different question altogether, and frankly, the further we can push Russia back from being able to project power on the Continent, the happier I am.
Hope this is appreciated and discussed, and not just instinctively attacked.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Re: Which is to say, Russia, whether Communist or Tsarist, has always been a threat to the Continent
Precisely, Genius Myles. That would be why Russia was invaded by Germans (multiple times), Swedes, Poles, Lithuanians, British, French (at least twice), Turks, and probably many other miscreants I’m forgetting. Not to mention assorted Japanese, Mongol and Tartar invasions from the East.
I suppose you thought North Vietnam was a ‘threat’ to the united states as well.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
That would be why Russia was invaded by Germans (multiple times), Swedes, Poles, Lithuanians, British, French (at least twice), Turks, and probably many other miscreants I’m forgetting. Not to mention assorted Japanese, Mongol and Tartar invasions from the East.
Um, they were all empires too. That’s what empires do, they invade things.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
“Petey, not that you give a damn, but that’s really unfair to Hector. He’s come out in support not merely of the SPD, but the KPD, who were the only people to offer a serious resistance to the NSDAP-led coalition. Hector might be a Christian, but he’s also a very committed man of the Left.”
Dude, review your history. The KPD did think the SPD was the thing to fear in the early 30’s…
August 28th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Ever notice how any country that rejects American hegemony is “rogue” or “aggressive,” and all our efforts to preseve our dominance are “defensive.”
Professor Garrett Feagan noted that in 800 years, the Roman Empire only fought “defensive” wars. (He was being ironic.) Empires always claims that they are only defending themselves as they push further and further into other people’s faces.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Re: To absorb Ukraine into the West would, primarily, be a defence of Western Europe, against the recidivism and boorish gestures of a future ascendant Russia
Nonsense. The United States from about 1950 to about 1990 was far more ‘boorish’ than Russia is today. And the desire to export liberal capitalism into the Ukraine is just as much an example of thuggish imperialism as the Soviets’ desire to spread Marxism to Poland.
America needs to shut up, sit down, and stop trying to meddle in the affairs of Eastern Europe. Ukraine is not part of ‘the West’ and it never shall be. Just why is it OK for the US to have a sphere of influence, but not Russia. At least Russia bases its values on something rather more weighty than Pot, Porn and Playstations.
Russia will win the struggle for dominance against the West, have no doubt of that. But it will not win by military force. She will win just the same way she won against Napoleon’s legions: by endurance. Russia will outlast the West in the coming economic and environmental crisis, and she will bury us.
August 28th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
One of the aspects of neoconservatism that is endlessly fascinating to me is the way it reverses basic logical reasoning. In the real world we have a great deal of leverage over countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic, dependent as they are on the American nuclear umbrella and economic linkages with America and its allies. A highly sentimental and selective reading of recent history has also given America a great deal of influence amongst the region’s economic and political elites, many of whom were educated at American taxpayer expense, who tend to regard America as their “protector” against the depredations of the Russians and the West Europeans. However in the fallen world in which we live we, unfortunately, have an extremely weak hand to play with regards to Russia, since Russia has only tenuous economic linkages with the US and not the slightest desire for US military protection.
In the neoconservative worldview, though, these positions are flipped on their heads. A neoconservative would say that we have no “right” to tell the Czechs or Poles to do anything at all since they are “our democratic allies” and their citizens’ wishes (read: the wishes of the pro-American segment of their elites) must be respected. To neoconservatives such as the Times’ editorial board asking anything of a democratic ally is tantamount to appeasement or, even worse, surrender: 1938 is always lurking right around the corner and every two-bit authoritarian is the next Adolf Hitler. At the very same time, a “strong” foreign policy compels us to make endless threats to and demands on the Russians because their “authoritarian” and “revanchist” nature means they only understand crude threats of physical violence or, if we really want to be subtle about things, economic strangulation.
August 28th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
A big “if”, given the vague sourcing, but if true would signal a mild stand down from this insanely confrontational policy against the Russians. I’ve been thinking for a while that Obama might publicly continue to support the anti-missile bases, since our idiotic mainstream discourse won’t allow otherwise, but quietly work behind the scenes to modify the policy. I mean, does even the stupidest, droolingest, knuckle-draggingest moron think for a nanosecond that the U.S. wants to put anti-missile bases in Poland in order to keep Iran from lobbing missiles at them? No, and even the neocon fanatics who propose it can’t truly believe it. That leaves only media stenographers to take it seriously.
August 28th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Missile defense has not been proven to work by any stretch. Shooting down a falling satellite and shooting down a flying missile are not the same thing. I hate the public relations bullshit surrounding missile defense. The Pentagon has always lied to the public about nuclear force capability and policy. It’s an extreme racket.
Russia offered us a military radar site in Azerbajain. If missile defense really were the point, we would have taken them up on that. The most ridiculous proposal I’ve ever read, is that because missile defense requires such immediate response, that we should automate the entire missile warning system. Pure insanity.
August 28th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
While it’s smart to scrap the Eastern Europe missile concept, putting a bunch of US missiles in Israel is simply going to emphasize that the US cares about Israelis and not about Arabs one whit.
This is not going to do US foreign policy in the region any good.
What the US needs to do is threaten Israel with retaliation if they initiate an attack on Iran. That would both keep the peace and make the Arabs friendlier to the US. No need to threaten Iran with retaliation because a) they have no nukes, and b) they would never initiate a first strike on Israel for fear of Israeli nukes.
So the US gains foreign policy cred and improves regional stability by threatening Israel.
August 28th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Russia will win the struggle for dominance against the West, have no doubt of that. But it will not win by military force. She will win just the same way she won against Napoleon’s legions: by endurance. Russia will outlast the West in the coming economic and environmental crisis, and she will bury us
You know, Hector, if you’re going crib your speeches from Nikita Khrushchev, you should at least mime pounding your shoe on the table.
That train wreck of a nation state east of Poland and west of Alaska is going to take another fifty years to crawl out from under the wreckage of the Soviet Union. They’ll be lucky if they don’t lose half of Siberia to the Chinese, let alone “bury” a superpower on the other side of the planet.
More to the point, that “other side of the planet” thing means there is no reason for any direct “competition” with the Russians. They are only a threat to us if either side voluntarily decides to pick a fight with the other. It should be the business of politicians and citizens of both nations to suppress the jingos and nationalists who insist on doing so.
Lessee, Hector thinks the United States is collapsing, Fostert thinks India is “hell on earth,” several people are convinced Americans are as evil and violent as Mongols on the rampage . . .
This is a really cool discussion forum. Lots of different angles.
August 28th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
“That would be why Russia was invaded by Germans (multiple times), Swedes, Poles, Lithuanians, British, French (at least twice), Turks, and probably many other miscreants I’m forgetting. Not to mention assorted Japanese, Mongol and Tartar invasions from the East.”
“Um, they were all empires too. That’s what empires do, they invade things.”
Thank you. One of the hardest things to get through an American’s head when talking about history is that the world has never been a peaceful place and “peaceful” relations are not “normal” by world standards. “Russia” as we know it today is no more an “ancient” nation than the United States is. It was stitched together out of various feudal and tribal states by brutal conquest over the course of three centuries. The binding force of the Russian state for those centuries of its creation was not a “national” culture but a feudal lineage of borderline sociopaths who started out as tax collectors for the Khans of the Golden Horde and ripped off their title of “Tsar” or “Cesaer” from the extinct Byzantine empire. Quite delberately as a propaganda ploy.
Lest you think I’m picking on the Russians, I will point out that this horrible fable is not that much different from the true history of every other major political power in the history of human sin.
As Greg notes, whatever the peaceful everyday nature of hunter-gatherers, peasants, and honest merchants, traditional interactions between Eurasian nations was always “red in tooth and claw” and the lifetime of empires in the Eurasian heartland traditionally Hobbesian: nasty, brutish, and short. The Russian Empire dominated the continent between the Baltic and Pacific only in the last century of its existence. It didn’t behave any better in that era than any of the the weaker powers it crushed during its expansion, and its neighbors have every reason to fear a revival of its power.
That does not, of course, justify the United States making a fool of itself handing out promises to Eastern European and western Asian nations it cannot or will not back up with resolution. However, two multi-national organizations, the United Nations and NATO have shown promise in making “peaceful relations” the cultural norm in Eurasia. It may take a hundred years of effort to overthrow the ancient spirit of violence, but it took ten thousand years to create it, so what would you expect?
August 28th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Reminds me of the old Sen. Proxmire “Golden Fleece” awards. My favorite was a scathing criticism of a $150K grant for robotics research in the early 70s. The robot was the first of its kind, a self-powered and self-controlled gizmo on a cart that could creep across a floor and sense and avoid objects placed in its path. A real step forward. Proxmire said it was a total waste of time and money because it could only go 1/8 of a MPH and typically broke down after about 1/2 hour of operation
Somewhere, I’m sure, there is a carpet in a room dedicated to the famous senator that is regularly cleaned by a Roomba.
September 1st, 2009 at 12:32 pm
The news of the non-deployment decision does seem to be true, as I confirm in an entry on my own weblog, EuroSavant, after surveying relevant Polish press articles in the original Polish.