Sep 22nd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
The Missile Defense Appeasement Debate
It’s Robert Farley vs Michael Goldfarb on whether declining to build an unpopular and unncecessary missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic constitutes some form of dastardly “appeasement” of Russia:
I’m with Farley, obviously. I note that absolutely zero Germans I’ve spoken with have expressed any concern whatsoever that Obama’s policies are going to lead to Russian domination of Europe.
47 Responses to “The Missile Defense Appeasement Debate”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
Cars
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Football
Gender
Health Care
History
Inequality
Infrastructure
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
planning
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Russia will dominate Europe, but only because they control the flow of oil and natural gas. Maybe if we came up with a defense against Russia’s dominance of the petroleum market, it might mean something. Europe won’t be bombed into submission, they’ll just buy their way into it.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:37 pm
“Appeasement” appears to be the new buzzword for anything shy of hostility and a hyper-competitive attempt to gain a distinct advantage.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Germans have overwhemingly been opposed to the missile defense shield from the beginning.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
And I’m not joking about Russia’s grip on energy products. Watch what happens this year when it starts getting cold. Russia will find a way to restrict supply and drive up prices of heating oils and natural gas. There’s always some ‘conflict’ that arises right around when everyone really needs those products. And prices go sky high. It’s Russia’s way of saying “fuck you very much” to Europe. Isn’t that so sweet.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:52 pm
“It’s Russia’s way of saying “fuck you very much” to Europe.”
Correction: It’s Russia’s way of saying “fuck you very much” to Eastern Europeans.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
You are correct, David, to say the Eastern Europeans will take the brunt of it. They always have, haven’t they? But Western Europe still sees higher prices because of it. Russia will always invade the Czechs. They just have a better way to do it now.
September 22nd, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Goldfarb’s argument is nonsensical. Why are you posting it?
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
RE: Russia will dominate Europe, but only because they control the flow of oil and natural gas
What’s wrong with that? Better Moscow than Brussels bureaucrats or Washington warmongers.
Given that “f*ck you very much” appears to be our usual discourse with Latin America, I fail to see how this makes Russia’s imperial ambitions any more evil than our own.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
“They just have a better way to do it now.”
I’ll add that nothing the Russians do will ever make the Czechs think less of them. It’s really not possible to go down from there. I do believe there’s a level of hatred that just cannot be exceeded. And the Czechs are already there as far as the Russians are concerned. Even the Cambodians don’t hate the Vietnamese that much.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:10 pm
“I fail to see how this makes Russia’s imperial ambitions any more evil than our own.”
I’d agree. We’d do the same, except China is beating us to it. Hell, they’re beating the Russians in a lot of places. We wasted our time in Iraq while China got Nigeria and is making a really good move on Iran. We took ourselves out of that game, so let’s see what Russia does. I’m guessing they’ll play hard in that ballpark. But the Chinese will beat them. Russia knows extortion is where the real money is at. And they have Europe by the balls.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:11 pm
RE: Russia will dominate Europe, but only because they control the flow of oil and natural gas
Could that be one reason Europe is investing so much in alternative energy sources? Northern Europe is doing wind, solar is big in the (slightly) sunnier regions. Volkswagen just announced a practical electric car slated for a 2013 introduction, and already has diesel models that get 70+ mpg.
European dependence on Russian oil might not be a critical factor over the longer term.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
“Could that be one reason Europe is investing so much in alternative energy sources?”
Yup. Let’s face it, if your future is buying oil from Putin, wouldn’t you want to change it? The still have some North Sea oil, but that’s dwindling and buying from Russia is the alternative. The European producers are happy to let Russia raise the price. Consumers, not so much.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I’m also with Farley — so much so that I have no interest in watching a debate on the matter.
I will say, though, that making the announcement on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland was a really bizarre choice.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Seriously? You think Moscow is better than Brussels? I know you think democracy is overrated, but are you really saying that you’d rather have Europe controlled by borderline sociopaths in Moscow? And by the blunt force of cutting off their heating fuel during wintertime?
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“What’s wrong with that? Better Moscow than Brussels bureaucrats or Washington warmongers.”
But that’s just crazy to say that. Everyone in the world has weighed in on this, and by unanimous consent, everyone would rather be invaded by us than the Russians. And they’d rather be our bitch than the Russians’ bitch. This is where your communist ideology fails. Maybe it would work with a better salesman. But when the Russians are selling, a lot of people just won’t buy. Funny how a gun to your head makes you less amenable to the person holding the gun. You’ll cooperate when the gun is there, but take it away, and you really don’t like that person. Seriously, can you come up with a single county that has a favorable opinion of Russia? I can’t. India is about the best with a negative opinion that doesn’t involve wanting to shoot every Russian they see. But even they don’t like the Russians.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
But that’s just crazy to say that. Everyone in the world has weighed in on this, and by unanimous consent, everyone would rather be invaded by us than the Russians. And they’d rather be our bitch than the Russians’ bitch. This is where your communist ideology fails. Maybe it would work with a better salesman. But when the Russians are selling, a lot of people just won’t buy. Funny how a gun to your head makes you less amenable to the person holding the gun. You’ll cooperate when the gun is there, but take it away, and you really don’t like that person. Seriously, can you come up with a single county that has a favorable opinion of Russia? I can’t. India is about the best with a negative opinion that doesn’t involve wanting to shoot every Russian they see. But even they don’t like the Russians.
Err, fostert, why does this matter?
The Russians don’t like the Russians. They, for the most part, don’t really if people don’t like them. I think our major problem is that a substantial subset of our policy makers and population (like say, the Neocons) wants people to fear us like they think (ie. imagine) people fear Russia.
But pretty much everyone in the US thinks everyone should love us. I’m sure you’ve watched FoxNews, and the amount of bipolarity going on there is staggering. They honestly can’t understand why so many people don’t like us, and their response is anger about what we’ve done for them, why we’re so awesome, and what we’ll do to them if they don’t start liking us.
At least the Russians don’t appear to be this bipolar. They’re just incredibly brutal and cynical.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:51 pm
*should say “they don’t really care”*
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Goldfarb == stupid.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Fostert,
Wrongo. Russia has many friends, allies, and believers in a Russian sphere of influence. The Belarusians, the Armenians, the Venezuelans, the Nicaraguans, and the Bolivians know that Russia is their natural friend and protector against Western imperialism. Indeed, Latin America is rapidly becoming a pro-Russian continent.
If by ‘communist’ you mean Marxist, then I am not a communist, though I do think there are many good things about a society like Cuba (aswell as many bad things) which a healthy society should emulate.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
So another deceitful, wicked and odious, anti-American neocon fecal matter named Goldfarb says we have to start a War with Russia lest they do A, B, or C and somehow this merits extensive study? Why would you even dignify his comments? He belongs at the end of a rope.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Wrongo. Russia has many friends, allies, and believers in a Russian sphere of influence. The Belarusians, the Armenians, the Venezuelans, the Nicaraguans, and the Bolivians know that Russia is their natural friend and protector against Western imperialism. Indeed, Latin America is rapidly becoming a pro-Russian continent.
Well, yea, the Russians have the Orthodox Slavs (including part of the Ukrainians, but the majority of the Ukraine is Catholic/Uniate) and most of the other parts of Orthodoxy, and they have the part of the world (Latin America) that feels the way Central and Eastern Europe feels about Russia.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Regarding all these comments about Russia having Europe by the nads because of oil and gas, I can see the point as far as natural gas, but how can Russia control the price of oil when there are plenty of other sources for Europeans to buy it – like right across the Mediterranean? If Russia jacks up the price too high, they’ll just buy it elsewhere. I see how it could be a problem for landlocked Eastern European countries, because they’re dependent on pipelines, but not for Western Europe.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Given Russia’s ability to yank the natural gas leash whenever it wants, the missile-defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic were directed against the wrong threat. The proper means to prevent Russian domination of Europe is to develop alternatives to natural gas.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:43 pm
“So another deceitful, wicked and odious, anti-American neocon fecal matter named Goldfarb”
If anyone’s wondering, “How can I tell when ‘neocon’ is just anti-Semitic code for ‘dirty Jew?’” this is a pretty good template, and fits Trevor’s previous posts here pretty well.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
But that’s just crazy to say that. Everyone in the world has weighed in on this, and by unanimous consent, everyone would rather be invaded by us than the Russians. And they’d rather be our bitch than the Russians’ bitch.
The problem is, just because that may be true doesn’t mean that this is a good expenditure of US resources, especially when one considers the blowback that comes from being the sole hegemonic power.
Better to allow Russia it’s legitimate sphere of influence. (And remember, it IS legitimate– it’s not as though Russians don’t have an understandable fear of attack from the west, given history.) That may not be so great for Czechs and Poles and Ukranians, but it is much better for AMERICANS, and American foreign policy is about protecting OUR interests.
September 22nd, 2009 at 2:49 pm
“Indeed, Latin America is rapidly becoming a pro-Russian continent.”
That’s because they haven’t been invaded by the Russians. Give them some experience with the Russians and they’ll hate them soon enough. But tell me, Hector, the Eastern Europeans have the most experience with the Russians. Why don’t they like them, if Russia is so popular? And why don’t the Asians like them either? It seems familiarity really does breed contempt, as far as the Russians are concerned.
And yes, AaLD, you’re right, it is primarily about natural gas, but heating oil (not gasoline) is a real factor. Particularly in Eastern Europe. And Western Europe is fairly independent for now. But not as independent as they’d like to be. When the price in Eastern Europe goes sky high, prices in Western Europe rise too. Eastern Europe has to get oil from somewhere, and it goes through Western Europe to make up what Russia cuts off. They are mostly immune in Western Europe, but not entirely so.
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Hector, do you have sympathy with the reactionaries in Dostoevsky? My guess is that you do.
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:01 pm
You don’t understand; it’s not the RUSSIANS Obama is appeasing; it’s the Poles and the Czechs.
The public is both of those countries are strongly opposed to hosting our missile bases.
That’s what you get when you elect a Democrat.
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:04 pm
“That may not be so great for Czechs and Poles and Ukranians, but it is much better for AMERICANS, and American foreign policy is about protecting OUR interests.”
Well, our interests would be best protected by stealing Russia’s petroleum. And maintaining Eastern Europe as a buffer zone that we control. And given that Eastern Europe would rather be under our thumb than Russia’s, it’s best to draw that line at the Russian border. It’s in our interest to have the first line of defense be people who will fight them with everything they have. And in Eastern Europe, they will do anything to not be invaded by the Russians again. They are still furious about the last invasions. If there’s anyone we want on the front line, it’s Eastern Europe.
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Natural friend and protector? Come on, you’re smarter than that. The only difference between Russia and the US in Latin America would be which flavor of death squad they’d be arming, and the fact that all the natural gas and oil would be sucked up by Gazprom instead of Exxon.
God knows that America has had a long history of doing evil things to Latin America, but you can’t seriously tell me that somehow Russia would be giving out free ponies to everyone.
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
“You don’t understand; it’s not the RUSSIANS Obama is appeasing; it’s the Poles and the Czechs.”
That’s really true. They really just want everything ratcheted down. The don’t want anything to instigate another invasion. Last time really sucked.
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Hector, do you have sympathy with the reactionaries in Dostoevsky? My guess is that you do.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
*Ahem* Sorry, got tears in my eye.
Seriously, David, you’re new to this site, right?
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
it’s best to draw that line at the Russian border.
Is that a line we’re able or willing to defend? It’s one thing to put in mostly symbolic (yet hugely expensive) missile defense systems, ostensibly to protect against Iranian missiles, but it’s another thing to commit to sending in troops if Russian tanks cross the border like they did in Georgia.
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:13 pm
This recent column by PJB is right on the money:
Here’s a column right on the money and the missles.
Black Sea Wars
by Patrick J. Buchanan
09/22/2009
In August, the Georgian navy seized a Turkish tanker carrying fuel to Abkhazia, Georgia’s former province whose declaration of independence a year ago is recognized by Russia but not the West.
The Turkish captain was sentenced to 24 years. When Ankara protested, he was released. Abkhazia has now threatened to sink any Georgian ship interfering in its “territorial waters,” but it has no navy.
Russia, however, has a Black Sea Fleet and a treaty of friendship with Abkhazia, and has notified Tbilisi that the Russian coast guard will assure, peacefully, the sea commerce of Abkhazia.
Not backing down, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili — who launched and lost a war for South Ossetia in 48 hours in August 2008 — has declared the blockade of Abkhazia, which he claims as Georgian national territory, will remain in force. And he has just appointed as defense minister a 29-year-old ex-penitentiary boss with a questionable record on human rights who wants to tighten ties to NATO.
We have here the makings of a naval clash that Georgia, given Russian air, naval and land forces in the eastern Black Sea, will lose.
What is Saakashvili up to? He seems intent on provoking a new crisis to force NATO to stand with him and bring the United States in on his side — against Russia. Ultimate goal: Return the issue of his lost provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia back onto the world’s front burner.
While such a crisis may be in the interests of Saakashvili and his Russophobic U.S neoconservative retainers, it is the furthest thing from U.S. national interests. President Obama should have Joe Biden, Saakashvili’s pal, phone him up and instruct him thus:
“Mikheil, if you interfere with the sea commerce of Abkhazia, and provoke Russia into a Black Sea war, you fight it yourself. The Sixth Fleet is not going to steam into the Black Sea and pull your chestnuts out of the fire, old buddy. It will be your war, not ours.”
Nor is the Abkhazian crisis the only one brewing in the Black Sea.
Last month, Russian naval troops blocked Ukrainian bailiffs from seizing navigational equipment from a lighthouse outside Sevastopol, the Crimean base of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet for two centuries.
The Sevastopol lease, however, runs out in 2017. And Kiev has informed Moscow there will be no renewal. Russia’s fleet will have to vacate Sevastopol and the Crimea, which belonged to Russia before Nikita Khrushchev ceded the entire peninsula to Ukraine in 1954 in a “brotherly gesture” while Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union.
Russia also bears a deep animus toward Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko, for trying to bring his country into NATO. Yushchenko, whose approval rating is in single digits, has been seen, ever since the U.S.-backed Orange Revolution of 2004 that brought him to power, as America’s man in Kiev.
Moreover, as religious, cultural, ethnic and historic ties between Kiev and Moscow go back centuries, Russians remain unreconciled to the loss of what they regard as the cradle of their country.
What is America’s vital interest in all these quarrels? Zero.
The idea, mentioned in hawkish quarters, of having the Sixth Fleet take over the vacated naval base at Sevastopol would be as rash and provocative an act as having Chinese warships move into Guantanamo, were Havana to expel the United States.
But that is unlikely to happen. For Obama appears to be rolling back the George W. Bush policy of expanding NATO into former republics of the Soviet Union.
Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are already members, and Bush and John McCain were anxious to bring in Ukraine and Georgia. But, as Bush’s inaction during the Russia-Georgia war revealed, America is not going to fight Russia over who controls Abkhazia, North or South Ossetia, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Chechnya or Georgia. All are beyond any vital interest or legitimate sphere of influence of the United States.
With his cancellation of the U.S. missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic — a shield designed to defend against a nonexistent Iranian ICBM — Obama sent two message to Moscow.
First, Obama believes entente with Russia is a surer guarantee of the peace and security of Eastern Europe than any U.S. weapons system. Second, Obama puts Washington-Moscow ties before any U.S. military ties to NATO allies in Eastern Europe.
Which means NATO is approaching an existential crisis.
Almost all NATO troops, except U.S., are gone from Iraq, and the alliance’s minimal commitment to Afghanistan is ending with no victory in sight. NATO’s expansion eastward has come to a halt. Ukraine and Georgia are not coming in. And the United States is not going to place troops, warships or missiles any closer than they are now to Russia’s frontiers.
“NATO must go out of area, or go out of business,” said Sen. Richard Lugar at the Cold War’s end. NATO went out of area, and is coming back with its tail between its legs. The alternative arises.
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I can see us draw that line a little to the West. Give up Ukraine and parts of Georgia. But not the parts of Georgia with the pipelines. That’s too crucial to Turkey, and Turkey has always been our best ally. We need them for Middle East policy. When it comes down to Turkey’s interests, we must defend them. They defend ours. And yes, I know we’re not too popular with the people of Turkey, but that will turn around. If they have to face the Russians, they’ll be on our side real quick. We’re the second worst thing in the world. The Russians are the worst.
September 22nd, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Irving Kristol’s first words in Hell: “Oy vey.”
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:23 pm
The tories may like the USA, the people, that’s a whole different story.
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:32 pm
There was once an anti-ABM treaty negotiated with the Soviets. George Jr. unilaterally abrogated the treaty to. Obama is just returning the US to its original obligations.
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
The debate is an important one, but purely symbolic. Both the Russians and the Americans know that a couple of radar stations in the Czech Republic and 10 ground based interceptors in Poland have little or no “real” meaning. For the two countries, it is all about posturing -over nothing.
The United States is, right now, expanding its missile defense capabilities in the region almost exponentially. The Russians are aware of this and also aware they can do nothing about it. The Russians chose to make their stand where they could. They demanded that the United States remove the little irritant they had so carelessly, or carefully, depending on how you look at, placed in the Russian’s side. It is conceivable that the whole thing was a set up. Both countries get something. The Americans can show magnanimity, and the Russians can save face.
But bottom line is, the United States is ringing the old Soviet Union with missiles that hunt missiles. If the US can, in the near future, eliminate the retaliatory capability of Russian ICBM’s, the United States will, once again, have a first strike option for the first time since the late 1950’s.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:13 pm
“Both countries get something. The Americans can show magnanimity, and the Russians can save face.”
Not only that, we can avoid talking about the pipelines which actually matter. And the foreign policy geniuses get to talk about something that doesn’t matter so they don’t look bad doing it. And they get to dust off that old Cold War hat. Everybody’s happy.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
@40 fostert: “And the foreign policy geniuses get to talk about something that doesn’t matter so they don’t look bad doing it. And they get to dust off that old Cold War hat. Everybody’s happy.”
Exactly. The whole thing is a goofy charade so people can talk about stuff that doesn’t matter one iota.
MISSLE DEFENSE SELLOUT! What a fucking farce.
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:47 pm
And that guy on the right in the video, Michael “chilled” Goldschlager, if his head was being gnawed off by a giant Grizzly he would ignore it, and attempt to swat at the mosquito biting his leg.
In Michael’s defense, this probably would never happen. By the looks of him, he has never, not once in his life, ventured outdoors. I’m talking the backyard of his suburban home. Simply too dangerous.
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Hector:
Russia has many friends, allies, and believers in a Russian sphere of influence. The Belarusians, the Armenians, the Venezuelans, the Nicaraguans, and the Bolivians know that Russia is their natural friend and protector against Western imperialism.
Oh hell, with Belarus on your side how can you go wrong? I also shudder at the awe inspiring diplomatic power that the Aremenians and Nicaraguans bring to the table. Next thing you know the Russians might befriend French Guiana, then they’ll be unstoppable!
September 22nd, 2009 at 10:54 pm
Why are you spreading this meme? That George W. Bush wanted to put missile installations in Poland had nothing to do with what Russia did, and that Obama won’t put them there had nothing to do with what Russia did.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:57 pm
But bottom line is, the United States is ringing the old Soviet Union with missiles that hunt missiles. If the US can, in the near future, eliminate the retaliatory capability of Russian ICBM’s, the United States will, once again, have a first strike option for the first time since the late 1950’s.
Why do you think we’ve being doing it? At least for Cheney and Rumsfeld, this has always been about achieving first strike capability. Indeed, for pretty much any Cold Warrior it *was* always about achieving first strike capability.
We got really lucky that, when was told that his posturing had actually scared the Sovs into seriously contemplating a first strike, Reagan wasn’t thrilled, he was *appalled* and then made it his mission to do more for arms control than practically any President before or since. To a point where his own advisors thought he was out of line.
September 22nd, 2009 at 11:59 pm
If Rumsfeld had been President – which at one point really could have happened – I dread to think that we might have followed Able Archer with something even more provocative.
September 26th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Thinking about it though, there is nothing wrong with Obama outright seeking good relations with Russia. It would be a way to address the charges of appeasement head-on.