Missile Defense (General thread)

[vector7]

Missile Defense and Washington’s Foolish Eurasia Strategy

Politics / GeoPolitics Sep 17, 2009 - 06:41 AM By: F_William_Engdahl



Eight months into the Obama Presidency the outlines of Administration foreign policy are becoming very clear and what is emerging is a foreign policy establishment flying blind on automatic pilot, evidently unable to make the fundamental policy changes required of its new geopolitical and economic position in the world since the collapse of the Greenspan “revolution in finance” September 2008.

For the first time since it emerged as the world’s dominant power after 1945 the US policy establishment is unable to combine its military “stick” with any economic “carrot.” The Obama effort marks the end of an era of geopolitics. Latest reports that Obama has decided to cancel US plans for an anti-nuclear missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic suggest that a major internal battle is underway among US policy elites over what has clearly been a failed US foreign policy strategy.



Nowhere has the deficit in creative new strategic thinking been evident than in Washington policy towards the three pivot powers of the Eurasian continent—China, Russia and Iran. The recent calculated affront to Russia by Vice President Joe Biden was typical of the impotence of recent US foreign policy to regain American advantage across the strategic expanse of Eurasia—the undisputed “key” to world hegemony.

White the Obama Administration has made big fanfare about a so-called “reset” of US-Russian relations, it is clear the reset intended is back to the disastrous (for Russia) Yeltsin era of chaos and collapse of Russian state power in the early 1990’s. What is ignored are the clear strategic-based reasons for the dramatic deterioration in US-Russian relations—Washington and Washington-led NATO have posed an existential challenge to the very survival of Russia as a nation by Washington’s series of power coups or “color revolutions,” most clearly the 2003-2004 revolutions in Ukraine and in Georgia which placed pro-NATO de facto puppet regimes in power on Moscow’s most strategic periphery.

The strategic significance of “missile defense”
Adding to the appearance as seen from Moscow that US intent is to ultimately destroy Russia was the US insistence, until now endorsed by Obama, to place highly offensive missile and radar installations into Poland and the Czech Republic, the mis-named US “ballistic missile defense.” As former US military experts have put it, missile defense is the key to nuclear first strike. Whether or not Obama definitively cancels the missile defense plans will be a decisive indication if serious US rethinking is possible or not.

Rather than take steps to reduce the danger of nuclear pre-emptive war by miscalculation, a danger which the Bush-Rumsfeld missile defense policy has created with Russia, the Obama foreign policy has been drafted by an outmoded Clinton-era policy group whose calculations are based on a triumphal US sole superpower able to dictate terms to Russia and the rest of the world.



This was most clear in the ill-conceived Biden interview with the neo-conservative Wall Street Journal at end of July during a visit to Georgia and Ukraine. He proclaimed that Russia had “a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years, they’re in a situation where the world is changing before them and they’re clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable.” It might as well have been describing the United States but for the population base.

The comments of the US Vice President, clearly approved beforehand by the White House, are read in Moscow as a US policy affirmation of crushing what remains of Russia. Even if there were some truth in the Biden coment, it far from defines the reality of Eurasian geopolitics today.

The fact that after Obama’s July meeting with Medvedev and Putin, Obama sent Biden on the provocative tour of Ukraine and Georgia made clear to Russia what Washington policy offers: nothing but negative consequences for Russia. Obama policy towards Russia was clearly nothing fundamentally different from Bush policy. As seen then in Moscow, it was a bankrupt US strategic policy, one on “automatic pilot.”

That policy, it was clear, would produce significant reactions globally that Washington was and is ill-prepared to counter, further underscoring the impotence of the United States as the global superpower. By declaring openly that Russia is not taken seriously by Washington, Biden and the Obama Administration revealed an arrogance not backed by strength in their own economic power. Russia has significant options to undercut America’s geopolitical strategy of divide-and-rule over Eurasia. Key are Russian relations with Iran, Afghanistan and China.

Washington strategy backfires
Obama strategy has been to re-establish US influence in parts of Eurasia that suffered dramatic decline during the fiasco of the Bush-Cheney era. This was evident in Obama plans to significantly pour more troops into Afghanistan. It was evident in covert US Administration support for regime change and destabilization of the Ahmedinejad government after the Iranian elections. There the goal was to weaken Iran influence in the Middle East as well as its close ties to China and Russia.

Were Washington truly able to rethink fundamentals of its geopolitical power projection it would take very different steps under the cover of the Obama regime change.

Rather than continuing the confrontation with Russia in its own security sphere of Georgia or Ukraine, it would have to consider making concessions to Russian security concerns by negotiating an end to the US missile defense as Obama suggested in the campaign debates.

The fact that the Czech press suggests that has just been decided, indicates a desperate internal attempt within the US power establishment to rethink fundamentals of America’s global strength.

Cancelling missile defense and easing of NATO support in Ukraine and Georgia would open the door to urgently needed Russian cooperation for a US policy with Iran and Afghanistan.

By being confrontational with Russia, Obama’s Administration had foolishly compounded its problems across Eurasia and beyond. Ironically, the US Government has just released its latest threat review.

The US 2009 National Intelligence Strategy (NIS), a four-year blueprint for the intelligence services, cites Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as countries that "have the ability to challenge US interests," not only in traditional ways, such as military force and espionage, but also in "emerging" ways, in particular cyber operations. It noted, "Russia…may continue to seek avenues for reasserting power and influence in ways that complicate US interests."

The Obama Biden policy of denigration and confrontation, if continued, no matter how weak Russia might appear economically, would certainly make that challenge to US influence a self-fulfilling prophesy.

The fact that Ahmadinejad personally went to the Yekaterinburg, Russia annual meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in July amid the height of the US-led destabilization of his country, to talk with Russian and Chinese leaders, indicates the effect of Washington’s bankrupt foreign policy. Iran is the key factor to help politically stabilize Iraq where some 60% of the population is Shi’ite as in Iran. Russia could play a key role in stabilizing Iran where Russian technology is building the Bushehr nuclear power complex. As well, a less confrontational US policy might win cooperation of Iran in neutralizing problems in Afghanistan.

Significantly, only days after the Biden remarks about Russia, Russian newsmedia reported that Iran would receive an advanced Russian-made S-300 anti-aircraft system by the year's end that could help fend off any pre-emptive strikes against its nuclear facilities. The first deliveries are to begin this month and be completed within 12 months.

The announcement so destabilized the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu that the Prime Minister just made a rush trip to Moscow to try to stop the sale.

Moscow has been diplomatically and militarily able to create a serious weakening of US influence in Africa and as well in Latin America.
President Dmitry Medvedev visited four African countries in June – Egypt, Namibia, Nigeria and Angola.

As well, Moscow has just agreed with Venezuelan President Hugh Chavez to provide $2.5 billion line of credit to purchase Russian armoured vehicles and surface-to-air missiles. Chavez also said he expects arrival of some ''little rockets'' from Russia, which he said have a range of up to 300 kilometres and were strictly for defence purposes.

Chavez cited recent Colombian government decision to permit the US military access to seven military bases on its soil as justification. ''With these rockets, it is going to be very difficult for them to come and bomb us. If that happens, they should know that we will soon have these systems installed…”

Far from being an irrelevant player, as Biden and Obama were earlier prepared to declare, Russia is a decisive strategic factor in what is a growing move across the world to lessen dependence on the United States as “sole superpower.” The evident decision by Washington now to rethink its missile defense provocation of Russia indicates some in the Administration realize the US military bluff has been called. Now it remains to be seen if Washington is also willing to roll back its demand that Ukraine and Georgia join NATO. Were that to happen, it could signal a major US shift in strategic policy.

By F. William Engdahl
www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net

*F. William Engdahl, author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order (Third Millennium Press), may be reached via his website, www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

COPYRIGHT © 2009 F. William Engdahl. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

[vector7]

Medvedev: US missile plan decision 'responsible'


Posted: Thursday, September 17, 2009 12:20 pm | No Comments Posted

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Thursday that the decision by the Obama administration to scrap plans for a missile defense system in Europe is a "responsible move."

Medvedev made the comments on state TV just hours after President Barack Obama announced he was shelving the project, which has been a major irritant in U.S. relations with Russia.

He said he and Obama had discussed the issue of missile proliferation in their meetings earlier this year in London and Moscow and had agreed to work together to reduce that risk.

"The announcement made today in Washington shows that the conditions for such work are not bad," he said.

"We appreciate this responsible move by the U.S. president toward realizing our agreement," he said. "I am prepared to continue the dialogue."

Russia has strenuously objected to the plan to base the missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic, fearing it would compromise Russia's strategic nuclear capabilities.

"We together will work out effective measures regarding the risks of missile proliferation _ measures, which will take into consideration the interests and concerns of all sides and guarantee equal security to all states in Europe," Medvedev said.

Posted in Europe on Thursday, September 17, 2009 12:20 pm Updated: 1:07 pm. | Tags:

[American Patriot]

Heard the President's decisions today?

MDA being pulled out of Europe.

We're done for.

[American Patriot]

This was a DANGEROUS and NAIVE DECISION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obama has DOOMED the United States.

John Titor... I am beginning to believe was "here before his time".

[vector7]

Analysis: Barack Obama's missile shield decision will be cheered in Russia

The Kremlin will allow itself a wry smile today. Reports that Barack Obama has scrapped plans for a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe are music to its ears.

By Andrew Osborn in Moscow
Published: 1:29PM BST 17 Sep 2009


Barack Obama's new approach marks a significant change in American diplomacy Photo: GETTY

Tomorrow's Russian newspapers are therefore likely to be triumphalist in tone. "See, we were right to give the Americans a hard time on this" will be the line.

The climb-down undoubtedly does represent a significant strategic victory for the Kremlin. It also gives substance to Washington's so far woolly "reset" of relations with Russia, and will go a long way to soothe wounded Russian egos.

Related Articles

• US economy will take 'years' to return to pre-recession level, Paul Volcker warns
• Anger in Europe as Obama 'scraps missile shield'
• Barack Obama shows Chicago's fighting spirit
• US to scrap European missile defence shield
• Barack Obama can't make rogues like North Korea play by his rules
• Barack Obama offers to scrap US missile defence system in secret letter to Russia

Moscow's biggest complaint about the Bush administration was that it did not take Russia or Russian strategic interests seriously. There is nothing Russians hate more than to think that their old Cold War adversary is not giving them the respect they believe they are due. This therefore will be held up as proof to ordinary Russians that Russia is once again a serious player on the world stage. It will become part of the "Russia rises from its knees" narrative so beloved of Kremlin spin doctors in the blink of an eye.

The Kremlin is not known for missing opportunities to pat itself on the back and this particular propaganda coup has been served up on a plate with all the trimmings. The crowing could be loud. The reflected glory will go to Vladimir Putin. The prime minister has been the missile shield's most vocal and high profile opponent, drawing on some of his famously fiery rhetoric to reject the US plan. This news will serve to bolster his already stellar popularity ratings, cementing his position as Russia's most powerful politician and heavyweight international statesman.

Russia's diplomatic elite will see it as a vindication of Moscow's publicly uncompromising stance on the issue.

Russia effectively staked its entire bilateral relationship with the US on the dispute in a high stakes game of poker that appears to have paid off. At a time when Moscow obviously needs to be more flexible itself, there must be concerns that it will be tempted to resort to the same successful hardball tactics again.

In Eastern Europe, there is likely to be real anxiety and soul-searching.
Many politicians in the missile shield's putative host countries – Poland and the Czech Republic – will undoubtedly feel jilted and let down by Washington. Former Soviet bloc countries had already begun to voice concerns that Washington's vaunted reset of relations with Moscow would come at their expense. For many, this move is likely to be seen as a disappointing confirmation of that. Washington could be busy mending fences and reassuring some of is staunchest European allies about its future intentions for months to come.

The big question now though is what if anything is Russia ready to do in return? Washington has a meaty wish list. It wants Russia to back tough sanctions against Iran to curb the Islamic Republic's nuclear alleged ambitions. It would also like Russia to make deep cuts in its own nuclear arsenal when it comes to renegotiating a key arms control treaty due to expire in December.

And last, but not least, it wants Russia's continued cooperation in helping Washington keep its troops in Afghanistan well supplied. Iran will be the toughest issue to crack. The Russian government has so far appeared split on the sanctions issue with Mr Putin strongly opposing the idea and President Dmitry Medvedev apparently remaining open to such a demarche.

Will the Russians be magnanimous in victory? Or will they, as the foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has said in the past, choose to frame the decision as an overdue correction of a Bush era mistake rather than as a real concession that requires reciprocity.
That is the 64,000 ruble question.

[vector7]

Yep, the Left when in power continues to make geopolitical and military strategic moves that destroys our national security along with our credibility.

There may have been a trade made for Russian short term support against Iran for a long term Eastern Europe withdrall.

One hasty naive move in a chess game can have serious hidden consequences. This will only strengthen and embolden our enemies.

[vector7]

Russia unlikely to offer concessions in response to U.S. halting of missile shield

Moscow had been anticipating Obama's decision, which it sees as correcting an error. Its Iran policy is not expected to change.

By Megan K. Stack September 18, 2009

Reporting from Moscow - When President Obama came to Moscow in July, he hinted that Russia's best chance to stop the U.S. from building a missile shield in the region was to help stifle Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Russia got what it wanted Thursday: The United States dropped plans for missile shield facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic. But if Moscow's initial reaction is any measure, Washington should not expect much in return.

Russian officials have been anticipating the U.S. decision, and regard it as proof that the United States has finally come to its senses. The Americans, one Russian official said, shouldn't demand rewards for finally fixing a mistake.

In recent weeks, Moscow has come under increasing pressure from the U.S. and Israel to take a harder line against Iran's nuclear program. But Russia doesn't feel particularly threatened by a nuclear Iran, analysts say. Instead, the Kremlin tends to treat Iran as an economic opportunity. And it embraces the Islamic Republic as a powerful nation hostile to the United States.

The Kremlin had badly wanted the Obama administration to drop plans to deploy the missile interceptors and radar equipment in countries that once were part of the Soviet sphere of influence. But that doesn't mean Russian officials were willing to characterize the shift in policy as a concession.

"Those who are talking about a concession to Russia are primarily those who are looking for a bargaining chip in seeking extra dividends of some kind from us," said Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's envoy to NATO, in remarks carried on the Interfax news agency. "In actual fact, the Americans have simply put their own mistake right. And we are not duty-bound to pay for someone to put their own mistakes right."

From the start, Moscow was enraged by the George W. Bush administration's proposal to build the missile installations. Russian officials rejected U.S. explanations that the facilities would be a deterrent to Iranian weapons, instead viewing them as a menacing show of force and an attempt to curb Russian military might.

Some of the early strains of goodwill toward Obama stirred in Russia when he, as a presidential candidate, expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of the proposed Eastern European installations.

Russia's Iran policy has never been straightforward. In recent weeks, Russia and Israel have held high-level meetings on Iran. At the same time, Interfax quoted an anonymous Russian official as raising doubts about whether Iran had properly answered concerns about its nuclear program.

Russia has been firmly against imposing more sanctions on Iran, and that determination showed little sign of wavering Thursday.

"There is a real chance to start negotiations that should result in agreements . . . to restore confidence in the purely peaceful nature of this program," Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said. "It would be a serious mistake to kill off this chance with demands for immediate sanctions."

Some analysts say that, despite its official expressions of concern over whether Iran's nuclear program is peaceful, Moscow isn't particularly worried about whether Tehran is pursuing atomic weapons.

"Neither Iranian nor North Korean nuclear weapons were ever a big issue here, because they're not seen as a direct threat against Russia," said Pavel Felgenhauer, a Moscow-based analyst with the Jamestown Foundation.

In a sense, the tensions between the West and Iran have been beneficial for Moscow, lending it a badly desired sense of diplomatic clout. For years, Russia has remained essentially noncommittal as it was courted by both sides.

Under Vladimir Putin, first as president and now as prime minister, Russia has returned to a semblance of the Cold War practice of cultivating ties with anti-American countries. Among them are Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Iran fits neatly into that pattern, and Russia has also benefited from lucrative business deals, including the construction of a nuclear power plant in Iran.

With the debate over a nuclear Iran coming to a head, analysts predict that hard-liners and more conciliatory factions of Russia's political elite will each seize upon the shift in missile shield policy to try to bolster their cause.

"There is an intense fight about which direction the country should take," said Andrei Kortunov, president of the New Eurasia Foundation in Moscow. "Whether Russia is going to integrate into the so-called civilized world or put together a coalition of global misfits and radicals."

megan.stack@latimes.com

[vector7]

Russia Is a New Powder Keg: NATO Missile Program

By SOP newswire2

The move by U.S. investors making headlines today ago to abandon plans to construct an intercept missile shield program and radar center in Eastern Europe may improve relations with Russia, but many things must fall into place carefully for western interests to benefit from the "Nutcracker Market" setting. Be warned that many new risks will be present-- risks which do not currently exist in their present form.



Vladimir Putin will most likely be President of Russia again in 2012. He was educated in Soviet Republic National Security and economic development before working for the KGB. His doctoral thesis was about how to control the entire world economy with Russia`s rich natural resources, particularly in energy " ( both hydro-carbon and nuclear).

Putin is a logical answer to Russia`s woes for a second time in an effort to recover national strength. Weakness, as the greatest sin of all, sits at the very core of Vladimir Putin`s philosophy of life. He told Russians after the Beslan school massacre, "Weak people are beaten always. "

The cancellation of the NATO missile shield program removes the bridle and the reins that contain and counter Russian influence against eastern Europe and the CIS nations, making Russia stronger and later positioned as the dominant offensive strategist in both economic and ground warfare, because Russia will construct a missile program as soon as they are positioned, as their own. Putin may need the armament for what potential investment will create on the surface of the world`s increasingly rare, remaining oil reserves and (present and proposed) pipeline infrastructures.

The present administration`s weak state of positioning must be understood in order to predict their procession: At present, President Medvedev`s administration has been plagued with the country`s economic deficiencies, weak institutions being used as corruption clearinghouses (an estimated 41% of their cash flow is for bribes), social and health problems (alcoholism and the world`s highest per capita Afghan heroin addiction), and failure to contain a spreading Islamic insurgency in the Caucasus. The two men could have been characters in a "A Tale of Two Countries " is the latest joke among the intelligence community.

President Medvedev has not formulated an effective policy in the Northern Caucasus. Russia`s real war there is a war against corruption in the republics. Until Moscow improves there will be no improvement. A large question looms among Russian analysts, "Who is selling weapons to the extremists in the Northern Caucasus? "

The Federal Security Service (FSB) has been suggested that it investigate Iran for supporting terrorist activities in Chechnya and Ingushetia. This advice came in the form of a solid warning to Russia they must NOT join the U.S. led anti-Iranian coalition as they pointed out that Turkey has been stronger than Medvedev as a puppet master in the Caucasus lately. Russia is even being encouraged by moderate Islamics to create a joint anti-terrorist pact with Turkey. Turkey is a hero to the Abkhazian economy by opening up trade with the Abkhazian Republic: they think that if Medvedev uses their new trade model then he might successfully persuade other moderate Islamic states to invest directly in the economies of the North Caucasus, opening a Russian/Islamic free trade zone there. As an alternative to growing terror. The increase of Islamic terrorism is not confined to Russia`s southern flank. It is global and has been described as the biggest threat to European civilization. Russia must join forces on a much larger and broader scale. If NATO loses the war in Afghanistan, Islamic insurgence into Russia on behalf of terrorist groups will increase with their presence. Russia says we cannot win. In fact the Russian Ambassador has warned the U.S., do not send more troops or you will make the problems bigger.

Rule of law to deter terrorism is categorically exercised by active preventive strategies and deterrence, and sanctioned with pin-point retribution. So Russia, Turkey, the European Union, and the United States have determined that it is preferable to make trade, not war.

Swift and shrewd moves away from Bush policy will create trade options that recover and manage assets lost or for sale by Russian oligarchs, all downed by the rapid world market implosion last year (2008), having over-leveraged themselves in efforts to monopolize the world market. Forecasters say that the economic influence compressed into the hands by a dozen or so oligarchs who emerged in the rapid sell-off of state property in the post-Soviet 1990s, will land in the hands of hundreds of entrepreneurs within the next two to three
years.

This is an interesting and complex scenario because the West will not present a NATO protection program in Eastern Europe or the CIS countries after all. Russia is unleashed to be reckoned with, however; who will own distressed Russian assets will change quickly. "How much of Russia will Islam buy?" becomes a big question. They are big enough to get their money back--in ground wars if necessary--while we cannot afford another ground war. Moscow announced plans to construct over 200 mosques throughout Russia in 2008. Will this new opportunity for Western presence be devoured by Western investors at their additional peril, and if so, how can the same corruption patterns be halted, corruption that undermined or expropriated investment and businesses in banking, energy, etc. as State-owned under Putin? We wanted the NATO missile program to rein in Russian strategic dominance, the brainchild and culmination of Putin himself, because we watched Russia hoodwink the Western investor for $1.1 trillion [usd] within 9 years.

My guess is that Putin does and will want nuclear armament on their borders, as the OFFENSIVE party, not defense, and stopping NATO is a major and monumental task to that effect. The Russian population of approximately 141 million cannot conduct ground wars ever again. Nor can the Pentagon or Western investors afford it, unless what they really want is a huge ground war at any cost with Islam. Russia has taken great national pride knowing that during the cold war it was only their acquisition of the nuclear weapon that prevented the terror and destruction of World War III.

Sincerely,

A.L. Lamar

Chairwoman

A.L. Lamar Wind Energy Technology
angelalamar@execs.com

[Beetle]

Obama helps strengthen General Electric-Putin ties

By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
09/17/09 2:06 PM EDT


Reuters reports an interesting nugget in the wake of President Barack Obama's decision to grant Vladimir Putin his wish and kill the Eastern European missile shield:

Shortly after the pullback on the shield programme was announced, Russia's government said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives on Friday from firms including General Electric, Morgan Stanley as well as TPG, one of the world's largest private equity firms
General Electric may be the company with the closest ties to the Obama administration (if not, GE is second only to Goldman Sachs), and here we see the company benefiting from an abrupt foreign policy change made by President Obama. But GE isn't the only company benefiting. Reuters paints the broader picture

U.S. companies have arguably lost out to some European companies in joint ventures, and better diplomacy will likely improve the chances for investors in the strategic sectors of the Russian economy," said Carlo Gallo, senior Russia analyst at London-based consultancy Control Risks.
GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-59644627.html

[vector7]

Thursday, September 17, 2009
Abandoning the Third Site Harms America’s Allies and Decreases Security

[Mackenzie Eaglen]

So President Obama has axed the agreement with America’s allies in eastern Europe and abandoned the so-called “third site” missile-defense plan.

It’s hard to determine which is worse:

• the lame excuse that Iran’s nuclear program isn’t progressing as rapidly as before (Just this week the U.S. ambassador to the IAEA said Iran now has “possible breakout capacity” to enrich and convert its uranium stockpile to bomb-grade material) or,

• that U.S. leaders would sell out our friends for Russia whose own leaders just said they won’t push for tougher sanctions against Iran.

This betrayal of allies comes as America continues to press NATO allies to do more in Afghanistan. Earlier this year Poland sent even more troops to Afghanistan to help with the recent election. So too, the Czech Republic is running a large Provincial Reconstruction Team and advising the Afghanistan Air Corps today.

It’s rumored that White House officials think they can limit the damage by providing the Poles and Czechs with a lesser capability, possibly through Aegis sea-based missile defense and potential land-based missiles. But the SM-3 interceptors are not yet ready for prime-time.

The ramifications of dumping the third site deployment will reach far beyond Warsaw and Prague. The Heritage Foundation’s Sally McNamara notes: this is “a decision on which the future of the transatlantic security alliance itself rests. If the United States chooses to abandon its Central and Eastern European allies as well as its obligations to NATO, it will hand the European Union a blank check to pursue an autonomous defense identity, independent of NATO, and will reduce America's influence within the transatlantic alliance significantly.”

— Mackenzie Eaglen is the Heritage Foundation’s research fellow for National Security Studies.

[vector7]

Reuters
Russian PM Putin to meet U.S. businessmen

09.17.09, 11:35 AM EDT RUSSIA-PUTIN/USA:Russian PM Putin to meet U.S. businessmen

MOSCOW, Sept 17 (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin will meet several top U.S. executives on Friday, including General Electric Co and Morgan Stanley, the Russian government said on Thursday.
Putin's meetings with top Western executives are usually a precursor of major business deals. Earlier this year oil majors Total and Royal Dutch Shell ( RDSA - news - people ) announced plans to expand in Russia at meetings with Putin.

Talks with the U.S. firms follow a U.S. government decision to halt the deployment of a missile shield defence system in Europe, a move received positively by the Russian government.

The press service said Putin would meet David Bonderman, founding partner of one of the world's largest private equity firms, TPG, and the chief executive of General Electric Co ( GE - news - people ), Jeff Immelt.

Putin will meet the executives in Russia's Black Sea resort of Sochi, which is hosting an investment forum. He will also hold talks with John Mack, who is to quit as CEO of Morgan Stanley ( MS - news - people ) at the start of 2010.

Last week, sources told Reuters that TPG, formerly known as Texas Pacific Group and the private equity arm of Russian state bank VTB bought a large stake in Russian hypermarket chain Lenta.

General Electric has announced plans to build new plants in Russia, while Morgan Stanley has had a continuous investment banking presence in the country since 1994. (Reporting by Gleb Bryanski; writing by Vladimir Soldatkin; editing by Simon Jessop)

Copyright 2009 Reuters, Click for Restriction

[vector7]

Putin Seeks Trade Concessions After U.S. Missile Move

By Paul Abelsky and Lyubov Pronina

Sept. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called for trade concessions, including an end to restrictions on technology transfers to Russia, following U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision to abandon a missile shield in Europe.

“I’m counting on other decisions to follow this correct and brave decision, including the complete elimination of restrictions on cooperation with Russia and on transfers of high technology to Russia as well as an intensification of World Trade Organization expansion to include Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan,” Putin said at a business forum in Sochi today.

Obama yesterday said he was scrapping the missile-system proposal, championed by his predecessor George W. Bush in the face of Russian opposition, in favor of a more flexible system better able to protect against threats to the U.S. and its European allies, primarily from Iran.

Putin announced in June that Russia would seek to join the WTO as part of a customs union with Belarus and Kazakhstan, a proposal that U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke called “not workable and unacceptable.” Medvedev said in July that Russia may join separately from its neighbors.

The U.S. maintains Cold War-era trade restrictions on Russia under the 1974 Jackson-Vanik amendment, imposed in response to Soviet limitations on Jewish emigration. Putin has called repeatedly for the U.S. to repeal the amendment.

‘Responsible’ Move
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev welcomed Obama’s “responsible” decision to abandon Bush’s plan for a radar installation in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland. The plan contributed to the worst state of relations between Russia and the U.S. since the Cold War, even though the U.S. maintained the system wasn’t directed against Russia.

Medvedev issued a challenge hours after Obama’s election win in November, saying he’d deploy short-range Iskander missiles in the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, wedged between Poland and Lithuania, to “neutralize” the U.S. system if it were built. Russia viewed the proposed system as a threat to its security.

A Kremlin official said Russia “will of course have to review” the proposed deployment in Kaliningrad after Obama’s announcement. The Interfax news service cited an unidentified diplomat as saying that Russia will “freeze” and may “cancel” the Iskander plan.

‘Stricter Sanctions’
In Washington, some lawmakers said Russia should respond to the U.S. initiative by backing Washington on Iran. Senator Chuck Schumer said it was time for the Russians “to join our push to impose stricter sanctions on Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons program.”

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, also called on Russia to drop its opposition to tighter sanctions against Iran. He urged the Kremlin to “join us in putting a maximum of political and diplomatic pressure on Iran to stop Iran’s nuclear aspirations.”

Russia, which is helping Iran build its first nuclear power plant at Bushehr, has a veto on the United Nations Security Council and has consistently opposed moves to isolate the country. Russia is also a member of the group of six countries addressing concerns about Iran’s nuclear program.

Medvedev said on Sept. 15 that sanctions are “not a very effective thing,” though “sometimes one must have recourse” to them. The comment, made in a meeting with international experts on Russia, struck some participants as more West-leaning than the line taken by Putin.

‘Harsher Line’
Sergei Prikhodko, an aide to Medvedev, said today that it would be wrong to speak of Russian “concessions” in response to the U.S. move.
“We have to engage Iran,” Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s envoy to NATO, said in Brussels today. “The harsher words are pronounced as regards Iran, the more sanctions there are, the worse it is for all, because that could only stimulate a harsher line in Iran itself.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said yesterday that nuclear talks scheduled for Oct. 1 between Iran and the U.S., China, Russia, the U.K., France and Germany have a “real chance” of producing “agreements allowing for the restoration of confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program,” Interfax reported.

Lavrov said that wasting this chance “by demanding the immediate imposition of sanctions” against Iran would be a “serious mistake,” the Moscow-based news service reported.

To contact the reporters on this story: Paul Abelsky in Sochi at pabelsky@bloomberg.net; Lyubov Pronina in Moscow at lpronina@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: September 18, 2009 10:36 EDT

[vector7]

Where is Hillary Clinton in the great missile defence surrender?

By Con Coughlin Defence Last updated: September 18th, 2009


Why has Hillary Clinton gone walkies? Photo: EPA

Excuse me, but when Washington announces a revolutionary change in the way it conducts its relations with the outside world it is normal for the American Secretary of State to be involved in some way.

So where’s Hillary Clinton? We’ve heard a lot from President Barack Obama and Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, about their lamentable decision to abandon the missile defence system in Europe, which has been a key pillar of the transatlantic alliance for a decade or more. But we’ve heard not a squeak from Mrs Clinton.

Could this be that, unlike Mr Obama and Mr Gates, she sees this decision for what it is, an abject surrender of American influence in Europe, and a shocking betrayal of all those former vassal states of the Soviet Union that are desperately seeking the support and protection of the West?

Compared with Mr Obama and Mr Gates, whose first instinct when faced with an international crisis is to make concessions, Mrs Clinton is a more hard-headed and hawkish operator. She might want to “reset”

Washington’s relations with Moscow, but not at the expense of capitulating to Iran’s attempts to terrorise the world with its nuclear programme.

She, for one, will not be at all surprised that, within 24 hours of Mr Obama’s decision to abandon the missile defence system, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears on American television declaring that Tehran will never abandon its nuclear programme.

This is precisely the kind of response you can expect if you try to appease dictators, which is how Tehran will interpret the cancellation of the missile system. But I suspect Mrs Clinton has her own views on how to respond to this increased bellicosity from Iran, and it does not involve rolling over and having her tummy tickled by the mullahs.

[vector7]

September 21, 2009
Russia Wants Swiss to Mediate Euro - Security Revamp
By REUTERS

Filed at 4:29 p.m. ET

BERNE (Reuters) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, keen to build on Washington's decision to drop its plans for anti-missile defence, Monday said Switzerland could mediate his efforts to refashion Europe's security arrangements.

Medvedev visited Switzerland on his way to the United States where he will take part in the U.N. General Assembly, the summit of 20 leading economies and meet U.S. President Barack Obama -- his partner in "resetting" thorny U.S.-Russian relations.

Medvedev welcomed Obama's decision last week to scrap plans to deploy elements of a U.S. anti-missile shield in eastern Europe, viewed by Moscow as a threat. Kremlin officials said the move provided an impetus for breakthroughs in other areas.

A new binding pact on European security, designed to prevent a return to the divisions of the Cold War era, is one of Medvedev's top diplomatic goals but it has so far has received little support from the West.

"We believe everyone is interested in creating a new security architecture, especially those not engaged in (military) blocs," Medvedev told a news conference after talks with Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz.

"Switzerland is a neutral state and it is not indifferent to what will happen in Europe," he added. "When negotiating the basics of a new European security architecture, we count on the services of Swiss mediation."

He received no immediate response from Mertz, who spoke in favour of improving European security in general terms.

COLD WAR LEGACY

Moscow believes the current security arrangements in Europe, shaped in the era of confrontation between NATO and the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, are out of date and disadvantage Russia.

But most Western nations believe the NATO alliance continues to serve the continent's security needs well and have been sceptical of Medvedev's calls for a new start.

Russian officials say that at Wednesday's meeting in New York, Medvedev and Obama will discuss the new opportunities created by the removal of a major stumbling block in their relations -- the U.S. anti-missile plans in Europe.

The primary goal of the encounter is to foster moves towards a new pact on nuclear arms cuts, which aims to replace the 1991 START-1 treaty that expires in December. The latest expert talks on START took place in Geneva Monday.

"The plan is to provide as much time as negotiators need to get a new treaty ready for signing by Dec 5." said Michael Parmly, a spokesman for the U.S. mission in Geneva.

Redrafting European security arrangements will likely be tricky for Russia, whose reputation was badly hurt by last year's war with ex-Soviet Georgia.

The West largely sided with Georgia in that conflict.

As well as improved relations with Washington, Russia will need the support of some European states if it is to dispel concerns that its plan is an attempt to divide up the continent into spheres of influence.

(Additional reporting by Robert Evans in Geneva; Editing by Jon Boyle)

[vector7]

Obama Doctrine Imperils Allies, Emboldens Enemies

Monday, September 21, 2009 4:14 PM

By: Frank Gaffney Jr.

Undermine our allies. Embolden our enemies. Diminish our country.

Those nine words define the Obama Doctrine with respect to American security policy. All three elements were much in evidence in the president's benighted decision last week to cancel the "Third Site" for intercontinental-range missile defenses in Eastern Europe. They will be on display as well during this week's several conclaves with foreign leaders.

The cumulative effect is predictable: A world in which the United States has fewer friends, more enemies, and less options for assuring its security.

Let's start with the decision to abandon defense of our allies and the American people with interceptors based in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic. President Barack Obama and his minions at the Defense Department tried to confuse the issue by claiming that revised intelligence assessments of the Iranian threat justified such a step.

Rubbish. Anyone following Iran's ballistic missile developments knows that the mullahs are determined to acquire missiles of sufficient range to be able to attack not only Israel and other targets in the Middle East but our allies in Europe and Americans here at home. This is evident in the strides Tehran has recently made with solid-fuel rockets and with space-launch vehicles.

If, against all odds, the latest intelligence estimates are right that it will take Iran a bit longer to get such long-range missiles, it would mean that we just might be able to have defenses against them in place before they are needed. That would have meant a powerful boost to the confidence and solidarity of the NATO alliance, whose Eastern European members could especially use it in the face of ever-more aggressive Russian behavior.

Instead, the Obama administration has: rewarded that Russian behavior; undermined NATO's confidence and solidarity; and debased American credibility and reliability. It has also left the United States naked to the sorts of intercontinental-range threats Iranian missiles will constitute in due course.

This will be the case no matter how many additional defenses the Pentagon puts in place at sea or ashore (welcome as those are) against the shorter-range missiles Iran is now deploying. The difference is, as Mark Twain once put it, like that between lightning and a lightning bug: Team Obama has unmistakably capitulated at the geo-strategic level and no amount of obfuscations about revised intelligence or "stronger, smarter, and swifter" missile defense architectures will conceal that fact.

Unfortunately, in the process of capitulating, Obama has not only emboldened the Russians. To be sure, they will see no reason now to abandon their Iranian allies. Read: no help to us on new, more effective sanctions against Iran; no cessation of nuclear cooperation with Tehran; completed delivery of advanced S-300 anti-aircraft systems to protect Iran's nuclear sites from Israeli or (hard as this is to imagine at the moment) our attacks, etc. The Kremlin will also drive an even harder bargain in the strategic arms negotiations now underway, pressing an all-too-willing American president to denuclearize the U.S. arsenal in ways that may suit Russia's agenda but disserve our security interests.

The president has also further emboldened the Iranian mullahs. They now know that — no matter what they do — they will be able to realize their nuclear weapons ambitions. They will even be allowed to hold Europe and America at risk. They need simply run out the clock for a few more months, which can be accomplished with or without further conversations demeaning their feckless Western interlocutors.

Make no mistake: With such steps, Obama is systematically diminishing the United States, effecting its transformation from what was once called "the world's only superpower" to a nation subordinated to the demands of international consensus, organizations, "peer competitors" and even rogue states.

We can expect to see this doctrine in full flower during the president's forays this week into Middle East peace-making, nuclear disarmament and reordering the world economic system.

For example, during Obama's scrum with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the so-called "president" of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, he will not only try to coerce our ally to make political and territorial concessions to Palestinians who hate Israelis and us. There will also likely be a push for a new round of "peace" negotiations in Moscow jointly sponsored by the U.S. and Russia. No good can come of legitimating, let alone supporting, the machinations of Vladimir Putin's Kremlin in the Mideast.

Then, at the U.N., Obama will personally preside over a Security Council session at which he will, evidently, affirm his commitment to a "world without nuclear weapons" — without evident regard for the fact that the only nation he can possibly denuclearize is ours. Suffice it to say that the exercise will be one big pander to transnationalism and enhancing the preeminence of the United Nations, and America's submission to its superior moral legitimacy and authority.

Finally, the economic version of the Obama Doctrine will play out in Pittsburgh at the so-called "Group of 20" summit. There, efforts to affirm and consolidate sovereignty-sapping global financial regulatory schemes will be accompanied by attempts to formalize a new "multi-polar" world. Bribes will be offered to emerging powers like China, India, and Brazil in the form of promises of development assistance, technology transfers, and institutionalized power if only they accede to "climate change" arrangements that will savage U.S. and Western economies.

Saul Alinsky would be proud.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the nationally syndicated Secure Freedom Radio.

© 2009

[vector7]

September 21, 8:47 PM
Men of Honor?
Norfolk Military Affairs Examiner
Nate Hale

The protocol goes something like this: in the U.S. military, senior officers (and their civilian counterparts) provide advice and counsel to our elected leaders. During the discussion and formulation stages, military officials are free to disagree with the politicians and suggest alternative courses of action. But once the policy is set, leaders of the armed forces fall in line behind the commander-in-chief, except for the most extraordinary circumstances.

Those "conditions" include orders that are illegal or immoral. Under those circumstances, senior officers--indeed, all military members--have an obligation to ignore such commands. It's a lesson taught in the earliest days of basic training, and in various commissioning programs.

But "extraordinary circumstances" also cover events that are more complex and sometimes fall in gray areas in terms of practicality or legality. An example would be a policy or directive that military leaders consider dangerous to American security, the nation's military, or both. Under those conditions, senior officers and civilians may resign or request early retirement.

This practice serves two purposes; first it gives the military official an "exit," removing them from the position of endorsing or executing a policy they cannot abide; and secondly, it gives the president a chance to fill the post with someone more supportive.

Given those rules, we were expecting the resignation of at least one senior military official last week, after President Obama announced his new plan on missile defense for Western Europe. Canceling plans for interceptor missiles in Poland (and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic), Mr. Obama committed the U.S. to a policy that is both misguided and dangerous.

Consider this: With last week's decision, Mr. Obama achieved a trifecta of stunning security blunders. First, he betrayed some our most loyal--and important--allies in eastern Europe, countries that have stood with America on issues ranging from Iraq to terrorist detention. But such support apparently means little to the commander-in-chief; for his second mistake, President Obama puts appeasement of Russian ahead of supporting our allies, raising new fears about our commitment to the region's fledgling democracies.

By placating Moscow, Obama is hoping for assistance on such issues as Iran and North Korea. But the Russians have been unhelpful with Tehran, and offered little meaningful assistance in the Six-Party Talks, aimed at ending Pyongyang's nuclear program.

Mr. Obama's third mistake is both strategic and operational. By shifting to sea-based missile defenses in Europe, the President is denying the same level of protection afforded to the Pacific Region. Moreover, the revised strategy leaves the administration vulnerable to the same pressures that prompted cancellation of those land-based systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Consider these rather inconvenient facts. To be most effective, U.S. ballistic missile defense ships, equipped with SM-3 Block IV interceptors, should be positioned in the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea, among other locations.

Gee, don't suppose Moscow will protest semi-permanent presence of Aegis cruisers and destroyers in waters that touch their shores? Or, the potential basing of land-based SM-3s and THAAD batteries at bases in Germany and Turkey?

And, never mind that the revised scheme will still lack the over-lapping, redundant coverage found in the Pacific, where U.S. territory (and that of our allies) is protected by a combination of land and sea-based systems, including sea-based SM-3s; long-range, ground-based interceptor missiles (based in Alaska and California) and THAAD batteries for point defense, linked together with a sophisticated sensor and command-and-control network.

Given those disturbing realities, you'd think that Defense Secretary Robert Gates or a member of the JCS would step down in protest. But Mr. Gates and senior military officers have offered support for the plan. In a press conference following the president's announcement, Dr. Gates said the revised system offers the best approach for protecting the "short and medium-range missiles from Iran," that currently posed the greatest threat.

That assessment, for what it's worth, is based on a recent intelligence study. Of course, that raises a rather obvious question; is there any reason to believe that the missile analysis is any better--or less political--than the infamous 2007 assessment on Tehran's nuclear program which claimed (famously) that Iran had temporarily abandoned its weaponization efforts. Subsequent events have largely disproved that thesis; a recent International Atomic Energy Agency report indicates that Tehran could have a bomb within a year. You don't achieve that sort of progress by taking an extended break in the middle of the development cycle.

Secretary Gates and the JCS also tout the "early deployment" of sea-based missile defenses, the integration of additional sensors and (of course) the projected costs savings. But those arguments are something of red herrings; the Aegis/SM-3 combination always figured in regional missile defense plans. They are now moving to the forefront because sea-based defenses are literally our only option until land-based SM-3s become available more than a decade from now. In fact, the installation plan for that system is about 2-3 years later than the projected GBI deployment.

In other words, the Obama plan will actually delay installation of a more comprehensive shield, one that will still lack the GBI element. True, the SM-3/THAAD combination is cheaper than the GBI system, but those missiles won't approach the latter system's capabilities until sometime after 2020 (emphasis ours).

This represents missile defense on the cheap, offering rudimentary capabilities against a growing Iranian threat, while delaying introduction of other systems desperately needed to provide over-lapping coverage. It is also a glaring example of geopolitical timidity, short-changing the defense of our allies in hopes of currying favor from a hostile regime--to help us in deterring another hostile regime.

It's no surprise that President Obama, a long-time opponent of missile defense, would favor such an approach. More disturbing is the fact that senior military leaders are going along with the plan, despite its obvious flaws. If there was ever an opportunity for a uniformed officer to take a principled stand on a security issue of vital importance, this one was it. The refusal of senior officers (and civilians) to take such a stand speaks volumes about our current crop of military leaders.

Sometimes, the honorable course of action means stepping down and taking the fight to another arena, rather than offering blind support to a feckless--and reckless--policy.

[vector7]

Monday, September 21, 2009
Obama's bid to 'reset' Kremlin relations signals a US policy shift

ANALYSIS: While US president Barack Obama struggles to wade through the quagmire of health reform at home, he is making bold and significant strides in central and eastern Europe, writes DAN McLAUGHLIN

His abandonment of plans to build a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic has been welcomed wholeheartedly in Russia – which saw itself as the real target of a project ostensibly aimed at countering Iran – and by most Poles and Czechs, who “hosted” quite enough foreign troops during the Soviet era and had little enthusiasm for new US bases.

But the alarm bells rung by the usual US suspects – mostly the right-wing cold warriors who championed the missile scheme – are also tinkling in the ears of some of Russia’s neighbours, who still fear that any perceived diplomatic victory for Moscow must carry a dangerous corollary for them.

Lech Walesa, a founder of the Solidarity movement and former Polish president, said Obama’s decision marked an unfortunate shift in US thinking in relation to central and eastern Europe, where history has instilled not only a deep distrust of Russia but a suspicion of deals between major powers in which the futures of smaller satellite states are used as stakes at the negotiating table.

For people of such a mind, Obama’s declared bid to “reset” relations with the Kremlin is looking dangerously one-sided.

Russia has not been made to pay, financially, diplomatically or militarily, for the war it prosecuted with Georgia in the dying days of the Bush administration. Moreover, it continues to undermine the Tbilisi government with warnings of further clashes and a campaign to convince countries to recognise the independence of the separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Venezuela has now joined Russia and Nicaragua in acknowledging the sovereignty of these Kremlin-controlled enclaves, with President Hugo Chavez announcing the move during a visit to Moscow that saw him sign a huge arms deal.

While Russia strengthens links with abrasive leftist governments in Washington’s backyard, it remains determined to keep pulling the strings in its own, where the Kremlin and its local allies continue to undermine Ukraine’s pro-western leaders ahead of January’s vital presidential election.

Moscow is also fighting hard to maintain its grip on the strategic Caucasus and Central Asia region, where it is stymying US and EU efforts to strengthen relations and secure the oil and gas that would help them wean themselves off the unpredictable flow of Russian energy.

Central European critics of Obama’s “reset” policy point out that Russia has made no concessions on these issues since he came to power. They argue that scrapping missile defence in Poland and the Czech Republic only strengthens hawks like prime minister Vladimir Putin.

Supporters counter that the more aggressive administration of George W Bush made no progress with Russia on these matters, hardened Moscow’s position on many of them and only served to highlight the limits of western influence in places like Georgia during last year’s war.

Obama appears to hope that by not treating Moscow as a pariah, it will be less hostile to US allies like Georgia and Ukraine, more amenable to the west’s pursuit of energy deals across the old Soviet Union, and less likely to launch more “gas wars” or conflicts of any other kind.

Obama has also made clear distinctions between Russia’s leaders: the hardline Putin, whom he accused of still having one foot in the cold war, and the more liberal president Dmitry Medvedev, whom he has praised as a intelligent, pragmatic and modern.

Russian analysts believe the US administration hopes a less confrontational approach will strengthen the more emollient Medvedev, or at least help him hold his ground against Putin and an entourage of former KGB men who may still see US-Russian relations as a zero-sum game.

Both Russian leaders praised Obama’s decision on missile defence. But Putin immediately pushed for more concessions from Washington on technology transfers to Russia and on its bid to enter the World Trade Organisation jointly with Belarus and Kazakhstan.

Obama will meet Medvedev in New York this week, and hope for a sign that he really is a man with whom he can do business.

The meeting will be closely watched in central Europe, where there is a general sense of relief that the missile shield will not be built.

The political fallout has also been minimal, with Poland’s government performing strongly and having little riding on a deal largely championed by its predecessor, and Czech politics in limbo under a caretaker government before early elections.

What last week’s decision rammed home to leaders in Prague and Warsaw, Tbilisi and Kiev, was that they are still not part of the biggest games played by the US and Russia.

In the months ahead, Washington and Moscow should be able to find agreement on nuclear arms reductions and ensuring the continued flow of supplies to Nato troops in Afghanistan.

But consensus will be more elusive on how to neutralise the perceived threat from North Korea and, especially, Iran.

Russia is the builder of Iran’s known atomic facilities and supplier of its nuclear fuel. It is the prospective provider of advanced air-defence missiles which Israel fears could dangerously alter the strategic balance in the Middle East.

Moscow has long resisted pressure for tougher sanctions on Iran, and Putin and Medvedev insist that there will be no automatic quid pro quo for Obama’s missile defence move when the UN Security Council meets Iranian negotiators on its nuclear programme on October 1st.

Some analysts note that Moscow has little economic incentive to stabilise the Middle East, given its preference for high oil prices and few reliable energy-exporting rivals in the region.

If Obama can sway the Kremlin on the issues, then relations between the US and Russia will really have been “reset”, to the benefit of eastern Europe and the rest of the world.

[vector7]

Don’t mention the Russians! Barack Obama’s Missile Defence claims are ridiculous

By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: September 21st, 2009
2 Comments

The White House must think the American people were born yesterday if it believes they will buy the president’s claim that last week’s missile defence surrender had nothing to do with Russian pressure. As for the leaders and citizens of Poland and the Czech Republic, they have been contemptuously cast aside as expendable pawns on a Russian manufactured chess board. On CBS’s Face the Nation, Barack Obama responded to his critics by declaring:

“So my task here was not to negotiate with the Russians. The Russians don’t make determinations about what our defense posture is. We have made a decision about what will be best to protect the American people as well as our troops in Europe and our allies. If the by-product of it is that the Russians feel a little less paranoid and are now willing to work more effectively with us to deal with threats like ballistic missiles from Iran or nuclear development in Iran, you know, then that’s a bonus.”

Watching Obama’s performance, it was as if the ghost of Neville Chamberlain had reappeared claiming his Peace in our Time proclamation had nothing at all to do with Nazi German aggression and intimidation. No matter how hard the Obama administration tries to spin its shameful betrayal of American allies in central and eastern Europe, this was appeasement on a grand scale, the likes of which have not been witnessed since the late 1930s. Obama’s denials that Moscow’s opposition had dictated his decision were about as convincing as Gordon Brown’s ludicrous assertion that the freeing of the Lockerbie bomber had nothing to do with the Labour government.

There has been a great deal of misinformation put out by the Obama team over the past few days claiming the decision to renege on its Third Site missile defence commitments was based on a reassessment of the Iranian threat, and the development of alternative sea-based missile interceptors. This is simply a smokescreen for what it cynically calls the “resetting” of relations with Moscow. The missile defence move was purely political – it had nothing at all to do with advancing American security interests.

The dropping of Third Site was all about bowing before the Russian bear as part of a broader effort to clinch an agreement on nuclear arms reduction. Obama’s naïve vision of moving towards a nuclear free world trumped any concerns over US national security or the defence of its European allies. Little wonder Vladimir Putin has been smiling like a Cheshire cat.

As last week’s missile defence deal showed, President Obama is obsessed with his strategy of engagement with dictatorial regimes and hostile powers, whether in the form of Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, Russia, Burma or Sudan. It is based on disdain for American global power, and a belief that the leader of the free world must constantly apologize for his country’s past. It represents the humbling of a superpower on the world stage, and is the most assured path to American decline.

The great Polish freedom fighter Lech Walesa put it well when asked about the White House’s concessions to Moscow: “the Americans only cared about their interests. They used everybody else’s”. Barack Obama is abandoning America’s allies while currying favour with her enemies and strategic competitors. The Obama administration’s reversal on missile defence will damage America’s standing in Europe for a generation, and projects a clear message that America will desert its friends and kowtow to its foes in the name of the new Obama doctrine.

[vector7]

Missile Defense's Shelving Reflected Military's Concerns

Cost, Speed of Response Were Issues

By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 21, 2009

Call it another revolt of the generals. More than 13 years ago, the nation's military leaders told civilian defense officials they wanted to limit spending on missile defenses and to emphasize the protection of forces deployed overseas over defense of the American homeland against a long-range missile threat.

Last week, after a lengthy internal Pentagon review and against the backdrop of new limits on overall military spending, the generals again threw their weight behind a relative contraction of the effort to defend against long-range missile attacks. They cited needed budgetary savings and more immediate threats in demanding faster work to protect overseas forces and bases against shorter-range attack.

The latest shift shelved a plan to deploy in Europe an advanced radar and interceptors of long-range missiles by 2017. And it adds impetus to the Pentagon's request earlier this year for a cut of about 15 percent in overall missile defense spending, a scaling back of the deployment of long-range missile interceptors in Alaska and California, and the cancellation of three costly Reagan-era missile defense programs that officials say had threatened to balloon out of budgetary control.

"I believe what's happening is what you witnessed happening in the Clinton years," said Joseph Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund and a longtime critic of the focus on national missile defense. "The military never liked this stuff; they were willing to support it as long as the budget was increasing, as the president's pet rock. But as soon as the budget starts contracting, they're willing to throw this overboard."

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Thursday emphasized that defense of the U.S. homeland remains a priority, and that some related research is being expanded even as deployments are being deferred. Gates, after touring the Alaska site in June, expressed confidence that its interceptors could field an attack from North Korea.

But last week's announcement is clearly another step in a steady evolution of the $125 billion program's central focus from President Ronald Reagan's grand vision of a national shield, popularly known as Star Wars, to a more limited defense of U.S. assets in foreign theaters.

Robert G. Joseph, an undersecretary of state and a missile defense advocate during the Bush administration, said it reflects in part the traditional focus of uniformed officers on short- and medium-range missile threats, and also their conviction that advanced defenses to protect the United States are a competitor for resources.

But Joseph said he thinks that instead of striking the right balance, as he believes the Bush administration did, Obama's decision will lead to "a weakening of our capability against long-range threats." He also said that any decision not to protect against blackmail and intimidation by foreign leaders armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles would be relying on "dangerously outdated" theories of warfare.

Gates, responding to similar criticism in a New York Times op-ed Sunday, said: "I have found since taking this post that when it comes to missile defense, some hold a view bordering on theology that regards any change of plans or any cancellation of a program as abandonment or even breaking faith."

Technical obstacles, as well as political shifts, have dictated the downward slope of the program's ambitions.

As the Cold War ended in the late 1980s and Iraqi Scud missiles rained on U.S. and allied military targets in Saudi Arabia and Israel during the Persian Gulf War in 1990 and 1991, the space-based smart rocks and chemical or nuclear-pumped lasers that galvanized Reagan's excitement and ignited fierce technical controversy at the outset of the Strategic Defense Initiative were abandoned as impractical, unnecessary and inappropriate.

In 1993, President Bill Clinton added new emphasis to theater missile defenses in an entity he renamed the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. But the simmering financial resentments of uniformed officers found voice in a 1996 decision by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, a top decision-making group headed by one of Cartwright's predecessors on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The group declared bluntly that the missile defense budget should be constrained to "save dollars that can be given back to the Services to be used for critical recapitalization programs."

North Korea's 1998 launch of a Taepo Dong missile over Japan helped provoke Congress to enact the National Missile Defense Act of 1999, which ordered the deployment "as soon as is technologically possible" of a homeland defense.

But former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard C. Clarke said the Bush administration took that idea and ran too far with it. Clarke faulted Bush's other national security aides for caring more about reinvigorating national missile defense than about al-Qaeda.

Bush upgraded the program by placing it under the control of an independent agency, exempt from normal Pentagon oversight and regulations meant to compel a rigorous weighing of its merits against the value of other defense programs. "I am committed to deploying a missile defense system as son as possible to protect the American people and our deployed forces," Bush said as he abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002.

But his expansion of the annual missile defense budget from $3.7 billion to an all-time high of $9 billion in 2007 provoked controversy inside and outside the Pentagon. So did his deployment of long-range missile interceptors in a system that the Pentagon's testing office said did not offer "a high degree of confidence in its limited capabilities."

Military resentment at the program's special treatment was expressed in an August 2008 study by the Institute for Defense Analysis. It called for "increased interaction between the MDA and other relevant parts of DOD" -- a polite way of demanding the program pay more attention to real-world military needs and applications.

The defense budget realities also changed this year, as Obama made clear that the department will enjoy a growth of only a few percent annually in the coming years. Gates decided to review the program more rigorously and to cancel three legacies of the Reagan era: a complex airborne laser and what are known as the Multiple Kill Vehicle and Kinetic Energy Interceptor programs, each aimed mostly at defending against medium- or long-range missile threats.

Of the airborne laser, Gates said: "I don't know anybody at the Department of Defense . . . who thinks that this program should, or would, ever be operationally deployed." He described the latter, which had once been intended for deployment by 2010, as one of several missile defense concepts that were "fatally flawed . . . [or] sinkholes for taxpayer dollars."

A spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency said that even with last week's decision to concentrate more resources on an earlier deployment of defenses against Iran's short- and medium-range missiles, spending related to long-range threats would still remain between a quarter and a third of the nation's overall effort.

But as a senior military official told reporters at the White House, the reason the administration's decision came last week is that the military services are "building their budgets" for fiscal year 2011. The newly revamped program, he said, "costs less to develop and field and operate."

[vector7]

A Deal with Moscow? Don't Bet on It

There's still good reason not to get excited about Russian cooperation on Iran.
BY DAVID J. KRAMER | SEPTEMBER 25, 2009




U.S. officials were practically giddy when they heard Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Wednesday indicate possible Russian support for new sanctions against Iran. "We believe we need to help Iran to take a right decision," Medvedev said with President Barack Obama standing next to him. "Sanctions rarely lead to positive results, but in some cases, the use of sanctions is inevitable." Obama's chief Russia advisor, Michael McFaul, was "delighted," according to the New York Times. "I couldn't have said it any better myself," he said. You could almost hear the champagne corks popping in the American delegation's suites.

But will Medvedev's words actually translate into Russian actions when it comes time to draft a tough resolution and vote? The Obama team appears to expect the Russians to go along, especially after its decision last week to scrap Bush administration plans for missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. McFaul and other senior officials have rejected the notion of such a deal. "Is it the case that it changes the climate? That's true, of course. But it's not cause-and-effect," McFaul argued.

Deal or no deal, Obama officials might want to recall that Russia has voted for U.N. resolutions against Iran in the past, but those texts were significantly watered down at Moscow's insistence. Russia has also defied the spirit of those resolutions by continuing a business-as-usual approach to Tehran, including continued sales of arms and nuclear reactors. And Russian support for a sanctions resolution is far from a fait accompli. Just last week, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov voiced their opposition to new sanctions.

Still, the Obama administration seems determined to argue that its push for Iran sanctions has absolutely, positively nothing whatsoever to do with its missile defense decision. Said Obama:

"Russia had always been paranoid about this, but George Bush was right, this wasn't a threat to them. So my task here was not to negotiate with the Russians about what our defense posture is. ... If the by-product of it is that the Russians feel a little less paranoid and are now willing to work more effectively with us to deal with threats like ballistic missiles from Iran or nuclear development ... then that's a bonus."

Methinks thou doth protest too much. That the administration made its decision a week before Obama's meeting with Medvedev seems more than a coincidence. (That the Poles were informed of the decision on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of their country was callous treatment of a loyal ally.) The administration needs Medvedev's support on possible new sanctions against Iran. It also wants to remove a major obstacle to conclusion of a post-START arms control deal; the Russians threatened to scupper that accord if the United States went ahead with 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic. And yet if the administration is to be believed, Russia wasn't a factor in the decision, and there was no deal.

Then again, the positive reaction in Moscow to the president's decision last week may start to dissipate as Russian officials focus on the details of the new missile defense configuration. Under phase two of the administration's plans, the United States will look to deploy land-based SM-3 missiles by 2015. A distinct candidate for hosting those missiles, according to officials, is Poland. The agreement signed last year between Washington and Warsaw would still cover deployment of the SM-3s, obviating the need to negotiate a new accord with another country.

Despite being stiffed last week, some Polish officials seem interested in hosting the new system. According to Reuters, Slawomir Nowak, a senior advisor to Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, said, "If this system becomes reality in the shape Washington is now suggesting, it would actually be better for us than the original missile shield program."

The possibility that Poland could wind up hosting U.S. missiles after all is not likely to go over well in Moscow. Indeed, it was the fact that the United States would be cooperating on missile defense with two states that the Russians used to control that was most disturbing to the Kremlin. Even former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, certainly no hard-liner, hinted at this in his op-ed in the Sept. 25 New York Times. "A week ago, [Obama] announced that the United States will not deploy -- at least, not in the foreseeable future -- a missile defense site in Central Europe..." (emphasis added).

Should the land-based phase of Obama's plans include stationing missiles in Poland, the Russian reaction is likely to turn very negative. They will feel tricked after initially thinking Obama's decision was a victory for them. If that's the case, the administration will have raised doubts in the minds of our Central European allies about our reliability while also pissing off the Russians. That will be another reason to keep those champagne bottles on ice.

David J. Kramer is a senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States and a former senior State Department official in the George W. Bush administration.