The Vanity of Obama, Prance of Arrogance

There is nothing more dangerous than a leader that doesn't know what he doesn't know. Obama, experienced at not much, is using his telepromted veneer of knowledge to dazzle the media and damage US interest at home and abroad.

Blinded by his own cleverness, Obama foolishly permitted the Russians to exchange their nuclear relics for the best of American nuclear deterrence. Obama seems not to have noticed recently past Russian aggression in Georgia and the reassertion of a so-called Russian sphere of influence. Putin's Russia is no friend of the US and never will be. They will never do anything to help the US, anywhere. The touted allowance of Russian air space to the US military for access to Afghanistan is diabolically sinister. Of course the Russians want to see US assets, manpower and military prestige wasted in Afghanistan.

Obama in all his sartorial splendor believes he won a big one. We didn't.

____________

Plumage -- But at A Price

By Charles Krauthammer Washington Post
Thursday, July 9, 2009; 8:53 PM

The signing ceremony in Moscow was a grand affair. For Barack Obama, foreign policy neophyte and "reset" man, the arms reduction agreement had a Kissingerian air. A fine feather in his cap. And our president likes his plumage.

Unfortunately for the United States, the country Obama represents, the prospective treaty is useless at best, detrimental at worst.

Useless because the level of offensive nuclear weaponry, the subject of the U.S.-Russia "Joint Understanding," is an irrelevance. We could today terminate all such negotiations, invite the Russians to build as many warheads as they want and profitably watch them spend themselves into penury, as did their Soviet predecessors, stockpiling weapons that do nothing more than, as Churchill put it, make the rubble bounce.

Obama says that his START will be a great boon, setting an example to enable us to better pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs. That a man of Obama's intelligence can believe such nonsense is beyond comprehension. There is not a shred of evidence that cuts by the great powers -- the INF treaty, START I, the Treaty of Moscow (2002) -- induced the curtailment of anyone's programs. Moammar Gaddafi gave up his nukes the week we pulled Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole. No treaty involved. The very notion that Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will suddenly abjure nukes because of yet another U.S.-Russian treaty is comical.

The pursuit of such an offensive weapons treaty could nonetheless be detrimental to us. Why? Because Obama's hunger for a diplomatic success, such as it is, allowed the Russians to exact a price: linkage between offensive and defensive nuclear weapons.

This is important for Russia because of the huge American technological advantage in defensive weaponry. We can reliably shoot down an intercontinental ballistic missile. They cannot. And since defensive weaponry will be the decisive strategic factor of the 21st century, Russia has striven mightily for a quarter-century to halt its development. Gorbachev tried to swindle Reagan out of the Strategic Defense Initiative at Reykjavik in 1986. Reagan refused. As did his successors -- Bush I, Clinton, Bush II.

Obama, who seeks to banish nuclear weapons entirely, has little use for such prosaic contrivances. First, the Obama budget actually cuts spending on missile defense, at a time when federal spending is a riot of extravagance and trillion-dollar deficits. Then comes the "pause" (as Russia's president appreciatively noted) in the planned establishment of a missile shield in Eastern Europe. And now the "Joint Understanding" commits us to a new treaty that includes "a provision on the interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms." Obama further said that the East European missile shield "will be the subject of extensive negotiations" between the United States and Russia.

Obama doesn't even seem to understand the ramifications of this concession. Poland and the Czech Republic thought they were regaining their independence when they joined NATO under the protection of the United States. They now see that the shield negotiated with us and subsequently ratified by all of NATO is in limbo. Russia and America will first have to "come to terms" on the issue, explained President Dmitry Medvedev. This is precisely the kind of compromised sovereignty that Russia wants to impose on its ex-Soviet colonies -- and that U.S. presidents of both parties for the past 20 years have resisted.

Resistance, however, is not part of Obama's repertoire. Hence his eagerness for arcane negotiations over MIRV'd missiles, the perfect distraction from the major issue between the two countries: Vladimir Putin's unapologetic and relentless drive to restore Moscow's hegemony over the sovereign states that used to be Soviet satrapies.

That -- not nukes -- is the chief cause of the friction between the United States and Russia. You wouldn't know it to hear Obama in Moscow pledging to halt the "drift" in U.S.-Russian relations. Drift? The decline in relations came from Putin's desire to undo what he considers "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century -- the collapse of the Soviet empire. Hence his squeezing Ukraine's energy supplies. His overt threats against Poland and the Czech Republic for daring to make sovereign agreements with the United States. And finally, less than a year ago, his invading a small neighbor, detaching and then effectively annexing two of Georgia's provinces to Mother Russia.

That's the cause of the collapse of our relations. Not drift, but aggression. Or, as the reset master phrased it with such delicacy in his Kremlin news conference: "our disagreements on Georgia's borders."

Obama goes to Russia to get his clock cleaned

With all the poise and self confidence of Neville Chamberlain, a massively weak economy, a currency under attack, a resurgent left wing in Latin America, his Grace and Reset Button in Chief, Barack Obama takes his fading magic to Russia. He is there because he senses a relevant threat between Russia and USA regarding our nuclear capabilities? Or does he naively believe that Russia will help him in Iran or Korea?

Obama thinks that recent Russian agreements allowing US supply overflights to Afghanistan is a sign of new cooperation. Given Russia's first hand knowledge of fighting a war in Afghanistan, I am surprised that Russia has not offered to pick up the fuel tab.

Obama has a plethora of crisis in which to meddle but chooses the visibility of a summit meeting with a Russia that will not help but has potential for lasting harm.

His sense of timing could hardly be worse. The street organizer against the street fighter. Obama's credentials include exactly what? His announced agenda includes a Carteresque human rights lecture. Putin has nothing to lose and everything to gain by meeting with Obama.

Putin has looked into Obama's soul and has seen a massive egoist needing his daily fix of adulation. Michelle is accompanying razzle to dazzle.

This trip will cost us plenty.

Russian military threat may be blown out of proportion.

More on Russia and the EU.

ErectUs intErrUptus

EU President Rules Out Sanctions Against Russia
By Lisa Bryant Voice of America
Paris
25 August 2008

Current EU president France has ruled out sanctions against Russia as European Union leaders consider ways to pressure Moscow to fully comply with a ceasefire agreement. Lisa Bryant reports from Paris that EU leaders will meet next week to discuss the crisis in Georgia.

In an interview on French public radio Monday, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the European Union did not foresee sanctions against Russia, even though Moscow continues to have troops in Georgia.

Kouchner said the worst had been avoided in Georgia and the majority of Russian troops had retreated from Georgian territory.

Kouchner spoke a week before European leaders meet in Russia to decide how to deal with the Georgian crisis that flared up over the breakaway region of South Ossetia. France currently holds the rotating presidency of the 27-member European Union. Acting on behalf of the bloc, French President Nicolas Sarkozy flew to Russia and to Georgia earlier this month to negotiate a cease-fire after clashes between the two over South Ossetia.

The EU divided over how to deal with Russia, with some members wanting a tougher position against Russia than others.

Moscow has refused to fully retreat from Georgia, arguing the cease-fire deal gives it the right to keep some forces there. On Monday, Russia's lower house of parliament vowed to back independence for South Ossetia and another breakaway region in Georgia.

Kouchner said it was important to control the corridor in which the Russian forces patrol - and it would be easier after the summit to send observers from the EU and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe to Georgia to monitor the cease-fire.

What has Russia Done for Us Lately? Not Much.

The Democrats keep touting the benefits of negotiations and one-on-one communications as a panacea for all that ails the political world. Does it work? The short answer is "maybe and maybe not."

It has done little with Russia. The Bush design to work through personal channels with Vladimir Putin is a wreck, but no one can fault George Bush for not having tried.

The idea was to include Moscow into the western civilization of the new millenium. That was based on the delusional religion of inclusion and multi-culturalism. Common sense and human observation should have told us that little would change in Russia.

It hasn't and it wont. The Washington Post has noticed:

_____________________

Who Needs Russia?

The United States should make a clear-eyed assessment of the fruits of strategic cooperation.
Washington Post Editorial

Saturday, August 23, 2008

ON THURSDAY, while overseeing his country's continuing occupation of neighboring Georgia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev found time to meet with visiting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Assad, who is under suspicion of ordering the murder of political opponents in Lebanon, lavishly praised Russia's invasion of Georgia and asked for more Russian weapons. Mr. Medvedev acceded to this request, according to his foreign minister.

This was a small and unsurprising event in the annals of Russian diplomatic history. But it's worth noting as the United States and its European allies consider how to reshape relations with Russia in the wake of its Aug. 7 invasion of Georgia. A common theme of commentary since the war began has been that the United States is constrained in its condemnation of -- or sanctions against -- Russia because it needs Russia too much in areas ranging from counterterrorism to checking the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. But you can't lose what you never had, and it's fair to question how much help Russia has been providing in any of those areas, even before Aug. 7.

Iran provides a useful example. Russia has participated, with Germany, France and Britain, in talks aimed at persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear program and even has gone along with some sanctions enacted by the U.N. Security Council. But Russia's principal contribution has been to slow the process and resist meaningful sanctions, stringing the Bush administration along just enough to convince it that truly effective measures -- sometime, somewhere down the road -- might be possible. Iran's nuclear program has proceeded without inhibition. Meanwhile, Russian experts help develop Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant, and Russia sells Iran air-defense weapons it can use to protect its nuclear sites and anti-ship weapons it could use to menace Persian Gulf shipping traffic in the event of conflict. While the administration blames Iran and its proteges, including Hamas and Syria, for destabilizing the Middle East, Russia sells arms to all of them, and to Venezuela and Sudan.

None of this means that the United States should seek or welcome a new cold war with Russia. Russia could make life far more difficult for many of America's friends if it chose to do so, just as it could, if it chose, help combat terrorism and nuclear proliferation. But President Bush's imagined partnership with president-turned-prime-minister Vladimir Putin has been pretty much an empty husk for a long time. We hope and believe that the West would not under any circumstance barter away the independence or territorial integrity of a small, free and helpless nation in exchange for a promise of big-power cooperation. But when that promise is an illusion, the calculation should become even easier.

Paranoid Nostalgia Under the KGB Psycho, Vladimir Putin

The post may be redundant to our previous post, Ultimately, Russia Loses, but the point must be reinforced and understood:

• Vladimir Putin is a dangerous and deranged man.
• Russia is a weak and dangerous country.
• Russia is in serious social decline.
• Oil wealth is allowing Russia to indulge in the fantasy that it can reconstruct its lost empire.

There are many many examples of the paranoid nostalgia for the past. Probably the most absurd came to my attention while having dinner with an Icelandic friend some months ago. She told me that the Russians were flying forty year old bombers just off Icelandic air space. She wondered why and I replied without hesitation,"because he is nuts". Putin is certifiable. Russia flying strategic bombers next to Iceland in 2008 is the equivalent of an adolescent going to the attic and dressing in his father's camphor-laden army uniform. He is nuts.

______________________

From The Times
Richard Beeston
August 13, 2008
Strutting Russia is heading for a fall
Opinion is hardening against the Kremlin. For all its bluster, it is weak and vulnerable

Rarely have Russians had such cause to celebrate their hero. One minute Vladimir Putin was in Beijing mixing with Russian athletes on the opening day of the Olympics. Moments later he reappeared in the Caucasus, sleeves rolled up and directing a victorious counter-attack against his arch-rival Mikhail Saakashvili, the Georgian President. Fleeing refugees and wounded civilians were comforted. Generals saluted smartly as they were sent off to battle. No one was left in any doubt that Mr Putin, rather than the absent President Medvedev, was still firmly in charge of the country.

In the space of only five days the Russian Prime Minister succeeded not only in smashing the Georgian Army but also teaching all those in the “near abroad”, as Russia refers to its neighbours in the former Soviet empire, a painful lesson about challenging Moscow in its own backyard.

The decisive action was in sharp contrast to the response in the West. The war in Georgia exposed deep divisions in the transatlantic alliance and revealed the impotence of the Bush Administration in protecting its closest friend in the region.

Respect is something Mr Putin and many of his countrymen believe they lost when the Soviet Union broke apart 17 years ago. They may now feel that over the past few days some of that loss has been restored.

For Russians sunning themselves on the Mediterranean or enjoying the long summer evenings at their dachas in the countryside, this is the plausible narrative faithfully repeated by the state-controlled media.

Unfortunately, the conclusions they draw are completely wrong. Russia may have smashed its tiny neighbour but victory will come at a heavy price. The war will reduce rather than increase Russia's stature abroad, where the Kremlin faces growing isolation.

Since the emergence of the modern Russian state during the Yeltsin years in the 1990s, the country has been regarded as chaotic and corrupt but broadly peaceful and certainly no serious threat. Back in 2003 Condoleezza Rice, the Russophile US Secretary of State, famously advised President Bush to “forgive” Russia for its stand against the Iraq war, while France was punished and Germany ignored.

To judge by the language of both US presidential candidates responding to the Georgian war, forgiveness is no longer an option. Democrat or Republican will take a much harder line towards Russia over its aggressive foreign posture, its increasingly autocratic Government and the inescapable conclusion that Mr Putin is determined to remain in power indefinitely.

The Europeans may seem divided, but behind the bland statements calling on both sides to stop the recent fighting something significant has happened. Six European leaders, five of them from the former Soviet bloc, chose to stand side by side with Mr Saakashvili yesterday as he struggled to remain in power. The events in the Caucasus will only serve to harden opinion against Russia at Nato and in the EU.

The mini-war in Georgia may have surprised some Europeans, but it was expected weeks ago by British Intelligence. Thanks to the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the ex-KGB officer who was poisoned in London by suspected Russian agents nearly two years ago, Britain has completely reassessed its relationship with Moscow. MI5, which reports that Russian agents in Britain are now back at Cold War levels, regards Russia as the third most serious threat to British security after terrorism and nuclear proliferation. Attempts to rehabilitate relations have faltered and the recent treatment of BP by its partners and the Russian authorities has only reinforced the view that Russia cannot be trusted.

Flush with billions from the sale of oil and gas, the Kremlin may calculate that it does not need allies in the West and would rather be respected and feared than befriended.

That too would be a serious mistake. For all its big-power bluster, Russia is weak and vulnerable. Russian tanks and aircraft may have smashed the fledgeling Georgian Army with ease, but most of the weaponry was Cold War-era and many of the troops conscripts. Anyone who has seen the Russian Army operating in the Caucasus knows that the military will need a generation to modernise. Meanwhile America, and its main Nato allies, are decades ahead in military technology and combat experience.

Russia is also facing a severe demographic crisis. Its population is shrinking by 700,000 people a year. The UN estimates the population will fall below 100 million by 2050, down from around 146 million today.

As for the economy, it is booming thanks to natural resources that account for 70 per cent of the country's wealth. But the oil price is in a state of flux. Russia has failed to diversify. Should energy prices fall sharply, the economy could collapse, as it did a decade ago.

Mr Putin once described the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest tragedy of the 20th century. Trying to resurrect it could be the greatest folly of the 21st.

Richard Beeston is foreign editor of The Times