Obama Prepares to Appease Russia
President-elect Barack Obama appears to be preparing to appease Russia and maybe throw key ally Poland under the bus in order to do so.
The Bush administration agreed with the Poles to build part of the international missile defense system in the eastern European country. Russia, however, responded angrily to the plan, recently announcing to deploy missiles to the Russian-Polish border. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s announcement was a clear declaration of Cold War at the United States, an attempt to bully Poland and the United States into submission.
It now seems that Obama is willing to comply.
When asked, aides to the president-elect said he had “not given a commitment” to build the missile system in Poland.
The statement from the Obama aide came shortly after Polish President Lech Kaczynski’s office said Obama had made such a pledge in a private telephone conversation between the two men.
Denis McDonough, who is Obama’s foreign policy adviser, denied the report saying: “His position is as it was throughout the campaign, that he supports deploying a missile defence system when the technology is proved to be workable.”
McDonough added that the two had “a good conversation” but that Obama “made no commitment on it.”
Where it would “be workable” means, in Obama’s words during the campaign, that the system should not “target” Russia. Since it is a defense system, it seems that Obama may very well be unwilling to protect Poland, a NATO member, against a possible missile attack from Russia.
Of course, if the defense system is any good, Russia can point as many missiles as it wants at Poland, but they will not be able to do much harm.
Shortly after Obama won the election, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev congratulated the first African American president(-elect), after which he warned him not to continue down the road President George W. Bush traveled on. Obama’s foreign policy adviser now indicates that Obama may appease Russia, which has recently shown renewed imperial ambitions, far more than Sen. John McCain would have done if he won the election.
Change has come indeed, some of it good, but McDonough’s words indicate that certainly not all change brought by Obama might be in the interest of the West and its allies. Russia is preparing to become a major power once again, which bullies other countries into submission; the only responsible response to Russia’s aspirations is a calm but determined containment policy.
“Of course, if the defense system is any good, Russia can point as many missiles as it wants at Poland, but they will not be able to do much harm.”
-Actually, that’s completely wrong. First, Russia currently has MIRVed missiles that are capable of penetrating missile defense (e.g., Topol-M). Second, if you go back and look at the original benefactor of the ABM program (Pres. Reagan), the premise of such a shield’s effectiveness is a massive reduction in Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal. If Russia stocks up on as many ballistic missiles as possible, it would be able to overwhelm any missile defense shield. Third, the U.S. has a strategic interest in not provoking the Russians to overreact to the shield. As mentioned above, if they believe that the shield is directed at them, they can easily undermine its value. Also, by keeping missile defense up in the air, it is a valuable bargaining chip that U.S. negotiators can use to extract concessions out of Russia in the future. Thus, your characterization of Obama’s unwillingness to make a firm commitment to missile defense as ‘appeasement’ (nice Hitler allusion) is way off.
I think we could let the man get in office first to see what he will do. Sure he’s gotten briefings since being the President-elect – but I’m sure he has not gotten them all, nor talked to all allies to see their concern.
I’m happy to leave this type of stuff to the overreacting Liberals.
Why is the West and Polland concerned about Russia’ Ballitic missiles if they sure of their Defense system!!!?? Quote Obama right he supports that technology it is “proved to be workable.” He will better use the money for other well-researched programes!!!
This type of journalism is very very unhelpful. Obama has not even taken office and yet this article speculates on what he will or will not do. Perhaps the journalist should put his talents to some more worthy cause. Wait, see what Obama actually does while in office and then you can make comments. It’s very unhelp and stirs up fears unnecessarily….
So Nick, we should sit back and wait and then you’ll give permission for us to be afraid AFTER he pulls a JFK meets Kruschev?
Why shouldn’t people express their opinions about how foolish certain actions would be (citing the historical precedent) beforehand when it might make a difference, rather than waiting and complaining afterward? Maybe Obama will be forced to reread his history instead of citing the disastrous Kennedy/Kruschev summit as an example of good diplomacy.
To put the missile defense system in Poland is a complete provocation. I don’t see how is it going to benefit Poland or Europe or US. It’s only going to create more tension and more suspicion between Russia and the West. Why would you want that??
How can a defensive system be a provocation, ragozzi? Does it make sense for Russia to say “How dare you prevent us from launching missiles into Eastern Europe?”
Wait, I don’t understand. Do Obama supporters WANT Obama to react tough to Russia? I thought the whole point of his election was to bring about… um.. well, change. Obama was elected so the US would not spend all this money on policing the world and the money could be channeled to domestic issues, right? (Playing the devil’s advocate here).
So why complain if Michael thinks of Obama’s “let’s-all-sit-down-and-talk-about-it” stance as appeasement? This seems to be a contradiction. I’m confused
To provide a valid argument, C Stanley, what’s wrong of Russia in supplying Venezuela and Cuba with missile protection and better defense weapons? Its the same concept: it IS a provocation because, just as during the Cuban Missile Crises when JFK put missiles in Turkey before USSR did anything “wrong,” America is getting on Russia’s nerves – Russia is worried, too. After all, it’s surrounded by an organization (NATO) that was aimed to contain the USSR, and still has a lot of power.
To compare Nazi Germany to Russia, the country which suffered 30 million casualties because of a war between the two, is completely absurd, and is simply a mark of journalism aimed to cause disproportionate fear for no valid reason at all.
And to the author, please, never use the word “contain” towards Russia again – it very condescending, and very characteristic of cold-war era rhetoric. Russia isn’t a misbehaved puppy.
Thank you James, for being honest about supporting the liberal idea that Russia has behaved “righteously” during this whole ordeal. Of course, buying into the propaganda of your “rival” is the first requirement for such self condescension (I don’t mean you personally). But at least you don’t contradict yourself as an Obama supporter. And this is exactly the premise upon which Obama was elected president.
Of course, this concludes that Obama has no similarities with JFK whatsoever substance-wise. Because as you stated in your example, JFK was the ultimate foreign policy hawk. So there goes another Democrat argument (or excitement) down the drain and that’s why I call this whole thing the quintessential contradiction.
James: missile defense is not missiles which are placed for defensive purposes. You’re comparing apples to oranges- the US I’m sure would react similarly to the Cuban missile crisis if Russia were financing or placing MISSILES in our hemisphere, and rightfully so. But I don’t think it would be right for us to treat it as a provocation if Russia were building a missile DEFENSE system, which would simply prevent us from launching strikes at those countries.
Now, we can argue about whether or not each country would trust that the actual system were defensive rather than a cover for offensive missile launch sites, but I assume both countries would take a ‘trust but verify’ stance.
IOW, as long as the system being built is a shield rather than an offensive weapon, there’s no reason for it to be considered a provocation.