Diplomatic Stupidity - Hillary Edition

One of the main benefits of the New START treaty -- possibly the only benefit -- is its effect on maintaining decent relations with Russia. After pushing hard for the treaty, the administration, along with some European allies, turned right around and damaged relations with Russia for no good reason.

If you haven't followed the case, Russia just convicted a major oil tycoon, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, of theft and money laundering. Critics of the Russian government at home and abroad see it as a politically-motivated prosecution. It may well be. But what does it have to do with the U.S.? For some reason Hillary Clinton issued a statement on Monday "saying the oligarch's conviction raised 'serious questions about selective prosecution - and about the rule of law being overshadowed by political considerations.'" She also said that "the case had a 'negative impact on Russia's reputation for fulfilling its international human rights obligations and improving its investment climate.'"Britian and Germany took similar positions. Naturally the Russians were not happy.

a foreign ministry spokesman in Moscow said: "Judgements about some kind of selective application of justice in Russia are without foundation." He added: "We are counting on everyone minding his own business – both at home, and in the international arena."

This case is a prime example of diplomatic stupidity in action. How Russia prosecutes cases against Russians is clearly an internal matter for that country. The Russian spokesman is correct. By interfering in Russia's internal affairs the U.S. gains absolutely nothing. Making a public statement criticizing Russia is entirely counterproductive. Not only does it invite other countries to critique how the U.S. applies its own laws, but it does nothing to help Russians such as Khodorkovsky. By making such a statement, Hillary Clinton has practically guaranteed that Russia will take a hard line in support of its own legal system. The bottom line is that A) it's none of our business, and B) intefering is not in the interests of the U.S. So why interfere?

A Critical Look at the Arguments in Favor of START

There's a joint op-ed in today's Washington Post by Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Lawrence Eagleburger and Colin Powell called, "The Republican case for ratifying New START." Leaving aside the fact that at least one of these men, Colin Powell, is a shill for the Obama administration and a true Republican In Name Only, let's look at their reasons for supporting the treaty.  

The world is safer today because of the decades-long effort to reduce its supply of nuclear weapons.

It's not a good idea to start off an argument with a baseless assertion. There's no evidence at all that the various arms control agreements have made the world one bit safer. We are safer from the threat of a massive nuclear war because of the collapse of the Soviet Union. But of course even that collapse has given rise to other potential nuclear threats. 

[The New START Treaty] is a modest and appropriate continuation of the START I treaty that expired almost a year ago.

So what? We should continue it just to continue it?

It reduces the number of nuclear weapons that each side deploys while enabling the United States to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent and preserving the flexibility to deploy those forces as we see fit.

You know what else preserves our flexibility? Not signing treaties that might hinder our options.

The commander of our nuclear forces has testified that the 1,550 warheads allowed under this treaty are sufficient for all our missions - and seven former nuclear commanders agree.

So by that logic, if 1,550 are sufficient, wouldn't it be better to have more?

The defense secretary, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the head of the Missile Defense Agency - all originally appointed by a Republican president - argue that New START is essential for our national defense.

What an utterly ridiculous assertion. This treaty has nothing to do with strengthening our national defense. It's a purely diplomatic maneuver that at best won't harm our national defense.

The most important thing is to have bipartisan support for the treaty, as previous nuclear arms treaties did.

If you want bipartisan support, then don't try to get a treaty through a lame-duck session of Congress.

Second, New START preserves our ability to deploy effective missile defenses. The testimonies of our military commanders and civilian leaders make clear that the treaty does not limit U.S. missile defense plans.

Really? How about reading what you write next?

Although the treaty prohibits the conversion of existing launchers for intercontinental and submarine-based ballistic missiles, our military leaders say they do not want to do that because it is more expensive and less effective than building new ones for defense purposes.

So actually the treaty does in fact limit missile defense plans, just not the ones we happen to favor at the current time. But missile defense is a work in progress. We don't need to impose artificial limitations without good reason.

Finally, the Obama administration has agreed to provide for modernization of the infrastructure essential to maintaining our nuclear arsenal.

Well that's just great. But we could and should do that anyway. It has nothing to do with needing to sign a new treaty with Russia.

some question why an arms control treaty with Russia matters. It matters because it is in both parties' interest that there be transparency and stability in their strategic nuclear relationship.

Ok, that's a reasonable argument. But now let's ruin it by following it with this:

It also matters because Russia's cooperation will be needed if we are to make progress in rolling back the Iranian and North Korean programs. Russian help will be needed to continue our work to secure "loose nukes" in Russia and elsewhere. And Russian assistance is needed to improve the situation in Afghanistan, a breeding ground for international terrorism.

Oh come on. Does any of those men actually believe the nonsense they are spouting? I seriously doubt it. Russia has its own interests in securing loose nukes. Russia isn't going to be the slightest bit of help in Afghanistan or North Korea, and it's part of the problem with Iran. 

Obviously, the United States does not sign arms control agreements just to make friends. Any treaty must be considered on its merits.

That's not at all obvious. If you consider the treaty on just its merits, it makes little sense. You then have to ask, why are we imposing limitations on our defense capabilities for little return? 

But we have here an agreement that is clearly in our national interest, and we should consider the ramifications of not ratifying it.

If it was clearly in our national interest there wouldn't be any debate about it. My prior position on this treaty was that it was essentially harmless. But after reading such bad arguments in favor of it, I'm beginning to question that notion. The main reasons to sign this treaty are to stay on decent terms with Russia, avoid any sort of new nuclear arms race, and to have access to good intelligence on Russia's nuclear arsenal. These arguments are mentioned in the editorial, but are buried under the unfounded assertions, wishful thinking and hyperbolic nonsense about how supposedly important this treaty is to U.S. national security. If I'm a Republican lawmaker reading this editorial, it's going to make me take a harder look at the new START treaty. It certainly wouldn't push me toward speeding it into passage.

Blow-up Weapons

Not exploding ones, weapons that are filled with air. There's an interesting article at BBC News about Russian inflatable weapons.

A turret appears, then out pops a long plastic gun barrel. This is an inflatable Russian tank. ... When the men pump up their next piece of plastic, this one expands into a S-300 rocket launcher, complete with giant truck and inflatable rockets. ... waiting to be blown up are inflatable MiG fighter jets - even entire Russian radar stations. ... They are made of a special material that tricks enemy radar and thermal imaging into thinking they are real weapons.

One thing that the Soviet military was very good at in World War Two was deception. They call it maskirovka, and it has been a fundamental feature of Soviet and now Russian military doctrine. As Globalsecurity.org points out,

The goal of maskirovka is to make the enemy concentrate his forces against false threats and uselessly expend his means of destruction on them. ... they also do it actively, through the use of dummy structures, electronic warfare, false maneuvers, and various other methods.

These blow-up dummies are cheap and have the potential to be extremely effective, not just in manipulating enemy intelligence/observations, but in causing significant diversions of resources away from real threats. These dummies might actually cause more problems for an opponent than some real weapon systems.

Iran Set to Open a New Target

No, not a store. According to Russia, Iran is set to start-up its first nuclear power plant next week.

Rosatom spokesman Sergei Novikov said Friday that uranium fuel shipped by Russia will be loaded into the Bushehr reactor on Aug. 21, beginning the startup process. ...“From that moment the Bushehr plant will be officially considered a nuclear-energy installation,”

The plant is painted with a gigantic bullseye that can be seen from the air. Not really, but it might as well have one. I'm not in favor of strike on Iran, but if there is one, I expect this facility to become a smoking pile of radioactive rubble.

It would be interesting if Iran's brand-new first nuclear plant were to suffer a mysterious, catastrophic accident, perhaps a massive internal explosion, or some sort of cooling system failure that led to a meltdown. Aside from destroying the plant, such an accident would probably kill scientists, engineers and technicians important to Iran's nuclear program. It might even be blamed on shoddy Russian engineering, poor workmanship or the use of cut-rate materials in construction, damaging the close relationship between Russia & Iran on nuclear projects -- especially if the cause of the accident is difficult to determine.

Total War?

Over at The Victorious Opposition there is an interesting post presenting four hypothetical scenarios and asking whether or not readers would support "total war" in response. Total war is defined as,

a war in which our vital interests are at stake, we mobilize our full strength, the enemy commands a modern state, and the war has more of a global or hemispheric rather than a simply regional nature.

I wouldn't call that total war myself, just a major war. I think total war has other implications. But given that definition, here are the scenarios:

1. China attempting to overrun Taiwan?
2. Iran detonating a nuclear weapon in Israel?
3. North Korea sinking an American vessel (something small like a frigate) with a submarine?
4. Russia invading any ex-Soviet republic NATO member nation in the same way it did to Georgia?

In my opinion, only two of those scenarios would likely produce a truly major war of the type the writer is describing: numbers 1 and 4. Here are my answers.

1. It depends on the overall circumstances. In my opinion, China's overall power is grossly exaggerated by many vis a vis the United States. I do not believe China is capable of pulling off the type of massive amphibious assault that would be necessary to overrun Taiwan, with even minimal, largely deniable U.S. involvement. On the other hand, China is certainly capable of unleashing a devastating missile barrage in an attempt to pound Taiwan into submission. Should the U.S. go to war in a major way to save Taiwan? It's a difficult call, and I can't say for certain without more details of the overall picture. Taiwan is a a long-standing ally of the U.S. In my view, loyalty to allies who have been loyal to us is extremely important. We should certainly not sit idly by while China hammers Taiwan. But risking nuclear war for Taiwan is another matter.

2. If Iran detonates a nuclear weapon in Israel, I fully expect Iran to be devastated by an Israeli nuclear response. I don't see this scenario as a major war situation for the U.S. Compared to the United States, even an Iran armed with a some nuclear weapons is extremely weak. Even using conventional weapons, if the gloves were off, the U.S. could cripple Iran, while suffering only regional damage. Should Iran manage to pull off an amazing nuclear first strike that utterly destroyed Israel and its entire nuclear force, I would definitely support a massive retaliatory strike of either a conventional or nuclear variety. A third-rate power such as Iran could not be permitted to destroy a major U.S. ally and get away with it.

3. Again, I don't see this as a major war scenario of the type described -- unless China backed North Korea -- it's a major war, but a regional one. If North Korea dared openly sink a U.S. vessel, I would definitely support a declaration of war. I would also support a first strike with tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to ensure that North Korean nuclear weapons are not used against us. If they covertly sank a U.S. vessel, as with the South Korean one, I would opt for lesser but still violent measures, such as hunting down every North Korean submarine, and possibly bombing submarine bases.

4. I think this and number 3 are probably the most likely of the four scenarios, and this one is the most avoidable. I was not and am not a fan of expanding NATO to include small, weak former Soviet republics. Some allies are not worth having. It would be a disaster if one of these countries, places outside our vital interests, dragged us into a major war with Russia. Should such a scenario develop, I would try to get unified NATO support in an attempt to intimidate the Russians into backing down. If the rest of NATO goes wobbly, I would probably support some attempt to find a way for the U.S. to also weasel out of its treaty obligations.

Weakness Breeds Agression

Since he became president, Obama has bent over backwards to appease the Russians, most notably by cancelling our Eastern European missile defense plans -- which Russia strenuously opposed -- without demanding or receiving any compensation. Right through to the latest nuclear agreement, the administration's dealings with Russia have projected U.S. weakness, and once again we see the results.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned the United States and other Western nations on Thursday against imposing unilateral sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program ... Countries facing Security Council sanctions "cannot under any circumstances be the subject of one-sided sanctions imposed by one or other government bypassing the Security Council", Lavrov was quoted as saying by Interfax.

Russia feels confident that it can tell the U.S. directly what it can and cannot do. It can assist a rogue state in obtaining nuclear weapons, in direct opposition to U.S. and European policy, and it can openly block anything from being done about it.

Moscow has indicated it could support broader sanctions but has stressed they must not harm the Iranian people.

I seriously doubt that the government of Russia would care even slightly if every single Iranian suddenly dropped dead. But it has no hesitation in using Iran as a weapon against U.S. interests. By "broader sanctions," it means completely ineffective sanctions that won't change anything. It doesn't even feel the need to tread lightly. And why should it, with Obama in charge of U.S. foreign policy?

Despite his criticism, Lavrov said that relations with the United States had shown clear signs of improvement, specifically with the signing of a nuclear-disarmament treaty that would reduce their deployed nuclear warheads by about 30 percent.

By "relations," Lavrov means Russia's strategic position vis-a-vis the U.S. With an inexperienced foreign policy incompetent in charge in the U.S., whose first instinct is appeasement, advancing Russia's interests at the expense of the U.S. became much easier. That's great for Russia, but not so great for us.

Is Putin a Great Leader?

Ralph Peters has an interesting column in the New York Post called, "Putin wins again: Rebuilding Imperial Russia." Peters sees Putin as a great statesmen who has made strong gains for Russia at the expense of U.S. interests, among others.

A few years back, I wrote that Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was the most impressive major leader on today's world stage. Since then, he's gotten better. ... Putin's ruthless, unforgiving and murderous. He also has a clear vision of what he wants, the strength of will to get it -- and a stunning ability to spot the weaknesses in his foreign counterparts.

Peters goes on to list a series of what he sees as "strategic achievements in just the last few months." For example,

Last week, Putin supported the overthrow of the US-backed government of Kyrgyzstan, tightening his chokehold on our northern supply route into Afghanistan. The Obama administration was utterly blindsided ("Where's Kyrgyzstan?").

Peters argues that we have no one that rises to Putin's level as a leader.

I can't spot a single potential president in either of our political parties who'd be a match for the guy.

Although I agree that Putin has been able to take advantages of incompetent U.S. leaders like Bush and Obama, I think Peters' analysis is a bit over the top. Putin is simply taking what's available. If the U.S. is willing to hand concessions to Russia without compensation, such as cancelling our Eastern European missile defense plans, that's speaks less to any brilliance of Putin, but more to our own incompetent leadership. It's also worth pointing out that during the Bush administration, and continuing to the present, the U.S. has been greatly distracted. Diplomatic sparring with Russia over strategic concerns is a sideshow, rightly or wrongly, as long as we are tied down in Afghanistan, still in Iraq, and continuing a worldwide fight against Al Qaeda. In some respects Russian gains can be marked down to the U.S. taking the path of least resistance in dealing with Putin. The U.S. doesn't need a confrontation with Russia right now, and doesn't see contesting Russian advances as a priority. What looks like great statesmanship to Peters, looks to me like Putin capitalizing on favorable circumstances while his more powerful rival is otherwise occupied. He's smart to do that, but it doesn't require any sort of geopolitical genius.

Double Wishful Thinking

Wishful thinking has been a key plank of Obama's foreign policy throughout his administration. But China has provided another reminder that reality differs sharply from the delusions of the Obama administration.

China insisted Tuesday that it has not shifted its approach on Iran's nuclear program, despite White House claims on Monday that Beijing had become more open to sanctions on Tehran.

Jiang Yu, a spokeswoman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, told reporters in Beijing that "China has always believed that sanctions and pressure cannot fundamentally resolve the issue" of concern about Iran's nuclear program, according to the official New China News Agency.

This is an example of double wishful thinking. Obama is  operating under two sets of false assumptions. First is the idea that sanctions are going to do anything to stop Iran's nuclear program. Despite all evidence to the contrary, the administration continues to pretend that  Iranian nuclear ambitions can be derailed through some sort of sanctions.  In reality, there are only two things likely to disrupt Iranian plans: war, or some sort of radical change inside Iran itself. But the Obama administration isn't just content to cling to the comforting delusion that sanctions can solve the problem. It has to go further, and engage in wishful thinking about the involvement of countries like China. 

The Chinese have made it clear that they aren't interested in applying any sort of harsh sanctions to Iran, let alone ones that even in theory might have some chance of halting its nuclear program. Making a false statement that the Chinese are on board, only to have China come out and directly contradict the administration, is just one of the many illustrations of the bumbling incompetence of Obama's foreign policy. It's not the first time he's engaged in such a pretense about sanctions, only to be publicly contradicted.

The White House has recently asserted common ground with Moscow on the issue. Yet last week, in an appearance with Obama in Prague, Czech Republic, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stressed that there were limits to the sanctions that his country was willing to impose.

Wishful thinking about a policy based on wishful thinking. That's what passes for foreign policy in the Obama administration. 

A Useless Arms Control Agreement

Like most such agreements, the latest arms control deal between the U.S. and Russia is virtually meaningless. Here's Obama spouting the usual nonsense.

“With this agreement, the United States and Russia, the two largest nuclear powers in the world, also send a clear signal that we intend to lead,” Mr. Obama said, appearing in front of reporters at the White House to announce the agreement. “By upholding our own commitments under the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, we strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities.”

An arms control agreement between the U.S. and Russia has exactly zero impact on the spread of nuclear weapons. The reduction in the number of deployed U.S. & Russian weapons doesn't have the slightest effect on the nuclear program and aspirations of countries such as Iran. The president's idiotic pronouncement is just another example of one of the main planks of Obamic foreign policy: wishful thinking. 

Here is the practical effect of the new agreement.

According to people in Washington and Moscow who were briefed on the new treaty, it will lower the legal limit on deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 each, from the 2,200 allowed as of 2012 under the previous treaty. It would lower the limit on launchers to 800 from the 1,600 now permitted. Nuclear-armed missiles and heavy bombers would be capped at 700 each. ...  the treaty does not limit the thousands of tactical nuclear bombs and stored strategic warheads each side has.

In other words, its almost completely meaningless. As one expert noted,

“What did we get out of the deal?” he asked. “Nothing that I can see, and I have been doing nuclear stuff, including arms control, since 1981.”

The good news is that at least at first glance, this treaty appears relatively harmless -- and that's always a plus with the dangerously incompetent Obama administration in charge of foreign policy. Politicians love things that they can trumpet as achievements, just to pretend they are actually doing something and making a difference. Much of the time such feel-good projects are actively harmful or have nasty unintended consequences.  If this agreement lets Obama pretend that he's advancing his pie-in-the-sky dreams of ridding the world of nuclear weapons, hopefully he'll be satisfied that's he's doing what he can, and abandon attempts at more dangerous efforts to feed his delusions.  

Why Russia & China Favor a Nuclear Iran

There's an interesting article in the New Republic called, "Bombs Away: The real reason why Russia and China aren’t interested in stopping Iran’s nuclear program." The author, Matthew Kroenig, rejects the common explanation that Russian and Chinese economic ties with Iran are the primary reason for their assistance with its nuclear aspirations, and for their reluctance to do anything about it. Instead he looks toward strategic reasons. He argues that both countries see a nuclear Iran as a constraint on U.S. power in the Middle East -- a constraint that will not affect Russian & China because they lack force projection capabilities in the region.

An Iranian bomb, then, won’t disadvantage China or Russia. In fact, it might even help them. Neither country has hidden its desire to hem in America’s unilateral ability to project power, and a nuclear-armed Iran would certainly mean a more constrained U.S. military in the Middle East. Indeed, at times during the 1980s and 1990s, Beijing and Moscow aided Tehran with important aspects of its nuclear program.

It's nice to see an argument on this issue that gets away from economic determinism and looks toward power politics and grand strategy. I think the author is probably correct in his view of Russian & Chinese motives. Where I disagree with him is on his analysis of the U.S. side of the equation. Here he offers a reverse of Chinese & Russian motivations. The U.S. opposes proliferation in Iran because it constrains U.S. power projection in the region.

Of course, there are the concerns of accidental nuclear detonation, nuclear terrorism, or even nuclear war. But these are all extremely low probability events. The primary threat of nuclear proliferation is that it constrains the freedom of powerful states to use or threaten to use force abroad. ... In nearly every historical instance of proliferation, beginning with China in the 1960s, the United States opposed nuclear proliferation in large part because it wanted to preserve its military freedom of action. ... Although Washington might not have immediate plans to use force in the Middle East, it would like to keep the option open.

Although I agree that this reasoning is certainly part of the U.S. desire to block Iranian nuclear weapons, I think he ignores other obvious reasons of greater significance. First and foremost, Iran is a rogue state ruled by radical Islamic fanatics hostile to the U.S., and has been conducting a low level proxy war against U.S. forces in the region. It's not really necessary to look for deep strategic reasons to understand why the U.S. would want to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the mullahs. If Iran was ruled by a more responsible government that just happened to be aligned against the U.S., the author's argument would be more convincing. 

Second, Kroenig ignores the threat to Israel in his calculations. This is a key reason the U.S. opposes a nuclear weapon in Iranian hands. Israel rightly sees such weapons as an existential threat, and the U.S. would rather not be sucked into a Middle East war if the Israelis decide they must act to preempt the threat.  And third, there is the fear that even if war doesn't break out right way, that an Iranian bomb will precipitate a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race, with other countries feeling that they need to obtain weapons, leading to a general destabilization of the region with unknown consequences. 

In my opinion, the nature of the Iranian regime, its hostility toward the U.S., the threat to Israel, the fear of being drawn into a war, and worries about the stability of the region as a whole are far more significant motivations for U.S. opposition to Iranian nuclear arms than our desire to maintain future force projection capabilities in the region.

Have a Year and a Half to Spare?

Looking for something to do? How about spending 520 days isolated with five other people in a simulated Mars mission?

The crew will follow a programme designed to simulate travel to Mars (250 days), a 30 day Mars surface exploration phase and travel back (240 days). They will live and work in a facility in Moscow, which has been specifically designed for the needs of these simulations.

You'll have plenty of room in your 3 square meters of living space. It would be interesting to know exactly what this mission will pay, but I could only find the following:

For successful completion of the entire study including training before and follow-up after the isolation, the respective volunteer will receive a fixed compensation that is in line with international standards for participation in clinical studies.

I hope it's a large amount.

Obama in Russia

According to the Washington Post, the U.S. & Russia reached a "preliminary deal"

to cut the American and Russian nuclear arsenals by as much as a third while setting aside for further talks a dispute over U.S missile defense plans.

Most arms control agreements are either relatively meaningless feel-good fluff, or actively harmful. Fortunately this one seems to fall into the former category --as long as we don't cut anything that is really necessary -- although you never know with the Obama administration. 

Of more importance is the agreement securing U.S. transit rights through Russian territory to provide logistical support to Afghanistan, as well as a general attempt to improve U.S.-Russian relations. There's no need to go out of our way to antagonize Russia. We could use their cooperation on a number of issues, and if we can't get it, at the very least it would help if they weren't actively hostile to our interests. So despite all the over-hyped nonsense about arms control, at this point the initial results of Obama's visit appear positive.

Russians Drinking Themselves to Death

A study published in The Lancet calculates that three million Russians have died because of alcohol since 1987. I'm skeptical of that sort of extrapolation, but the study does indicate that

three quarters of deaths among men and half of deaths among women aged 15-54 were attributable to alcohol abuse. The mortality rate in Russia in this age group was five times higher for men and three times higher for women than in Western Europe...The Russian, British and French researchers said that "excess mortality from liver cancer, throat cancer, liver disease and pancreatic disease is largely or wholly because alcohol caused the disease that caused death".

According to the article, "Consumption has continued to rise sharply." It sounds like the Russian bear has a major alcohol problem.

Too Much of a Good Thing?

Here's a story you don't see every day.  A Russian man who had penis enlargement surgery, now wants it reversed.

Konstantin was far from satisfied with what Nature had given him, and demanded that doctors extend him by 10cm, giving him a whopping 25cm.

After being warned against it, he disregarded the advice of the doctors and went ahead with the operation. Apparently he found that the new improved model wasn't as popular with the ladies as he had hoped.

Within a month Konstantin was back, begging doctors to reverse the operation. He told them that several women had walked out on him, unwilling to share in his new-found happiness.

He has to wait six to eight months for another surgery. That's something you want to have in your medical records -- a history of multiple cosmetic penis surgeries. 

NATO Exercise In Georgia

One day after a mutiny at a Georgian military bases -- that Georgia blames on Russia -- NATO is holding a multi-national military exercise in Georgia. Russia is protesting the exercise as a provocation aimed in its direction, and some countries have withdrawn in solidarity with the Kremlin.

Dmitri O. Rogozin, Russia’s envoy to NATO, warned that the exercises in Georgia might “significantly affect the stability of the entire South Caucasus.” 

“How can one insist on these exercises with such stubbornness and persistence?” he said

NATO says the operation is not intended to help Georgia against Russia.

we are certainly not doing that. We — as I said, we are assisting them in building their force. On top of what NATO is doing, our military cooperation division at [NATO headquarters] is doing that [building Georgian forces]. We are — we are engaged with our nations who individually support that as well. It’s a coordinated planning effort, but the intent is certainly not that we as NATO collectively see — see a danger or a threat that Russia could invade Georgia.

Building their force against what threat? Who is the biggest threat to Georgia? Is someone other than Russia threatening them?

I'm not in favor of appeasement, and have no illusions about the Russians. But is Georgia a place where NATO wants to take a stand? The NATO spokesman's ridiculous attempt to pretend otherwise not withstanding, there is no reasonable purpose for holding exercises in Georgia other than bolstering Georgia against Russia. Russia may be paranoid, but there is no way they can see a NATO operation in Georgia as anything other than an action aimed at Russia. Why provoke Russia for no good reason?

Obama's "secret" proposal to Russia

The New York Times reports that

President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president last month suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons

It's hard to know exactly what to think about this situation. Was this just a type of trial balloon? What exactly does the Obama administration think the Russians can do about Iran? Who leaked the letter and why?

Taking this story at face value, I don't think using our missile defense system as a bargaining chip is a good idea, especially since it doesn't appear that Russia can actually deliver anything of equal value in exchange. As I have written before, unless a drastic change occurs within Iran, it is not going to give up its nuclear ambitions. Let's stop pretending that diplomacy is going to magically alter its committed national aspirations and start facing reality. Iran will eventually have nuclear weapons, and it already has various delivery systems. Our only option other than war -- which is simply not a realistic possibility -- is deterrence. Missile defense will be a particularly useful part of that deterrent effort. It's one thing to calculate a nuclear strike based on the threat of retaliation, but a defense system adds the possibility that your strike will also be ineffective -- i.e. you could face the consequences of launching an attack without even hitting a target.

I have no problem with the U.S. making deals with Russia, if necessary to improve our strategic position, or our position with regard to Iran in particular. But I do object to any attempt to sacrifice our missile defense. We should have had missile defense systems working and deployed years ago. That gaping hole in our defenses has been there far too long, and we shouldn't delay deployment based on something as minor as  some sort of nebulous "help" from Russia, regarding something they have no more control over than we do.

Sounds Like Potential for Trouble

With Russia acting more and more agressive lately, it's worth considering another possible trouble spot that could lend itself to Putin's quest to expand Russian power.  Apparently within the small country of Moldova, the Trans-Dniester province has separatist ambitions.  According to news reports, "the dream of joining Mother Russia is now stronger than ever."

The area used to be part of the Ukraine under the Soviet Union. It has proclaimed independence which is so far recognized by no one.  But there is Russian involvement in the separatist movement. Some speculate that Russian support for separatism in Trans-Dniester is just a ploy to pressure Moldova against joining NATO.  But who knows?  Unfortunately the circumstances surrounding the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the dissolution of communism in Eastern Europe provide many opportunities for Russian meddling.  You never know when and where the next crisis will erupt.

Israeli Arms Sales to Russia?

Ares Defense Blog at Aviation Week reports a possible $12 million arms deal between Israel and Russia, with Israel supplying 100 of its Hermes 450 UAVs.  The Hermes 450 has multi-payload capacity, as well as real-time intelligence capabilities.  Russia encountered the UAV in its conflict with Georgia, which had previously bought some from Israel.

Hmm, selling advanced UAVs to Russia, the main arms supplier of Israel's Arab (and Persian) enemies.  What could go wrong?  I can understand the Israeli armaments industry's desire to reach new markets, but Putin's Russia is a terrible choice.  Why not just sell some to Syria and Iran while they are at it?