Blog

Russia and the U.S. have yet to reach an agreement to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START – also called START-1), set to expire on December 5.

Under the treaty, signed by Russia and the U.S. in 1991, both countries agreed to reduce nuclear warheads to 6,000 and delivery vehicles to 1,600. Eleven years later, the Moscow Treaty, a follow-up to START, required warhead reductions to between 1,700 and 2,200.

At issue are factors like mobile missile systems, delivery vehicle cuts, and how to inspect and verify warhead destruction.

Dmitry Medvedev said he believes the two will reach an agreement by the deadline, and added that his country “agreed to give additional impetus to those (new START) negotiations, find solutions on remaining issues. In some instances, those are technical issues, some are political issues. We will task our aides to continue working on those matters. I hope that…we will be able to finalize the text of a document by (the end of) December. The world is watching. It is all the more important now.”

The president’s National Security Advisor said both sides probably will negotiate a temporary treaty that would keep START in place until they can come to terms on a new treaty.

From the Heritage Foundation’s blog The Foundry:

“The Russians are demanding the removal of US monitors from a ballistic missile plant in Votkinsk, Russia. This is where the Topol M intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are produced. Under START, Topol is supposed to be a single warhead ICBM, while the U.S. suspects that the Russians are putting multiple warheads (MIRVs) on it in violation of the Treaty. Speaking in the Kremlin, Gen. Makarov remarked, ‘we don’t have such observer missions in the U.S., so it’s natural that we tell them that this mission needs to be removed. On December 5 it will depart.’

“US negotiators are rushing against this tough deadline, leading many experts to believe that the U.S. may grant more unilateral concessions, such as the recent cancellation of the Bush-era Europe-based missile defense.”

(Sources: RIA Novosti and FOX News)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with President Dmitry Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday to discuss how Russia and the U.S. will deal with Iran. Clinton echoed the president’s resetting Russian relations meme, and promised to stop criticizing the former Soviet Union about its human rights abuses, unlike the Bush administration.

Sounds like more appeasement. The U.S. must make nice with Russia if we hope to see any Russian cooperation with containing Iran. What has the U.S. received in return?

So far, not much, although Clinton said, “Russia has been extremely cooperative in the work that we have done together.” In return for Russia’s help, the U.S. will ease up on pushing Russia to issue tougher sanctions against Iran and work on diplomacy first. Should that fail, the U.S. will resume sanctions talks.

Iran purportedly agreed to allow inspections of the newly discovered second nuclear site. It’s probably why Lavrov said, “At the current stage, all forces should be thrown at supporting the negotiating process. Threats of new sanctions and pressure against Iran under current circumstances are counterproductive.”

Clinton also echoed Barack Obama’s view about Iran’s “right’ to develop peaceful nuclear power, but not weapons, and contended that Russia and the U.S. are in agreement on this point. After talks with Russia, Clinton said the U.S. will keep up the pressure against the defiant North Korea, which tested five missiles this week. While the U.S. is pushing for six-party talks, the rogue state seeks bilateral talks with the U.S.

(Sources: Associated Press and AFP)

 
Donald Lambro of the Washington Times weighs in on the Obama administration’s decision to drop plans to deploy missile shields to Poland and the Czech Republic.

Some who opposed the president’s decision believe he’s trying to placate Russia. Appeasing the former Soviet Union has not been fruitful. Russia has refused the administration’s request to issue tougher sanctions against Iran.

“Mr. Obama ignored the first rule of international diplomacy: Don’t give away your bargaining chips unless you get something in return,” Lambro writes. “He also sent a signal of weakness by appearing to knuckle under to Russian bullying.”

As Lambro notes, Russia wanted George Bush’s plans scrapped, and Obama complied, apparently believing Russia would negotiate fairly. He was wrong. Dmitry Medvedev played him and took the power position. The U.S., the most powerful country on the planet, turned its back on Poland and the Czech Republic with the hope of Russia’s cooperation. Those countries feel betrayed, and Russia feels emboldened.

“Veteran national security strategists now wonder whether his actions sent the wrong message, which will only encourage Russian strong-arm tactics in future negotiations and policy disputes…Mr. Obama’s eagerness to please the Russians in the high-stakes national security game raises broader questions about how tough he will be in the face of the growing Iranian missile threat in the Middle East and Europe.”

Knowing Russia has refused to issue tougher sanctions, Iran can afford to be obstinate. A front-row witness to Obama’s appeasement, coupled with our missile defense budget cuts, the rogue state is more determined than ever to continue its nuclear program.

 
The web is buzzing about two nuclear-powered Russian submarines spotted off the East Coast, a scene right out of the Cold War. U.S. Northern Command spokesman Michael Kucharek said the U.S. is monitoring the submarines. Russia did not alert the U.S. in advance of these patrols. (Source)

As President Barack Obama tries to “reset” relations between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, Russia seems to be operating under a different agenda. Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met last month to begin talks to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, signed in 1991. A new agreement calls for nuclear warhead reductions to between 1,500 and 1,675. As Russia’s arsenal is aging, that country will get the better deal from any reduction agreement. Additionally, Medvedev does not want missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic, and Obama likely will renege on those agreements.

While the U.S. is ready, willing, and able to make compromises that jeopardize our national security, especially missile defense, Russia clearly is testing the waters, so to speak, with its nuclear-powered subs. This incident isn’t the first act of seeming aggression, as the AP notes. In 2008, Russian bombers flew 2,000 feet above an American aircraft carrier.

(Photo source: AFP)

 
Last week, the Senate passed a resolution supporting our agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic to build missile defense shields in those countries. Although the Senate voted to cut funding for certain defense programs, lawmakers seem to be on board with protecting Central Europe, despite President Barack Obama’s obvious hedging.

Earlier this month, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to set goals to reduce nuclear warheads as part of a plan to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). In a surprising revelation, the AP reports that the Senate would block spending for a new treaty that limits our missile defense capabilities. By a voice vote, the Senate approved a non-binding resolution that any agreement between the U.S. and Russia will not put limitations our “ballistic missile defense, space capabilities or advanced conventional weapons.”

Russia claims missile defense shields in Central Europe threaten its national security, while we maintain that those bases would protect the region from Iran. Our president clearly doesn’t support the bases, but the Senate does. Obama and Medvedev have agreed to meet sometime in September to resume START negotiations. How much room does Obama have to strike a deal?

Ariel Cohen of the Heritage Foundation said, “There are chances of ratification, provided the administration does not capitulate” on bases on Central Europe.

 
Keith B. Payne, a member of the Perry-Schlesinger Commission, established by Congress to assess U.S. nuclear weapons capabilities, says President Barack Obama’s agreement with President Dmitry Medvedev to reduce nuclear arms to their lowest levels since the Cold War is jumping the gun. (Source)

The U.S. should assess what strategic forces are required to defend the U.S. before we agree to limitations, Payne says.

“[T]he new agreement not only calls for reductions in the number of nuclear warheads (to between 1,500 and 1,675), but for cuts in the number of strategic force launchers. Under the 1991 START I Treaty, each side was limited to 1,600 launchers. Yesterday’s agreement calls for each side to be limited to between 500 and 1,100 launchers each…Moving toward very low numbers of launchers is a smart position for Russia, but not for the U.S.”

Payne contends that Russia pushed for the lower limit of 500. Russia’s deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and strategic bombers will be reduced anyway because they’re old. In effect, Russia has given up nothing.

Payne outlines other problems with the negotiations. Still unresolved are our agreements to build missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russia doesn’t want these bases, nor does it want the U.S. to build a global missile defense system.

“But the U.S. need for missile defense has little to do with Russia,” Payne writes. Given North Korea’s boldness in recent months, strong missile defense is more important than ever. The U.S. must resist Russia’s efforts to make us renege on our agreements with other countries and capitulate to Russia’s wishes.

(AP Photo/ RIA Novosti, Vladimir Rodionov, Presidential Press Service)

 
President Barack Obama met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev today and signed an agreement to reduce two nuclear stockpiles to as few as 1,500 warheads each. Obama said the two countries “reset” relations, and Medvedev called it a “reasonable compromise.” (Source)

Under the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, signed in 1991, Russia and the U.S. agreed to reduce nuclear warheads to 6,000 and delivery vehicles to 1,600. The Moscow Treaty required warhead reductions to between 1,700 and 2,200. According to the new declaration, the U.S. and Russia “will reduce…strategic offensive weapons in such a way that within seven years the maximum numbers of carriers would lie in the range of 500-1,100 and for the warheads within the range of 1,500-1,675.” (Source)

Discussions are still ongoing. Will Obama renege on our agreements to build missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic?

 
As Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and President Barack Obama prepared to discuss replacing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which expires on December 5, 2009, Medvedev said the U.S. must compromise on our plans to build missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. Medvedev said, “We consider these issues are interconnected.”
(Source)

It’s safe to say any compromise would involve cancelling the shields altogether. Russia still claims the bases in Central Europe would pose a threat to its national security.

Under START, signed in 1991, Russia and the U.S. agreed to reduce nuclear warheads to 6,000 and delivery vehicles to 1,600. Eleven years later, the Moscow Treaty, a follow-up to START, required warhead reductions to between 1,700 and 2,200.

If Medvedev is looking for a compromise, he couldn’t have picked a better time. No doubt Obama is receptive to negotiating with Russia on this issue, even if it means going back on our good faith agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic. It’s no secret our president has been lukewarm about those missile defense shields, which would protect the region from possible Iranian missile attacks.

 
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev must be very happy Barack Obama is in the White House. No longer dealing with a president determined to follow through on agreements or to protect the homeland from rogue nations’ nuclear threats, Medvedev says he’s ready to discuss with the U.S. Russia’s objections to missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. (Source)

“I am pleased that our American partners are showing willingness to discuss this issue rather than take a stubborn stance and deploy [the shield] no matter what…Missile defenses [in Europe] are not the best idea proposed by the previous U.S. administration… it is an idea that was adopted without consulting certain NATO and EU institutions.”

The U.S. negotiated deals with the central European countries to shore up defenses in case North Korea or Iran decides to launch ballistic missiles in that direction. But Barack Obama is more interested in reneging on those agreements and appeasing Russia, a country that has sold weapons to Iran. Obama said he hopes to find a way out of this “difficult situation,” but the only difficulty is his unwillingness to put America first, our allies second, and all others a distant third.

 
Earlier this month, we blogged about President Barack Obama’s reported offer to Russia to cancel plans to build missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic in exchange for Russia helping the U.S. deal with Iran’s possible nuclear weapons. Despite a New York Times report and lots of news coverage about a “secret letter” Obama sent to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to that effect, the president denied reports of such an offer.

The Czech Republic sees the writing on the wall. Last week, the government “temporarily pulled back” from parliament agreements between the Czech Republic and the U.S. to install missile defense radar. Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek said, “This does not mean we would give up on the ratification process. We will return to this issue after talks with the U.S. administration and after the NATO summit in Strasbourg and Kehl.”

But Poland is still holding out hope. On Sunday, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said his country had taken “something of a political risk” when signing an agreement to build a missile defense shield and that the Czechs “patiently wait for the new administration, and we hope we don’t regret our trust in the United States.” (Reuters)

Representative Ellen Tauscher, expected to be announced as the new Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, said the missile system will have to be proven viable before deployment (as one would expect).

During the Bush administration, the U.S. assured Russia that missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic were for defensive purposes, but Russia has remained doubtful.

(Photo credit: AP/Alik Keplicz)