By PVG viagra

28
Jan

Russia’s First Move to Obama

   Posted by: Pat   in Russia

In what is looking more and more like a lukewarm proposal, it appears that Moscow is at least ready to suspend their plan of basing Iskander missiles in the western region of Kaliningrad, a small Russian territorial enclave near Poland and Lithuania, and directing them toward Europe. It was reported through a news agency that a Russian defense official stated that the government was suspending the missile deployment, but other Russian officials denied such a policy was changing.

Kaliningrad's the cute little territory near the top. Russia's promised to put missiles all over it, making it much less cute.

The move seemed at first to possibly be a goodwill gesture to the Obama administration, which would hopefully make it easier for his administration to cancel the US-Poland-Czech missile defense system.  The missile defense plan, just officially approved by all groups involved months ago, is reportedly under review by the Obama administration and this forward move by the Russians to not do something they haven’t even done yet is no doubt an attempt to persuade Obama to rescind the missile defense deals.  Obama and Russian President Medvedev talked on the phone for the first time on Monday and discussed their ‘intention’ on promoting ‘constructive’ US-Russian relations.

Concerning the missile defense standoff, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin had some words: “We have heard signals concerning anti-missile defense, and we know that people close to Mr. Obama say they should not hurry and the issue demands further analyses.  We are glad to hear such statements. Beyond that, our proposal on developing those systems is still on the agenda.”

How Obama’s team handles this delicate issue with Moscow will be telling of his stance against the world’s great powers.  I for one do not think it enough that Russia just ‘not deploy’ the Kaliningrad missiles, though its a good start.  If the US were to revoke already agreed defense plans with Poland and the Czech Republic we would need other Russian concessions, especially regarding Iran’s nuclear program and Afghanistan stability.  Moscow’s Kaliningrad move (test?), which has itself not even become an official stance by no means, seems like a cheap opening to give Obama a chance to say he received something in return, but I’m just not buying it.

Tags: , , , ,

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 28th, 2009 at 9:21 am and is filed under Russia. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

4 comments so far

Hubbel Relat
 1 

I agree Pat. I don’t buy this PR attempt by Russia to sway the Obama team. Let’s hope Obama realizes the way to a strong, respectable foreign policy agenda is through power, not pleading for peace. If Obama chooses the latter option, countries like Russia know they will be able to get the upper hand every time when it comes to dealing with this Administration. It is vital Obama makes it clear very early that he is not about to pushed around or deceived by PR ploys.

January 28th, 2009 at 11:42 am
econstudent01
 2 

Hubbel, your post seems to suggest that negotiation and compromise equates to weakness. I see this as a classic realpolitk chess move by both sides. Obama doesn’t want the missile defense system, which this missile shield in eastern Europe was basically an extension of. Russia knows this, so to grease the process it withdraws its threat of a counter-acting missile placement. The U.S. wins, Russia wins, and on the face both look like they are anticipating greater diplomatic discussion, a win for both.

I know after 8 years of a perverted conservative doctrine this may seem alien, but I think we just witness the first of many realist foreign policy moves.

January 28th, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Pat Frost
 3 

I think the US should have a realist style policy toward the Russian state itself, because in many ways the Kremlin is the ultimate realist state. I will not claim that Obama’s administration has weak or ‘pushed around’ because nothing has been done yet, as my post was just a warning. But what is not discussed by you Econ is real strategic loses if the US pulls out of the MDS in Czech and Poland. The bilateral deals between each state and the US government have become official and involve more than just MDS. The US-Poland pact involves the selling of major weapons to the Pols and seems to also guarantee that the US will come to their aid under distress. I personally heard the Polish president speak about what he thought was a ‘crucial’ aspect of his state’s security. It should also be remembered when the Czech and Polish government pushed the agreement through their legislatures: right after the Georgia-Russian war. We may not be scared of the New Russia, but states that live nearby and have previously been under Moscow’s yolk, feel much different. If Obama rejects the plan and pulls out, what will these allies think? Should the US be trusted as an ally? What about all the other Eastern European states in the area who unlike western Europe see the US as a protector and leader of democracy? There are realists costs to such a pull out policy.

January 29th, 2009 at 9:30 am
econstudent01
 4 

I guess the question come down to a chicken and the egg problem. Does Russia seek to expand its influence, sometimes with violence, on its borders because it see’s the U.S.’s encroachment through NATO and these bilateral agreements? Or is the United States promoting these things to contain Russian aggression. I think both nations perceive the sitaution through their own respective lenses, but I tend to favor the former slightly. It has been argued that Stalinist expansion in Eastern Europe was undertaken because of the incessant fear of an invasion from the West, something which had happened numerous times in the previous centuries to great harm to the Russian people. I think this continues to the present day. Why should Russian leaders trust the intentions of the U.S. and Western Europe when they continually pushed NATO and other agreements to Russia’s borders after the fall of the Soviet Union, when clearly Russia was no threat? I think this fear of invasion, or to a lesser extent foreign interference, is what drives the Russians and will in the future.

Which is fine of course. This is, afterall, great power politics. But I think we all need to come to the realization that these are not “evil intentions.” Eight years of good and evil speech from the White House has basically convinced many, most on the Right, that you are, pardon the idiocy of the language, with us or against us. In this vein I completely agree with Pat’s post. I only hope that Obama will move past these superficial and self-serving proclamations and focus on the politics of facts.

January 29th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Back to top

Array