Is that Vladimir Putin, Marlon Brando, or Al Bundy? Either way I'm in impressed.

So who’s in charge of Russia? Dmitri Medvedev, whose position of President is officially in charge of all major foreign policy matters, or Prime Minister, ex-President, and all around tough guy Vladimir Putin? Putin sure behaves like he’s the man behind the Bear, and with this latest foray into Moscow’s foreign affairs, he is cementing this view in GPP’s eyes. On December 30th, Putin asserted that the START nuclear weapon deal being negotiated between Russia and the United States would go nowhere as long as the US continued to develop a defensive missile shield. Putin warned that unless Washington DC came clean on this issue, Moscow would have to ‘go ahead with a new class of offensive nuclear missiles’. In other words, Putin is not happy with the already sweet deal that is START (Russia’s nuclear would be reductions are for the most part already obsolete or downtrodden) and the Obama administration’s decision to cancel the missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. He wants even more concessions!

I guess I shouldn’t be too worried about this Putin position, as it likely is just a negotiating gambit to get the best START deal possible for Moscow, but then I read this quote and started to believe that my fears of the Obama administration giving in to more Russian demands had merit. Alexandros Petersen, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said this about Putin’s government:

“They view Obama as somewhat of an anomaly in U.S. foreign policy, and START is for decades”

In other words, Obama is a true believer in getting rid of nuclear weapons anyway how and will be a tremendously pliable negotiating partner. Petersen went on to say: “You give them a finger and they take an arm. With this statement [from Putin], the debate has shifted completely.”

I still have confidence that the START deal won’t turn out to be too hurtful to US interests and that the Obama administration is a tougher negotiator than either Putin or Petersen believes, but this is still a bit disconcerting. One has to be glad that American Founding Fathers were prescient and wise enough to require all foreign treaties to get 2/3 majority Senate confirmation.

The Petersen quote above does indeed raise the larger question of whether or not Obama is really an ‘anomaly’ in US foreign policy history, present, and future. Many have argued that President George W. Bush was such a thing. In fact, I have a feeling that every president has been called something close to this during their tenure. It is still a provocative question worth thinking about though. Do you think President Obama is a foreign policy ‘anomaly’? In what ways exactly? Do you think that other world leaders view him as such? And if this is true, than wouldn’t that dramatically affect their positions and tactics toward the US during this time period?

After you’re done answering these questions, go and have yourself a Happy New Year!

Happy New Year from GPP!

(Side question: Because states like China and Iran will not be celebrating the new year tonight does that hurt their status in the GPP rankings? Yes, yes it does.)

'A deal's a deal, unless we need to cancel it, of course.' Love, Dimtri

“We reaffirm our commitment to the goals of the common fight against the threats of terrorism, armed extremism, and illegal drug trafficking in Afghanistan.  We shall continue and develop our cooperation in the interest of enhancing the capabilities of the government of Afghanistan to accomplish key socioeconomic objectives, to raise living standards, and to ensure the security of its people.”

Joint Statement by President Obama and President Medvedev

In all the hoopla over the Obama-Medvedev-Putin Summit this past week, many may have missed the most concrete accomplishment of the meetings, Moscow’s permission for over 4,500 flights over Russian airspace for American military personnel and equipment headed to Afghanistan.  Though this agreement was mainly hashed out before the summit, it was given attention and made to appear part of a greater cooperative future between these two states regarding the situation in Afghanistan by the release of this joint statement.  This strategic agreement goes beyond discussions of ‘reset buttons’, the idea that power is not a ‘zero sum game’ (I think it still is Mr. Obama), and may in fact hold more geopolitical importance than the promised reductions in nuclear warheads by Washington and Moscow (does anyone really think this will cause other states to give up their nuclear aspirations?).  The Obama administration claims that these new overflight routes over Russian territory will save valuable time and an estimated $133 million dollars.  And many also hope that the agreement combined with the nice words of cooperation in the joint statement portend a growing partnership between the two former cold warriors regarding stabilizing Afghanistan.

However, it has long been claimed that the US and Russia share similar interests in Afghanistan, mainly the destruction of international terror networks and regional stability.  But this has never meant that there are still not conflicting interests and the lack of real cooperation between the two great powers the past 7 years has shown these quite clearly.  Russia has and will probably never accept a strong US military presence so close to its borders and ‘near abroad.’  Moscow considers Central Asia its backyard and holds dearly its gas and oil pipeline monopoly in the area.  A stable, US/Western controlled/backed Afghanistan and Pakistan may mean diversified pipeline routes for the CA states.

Russia’s actions in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan (Manas airbase) showcase an aggressive state that will follow its perceived interests, even if they are contrary to ‘cooperating’ in stabilizing Afghanistan.  The Obama administration needs to be prepared for a possible setback after this positive agreement, as Moscow has shown that deals like this can easily be reneged upon and even outright contradicted.  Nicklas Noring from the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute offers cautious advice regarding US-Russian relations in Afghanistan;

Until Russia displays a genuine concern for Afghanistan and does not undermine other channels supporting this mission, it cannot be considered a worthy partner for cooperation. The terms of this “cooperation” suggest nothing less than that the U.S. is being duped, with the success of Afghanistan at stake.

*Adam Stern is the author of this piece, not Pat Frost

According to the New York Times, “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, American officials said Monday. The letter to President Dmitri A. Medvedev said the United States would not need to proceed with the interceptor system, which has been vehemently opposed by Russia since it was proposed by the Bush administration, if Iran halted any efforts to build nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles.”

States have no friends, only interests. With a clever leak, it seems likely that the Obama Administration clearly buys into this oft-held realist notion, especially where U.S. foreign policy towards Russia is concerned. It seems as if just yesterday Vladimir Putin and Moscow were up in arms over the Pentagon’s plans to install missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. Russian leadership has remained adamant since that an American missile shield not be constructed on their watch. Their argument, and a reasonable one at that, is that Russian national security would be unduly compromised if NATO missiles were located within striking distance of their borders. In the early 1960’s, JFK had a similar reaction when nuclear components reached Cuban shores courtesy of our comrade Nikita Khrushchev.

Fast forward to the present. The U.S. is engaged in multiple conflicts abroad, a rise of terror in Pakistan and holding together a tenuous peace in Gaza. It’s clear that the Obama Administration has bigger foreign policy issues to contend with than Cold War era spat. It seems logical and in America’s best interests not only to diffuse unnecessary tension with Moscow, but, best case scenario here, enlist Russian support in curbing Iran’s nuclear aspirations.

It’s too early to tell if Vice-President Biden is serious when he expressed an interest in “hitting the reset button” on U.S. foreign policy towards Russia. The U.S. still harbors serious concerns over the amount of power wielded by former President (and current PM) Vladimir Putin. In addition, Russia’s handling of relations with its neighbors and former members of the USSR often leave much to be desired.

If states have no friends though, it might also be said that states have no enemies. At least not on a permanent basis. Currently, it’s in the American interest to take symbolic steps to bring Russia on board. President Obama’s letter and Vice-President Biden’s rhetoric might not amount to much in the long run but for time being these symbolic gestures indicate that the Administration recognizes there are far more pressing challenges on the horizon. Challenges like Iran, which will be far easier to confront when allies lend support.

Vice President Joseph Biden made the Obama Administration’s first major foreign policy today in Munich at a security conference attended by many world leaders. It was at this venue last year when Russian President Putin derailed US policy in Europe. In Biden’s speech, he took a modest stance on US missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, stating that the US will continue to move forward with them, but offering caveats concerning negotiations with Moscow and on the system’s ability to function. Biden’s words:

“We will continue to develop missile defenses to counter a growing Iranian capability, provided the technology is proven and it is cost-effective.”

Let’s hear the rest of Biden’s remarks concerning US-Russian relations:

“It is time to press the reset button, and to revisit the many areas where we can and should be working together with Russia.”….“the United States will not recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. We will not — will not — recognize any nation having a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances.”

So it appears that the Obama administration may put the missile defense systems in Poland and Czech in play, but will do so only in the context of further negotiations, hopefully involving some give and take. Regarding a ‘reset button’, unfortunately those don’t exist in international relations. The situation is somewhat static, the US and Russia both desire influence in some of the same regions, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and this will not change anytime soon.

Biden seems to be aware of this though as he made a strong statement against ‘recognizing’ any nation’s ‘sphere of influence’ and instead countering that all states had a right to make their own foreign policy decisions. This is a direct rebuttal to Russia’s recent geopolitical moves and pronouncements as it has only been a few months since President Medvedev made a major speech reclaiming Moscow’s right to a ‘sphere of influence’. However, Biden’s denouncement of such an outlook does not mean that in many ways Moscow still concretely owns geopolitical powers of influence in its former Soviet states, as can be seen in its recent moves in Kyrgyzstan (including some cyber dirty tricks), Ukraine, and Georgia. People have talked about Obama bringing a close to the recent cold war type tension between the two powers, but this is naive, as the two states have structural constraints and interests geopolitically shoulder to shoulder that will continue to cause conflict. This speech by Biden is just the opening remarks in what will continue to be an important and fluid relationship with Moscow.

Biden also spoke about US-Iran relations, arguing that the US is finally ready to ‘TALK’. This of course ignores the last few years of the Bush administration, which made efforts to discuss Iran’s nuclear program and Iraq and Afghanistan with the Islamic Republic, if only on low levels. I believe it likely that Obama’s administration will continue these low level talks until it appears that real progress can be made. Biden’s condescending reference to America being able to ‘talk’ is disappointing to me. He represents the United States government to a group of foreigners in a foreign capitol and disparages his own country. What other state apologizes for its actions in front of other state leaders? I can’t think of one. Biden and Obama need to concentrate on the work ahead and not on past grievances. The election is over.

Back to Iran, Biden continued on about the need for Iran to unclench their fists regarding their illicit nuclear program and their support of terrorism abroad. Just like Sec of State Hilary Clinton on Hamas’ responsibility to be a real partner on in the peace process, the Obama administration seems to be taking a similar hard line on Iran. Here is Biden’s warning/offering to Tehran:

“Continue down your current course and there will be pressure and isolation; abandon the illicit nuclear program and your support for terrorism and there will be meaningful incentives.”

What these ‘meaningful incentives‘ are we and Iran will have to wait and see.

Biden, a great talker, has given us much to discuss here.

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.

Yesterday, I attended a conference about the next US administration’s foreign policy challenges at San Diego State University. The conference featured seven SDSU political science professors who each spoke about a particular region of expertise. The conference will soon be put on a podcast.

Here are some of the highlights:

Professor Lei Guang, a Chinese expert, began his talk by stating that if he were to talk for as long as both presidential candidates did on China, it would be only 30 seconds. I nerdily laughed out loud, for this was my greatest complaint about the presidential debates, No Questions, Discussion, or Views on China! This is indeed unfortunate as US-China relations will most likely be the most crucial aspect of world politics and peace for years to come.

Professor Latha Varadarajan, spoke about the US-India Nuclear Cooperation Act that recently was passed by both governments. She laid out the strategic partnership side of the story, a side I am sympathetic too, but was going to end up denouncing the treaty, basically for its weakening of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but unfortunately she ran out of time.

Dipak Gupta, a rather famous scholar and the one responsible for the event, came next and discussed Pakistan/Afghanistan. He referred to Pakistan as the ‘most dangerous’ place on the earth and warned Obama to be cautious in fomenting greater instability in the country, specifically referencing Obama remarks about attacking targets in Pakistani territory.

Last to speak was Russia expert Professor Mikhail Alexseev, who was quite the orator, moving all about and getting the whole audience to repeat his main points about Russia being a ‘post-superpower’, ‘post-imperial’ dictatorship. The best part of his talk was how he hammered in just how powerful Russia was and they were America’s only real true competitor on the world stage, totally discounting the radical Islamists (though he forgot China). He mentioned Moscow’s nuclear armaments and their recent investments in more modern missiles, ships, and submarines. He was optimistic that though Medvedev and Putin would be a major test for the Obama administration, that they were up to the task. He especially warned Obama not to follow in Bush’s steps of looking too deeply in Putin’s eyes. Good advice indeed.

Within hours of Barack Obama’s presidential election victory, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made a national speech where he stated his government’s intent to deploy short range missiles near the Poland border. Needless to say, Medvedev and the Russian government are upset with the US-Poland-Czech missile defense agreement (Missile Defense System MDS). This of course comes just a month after Moscow announced it was to begin a ‘wholesale renovation‘ of their nuclear deterrence capabilities.

The Bush Administration’s decision to install these missile defense systems in Eastern Europe and the Russian response have so far, and should continue to be, intriguing great power vs. great power behavior to watch. The situation begs many questions: Why is the US doing this? Can the missile shield system even work? How should/are the Russians viewing this? What effect will this have on Iran’s nuclear policy, as the missile shield is largely aimed at them? What’s in it for Poland and Czech? Will Barack Obama continue this policy? I cannot tackle all of these today, but in due time, my friends.

On the technical side of the issue, aka whether or not the Poland-Czech, or any other, MDS will actually work, is not my expertise. I have been informed that many in the physics and science (a little broad) community argue that the MDS have never shown an ability to work in a real-time situation and are mainly just a waste of tax dollars. Here is a quote by Frederick K. Lamb, who co-chaired a 2003 American Physical Society study on boost-phase intercept systems for missile defense.

“Not a single test of this system has ever been carried out under realistic combat conditions,” said Lamb. “To assume it is going to work under realistic conditions with only a few minutes warning is like assuming a gun that has only been fired against a single, carefully arranged target in a brightly lit firing range is going to be successful in a fast-moving night battle against many enemies.”

On the other hand, the US military has argued that the shields show great promise and have actually worked, only they (thankfully) haven’t been put into play in a real life situation.

But putting aside the MDS actual capabilities, why would the US want to do this? The Bush administration has not been shy in arguing that they will help protect or deter the use of nuclear or conventional attacks on Europe from rogue states, mainly Iran. Another explicit and implicit reason would be that the systems pull Czech Republic and Poland closer to the United States. Now these states are already in the NATO alliance and for the most part are not in danger of moving into Moscow’s sphere, but in international politics, nothing is forever, and one can view this as the US doubling-down on the partnership. While, how could this be positive with Medvedev and Putin’s rhetoric and recent provocative moves, as in, isn’t the US just getting Moscow anger and forcing them to push back for very little gain? Good question. Moscow is indeed gaining strength and have not been afraid to show it, Georgia, Venezuela, Central Asia, and many have argued that this MDS is still treating Russia like the weak country it mainly was for the last fifteen years. But I would challenge this assumption. Russia is indeed much stronger today, and their successful military moves in Georgia require respect, but the US should not feel the need to pull back, and this includes in deep Eastern Europe. Russia may be moving missiles closer to Poland, but they will not dare to actually do anything. The MDS agreement with Poland was basically a security pact, calling for the US to come to its aid if under attack. Moscow’s power has largely risen from a booming economy and those days are largely over with gas and oil prices starting to plummet.

Medvedev and Putin have proven themselves to be adept geopolitical players and the US must be careful in all their moves in Moscow’s sphere, for instance, the US should back off from Georgia’s admittance into NATO, but since the fall of the Soviet Union the US has made amazing inroads into Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia and it should not relinquish these easily. We all know that Russia plays hardball, and by standing tall on Poland and Czech’s missile system the US is crowding the plate, so we’ll just see if Russia’s down to throw one high and inside.