Since it is the season of giving, I’ve got some super exciting, extremely provocative, and amazingly fascinating great power stories for you to check out. I mean we got….sanctions, Hugo Chavez, Polish missiles, Rudolf the Red-nosed Reindeer, an Islamic Reformation, and cyberwarfare in Iraq. One of those was just a tease. Another present? GPP’s 4th Great Power Rankings will be out this weekend. Print it out, wrap it, and give it to your loved ones.

Sanctions and Strategy – This is a provocative (I told you that would be here) analysis of the use of economic and political sanctions in modern international politics by George Friedman at Stratfor. Friedman, a staunch IR realist, is more than a little skeptical about sanctions usefulness in actually changing a state’s behavior. Friedman’s conclusion concludes that sanctions are just a way of buying time and passing the buck:

The ultimate virtue of sanctions is that they provide a platform between acquiescence and war. The effectiveness of that platform is not nearly as important as the fact that it provides a buffer against charges of inaction and demands for further action.

Sanctions satisfy the need to appear to be acting while avoiding the risks of action.

Hugo’s Russian Missiles – About a week ago, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez stated his country had received thousands of Russian-made missiles and rocket launchers as part of his government’s military preparations for a possible armed conflict with neighboring Colombia. Chavez claimed: “They {Colombia} are preparing a war against us. Preparing is one of the best ways to neutralize it.” In recent years, Hugo’s regime in Venezuela has grown closer and closer to Moscow and it has been reported that Venezuela has bought more than $4 billion worth of Russian arms since 2005, ‘including 24 Sukhoi fighter jets, dozens of attack helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles. In September, Russia opened a $2.2 billion line of credit for Venezuela to purchase more weapons.’

A more distressing issue though is Chavez’s military build up on Venezuela’s border with Colombia and released reports that his government is aiding and abetting FARC members. The US should make it loud and clear that any overt aggressiveness by Chavez would be met with a strong rebuke, mainly with international pressure and military assistance to Colombia. However, I doubt anything serious will occur.

Cyberwarfare in Iraq and Beyond – Shane Harris of The National Journal has written a fascinating (told ya!) article about the recent past and present of US cyberwarfare tactics and defense. Harris asserts that President Bush authorized a cyberattack on cell phones and computers used by Iraqi insurgents to plan roadside bombings in May 2007. Anonymous officials reported that the Americans were able to deceive their adversaries with false information and led them into the fire of waiting U.S. soldiers. Well, I’m impressed and think this needs to be a tactic that the US military continues to exploit. Harris credits former Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell and Gen. David Petraeus for bringing cyber threats to the table under the Bush administration. Gen. Former President Bush formed the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI), which President Obama is attempting to enhance and grow. In regards to our beloved great power politics, Harris quotes Kevin Coleman, a senior fellow with security firm Technolytics, who asserts that there is basically a three way tie between China, Russia and the U.S in terms of cyberwarfare capability. The whole articles a must-read.

Poland’s American Missiles – A Status of Forces Agreement has been reached between Poland and the US, which calls for American troops to install and operate a mobile, land-based set of short- and medium-range missiles to defend against incoming attacks. In other words, after scrapping the major Czech-Poland-American missile defense plan, the Obama administration has put in place a similar program, but on a much smaller, disconnected scale. Russia, of course, is concerned about this recent development. Though I was against the cancellation of the earlier plan, I applaud the Obama administration for a rather quick strategic re-engagement with a trusted ally, Poland.

Special Relationship, Not So Special – I’ve discussed this at least twice before so I don’t need to get into too much here, but the Obama administration has continued to distance itself from the British Isles. I think this is wrong for many reasons and hope the administration changes course soon.

Islamic Reformation, Not Looking Too Likely Anytime Soon – New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote an exciting (ok, that one was forced) op-ed calling for internal changes within the Islamic community. Here’s an example of what Friedman sees as wrong or failing in parts of the Islamic world and with reactions to it in the US:

(Referencing the recent terrorist bombings in Baghdad) Not only was there no meaningful condemnation emerging from the Muslim world — which was primarily focused on resisting Switzerland’s ban on new mosque minarets — there was barely a peep coming out of Washington. President Obama expressed no public outrage. It is time he did.

Friedman is right, there really is very little the United States can do to get to the heart of Islamic violent extremist dilemma. Their neighbors, family, countrymen need to stand up and say ‘this type of behavior is wrong and does us much more harm than good’. In referencing Friedman’s article, I found an even better one on the subject by Tom Bevan.

Settle down Poland.

Though I have already voiced my concerns, and for the most part, disapproval, of the Obama administration’s decision to scrap the major missile shield in Poland and Czech Republic, I was pleased to see the rather quick move to sure up these Eastern European allies with Vice President Joseph Biden’s visits over the last week.  Biden made stops in Poland, Czech Republic, and Romania with reassurance high on the agenda.  These states were shaken by Obama’s decision and several key leaders from the region (including Vaclav Havel and Lech Walesa)  wrote an open letter to the administration calling for the US president not to forget about them as they try to improve relations with Moscow.  While in Poland, Biden discussed a new plan which would place SM-3 anti-ballistic missiles at a former air base in the town of Redzikowo in northern Poland.  It was reported early that the US would also station numerous Patriot missiles in the country.  Poland, Czech Republic, Ukraine, and the other Eastern European don’t really fear a missile attack from Iran, but what they do fear are Russian boots on the ground.  Being close to the world’s superpower, better yet having its military personnel on your territory, is helpful in keeping the wolves at bay.  Hopefully, this Biden visit is followed by concrete measures that continue to tie these still nascent democracies towards the West and keep Moscow from fomenting any serious expansionist plans.  

While the relatively fast response to get back in line with our Eastern European allies was encouraging, a couple other recent developments by the Obama administration were a little, yes you got it, discouraging.  

With almost the first year of Obama’s presidency in the books it’s starting to become pretty clear that his administration is, in IR speak, part internationalist liberal, in the sense that they have strongly supported international law, the United Nations, multilateral rhetoric (if not action), and on the other hand, realist, as in stressing pragmatism, containment, and in de-emphasizing human rights and democracy in relations with other nations.  Kind of a Jeffersonian view of the world if you follow WR Mead’s view of American society.  Now this is a wide brush and I look forward to explaining it in more depth in later posts, but for right now I want to focus on the human rights aspect.  

The Obama administration is obviously in favor of human rights, but it has shown that it for the most part is taking a hands off approach.  In dealing with states such as Iran, Russia, Sudan, Egypt, China, etc., the issue of their internal human rights violations is a tricky subject to say the least, but so far the trend for the administration has been to put human rights and democracy issues second to more concrete, pressing problems such as nukes, security, economics, etc.  Obama’s decision to not see the Dalai Lama before visiting Beijing is a prime example of this policy.  Now, I disagree with this specific move and in terms of Iran, I think the administration may be blowing a major chance by legitimizing a nefarious government that could possibly collapse with more pressure, but I cannot reflexively denounce these moves out of hand.  I sympathize with the challenge of working in partnership with a leader and government that is authoritarian and violates human rights as at times it must be done. There are too many important security issues at stake and at times human rights and the spread of democracy must take a back seat.  

Where was I getting with this?  Oh yeah.  But I also found out about this and it did make me upset.  The Obama administration has decided to save 2-3 million dollars by stopping the funding for New Haven, Conn.-based Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, which does what its name implies, and Freedom House’s Gozaar project, an online Farsi- and English-language forum for discussing political issues.  These small projects and organizations work diligently to highlight the democratic/human rights problems in the Islamic Republic of Iran and, specifically in the case of Gozaar, provide a place where Iranian citizens can communicate with other people living in free societies.  I interviewed to work for Gozaar at one time and found their operation and staff inspirational.  At a time when the US government is spending like a teenager with a credit card, it was surprised me to hear that these programs where on the chopping block.  I don’t get it and I don’t like it.  

I was going to talk about Afghanistan too, but I think we all need a break.  Ok, Ok, I need a break.

It’s been awhile I know.  There just hasn’t been much foreign affairs’ issues to discuss lately.  Only Iran launching missile after missile, President Obama scratching missile defense agreements in Eastern Europe, the G8 becoming the G20, the UN General Assembly, Honduras continuing to fight their former president, Obama with Western buddies Sarkozy and Brown showcasing an Islamic Republic secret nuclear site to the world and the readying for talks between the said Islamic Republic of Iran and the US and European allies, Gen. McChrystal’s report on Afghanistan warning that ‘failure’ is likely unless resources (aka thousands of American troops) are sent to implement a large counterinsurgency strategy that still sits on the American president’s desk, and not to mention the United States taking back the Little League Baseball Championship crown from Taiwan.  That’s all.  So I guess a lot of international shakin’ and bakin’ has occurred, GPP has just been lazy.

I’ll now (finally!) comment on a few of this issues, starting with….

Missile Defense System in Eastern Europe Scratched – Obama’s lukewarm stance on this issue from the campaign into his first 100 days should not have made this news surprising, but somehow it still felt that way.  The official reasoning, intelligence estimates that Iran’s real threat was medium range missiles, does not clearly lay out a rational for the decision alone.  First off, we couldn’t the US do both, use the AEGIS MDS ships to patrol the south and the MDS system in Poland and Czech for the long range missile threat.  Even if the intelligence stated that Iran only had medium and short range missiles right now, well, the MDS system in Eastern Europe would have taken years to set up and would obviously be useful if/when Tehran actually did obtain such a capacity.  Unlike the AEGIS MDS ships, the land based system would in theory (practice is much more questionable) protect the Eastern United States, for which unlike the West coast, we have no missile defense protection.

Long story short, one has to believe the impetus behind the move was to garner better relations with Russia.  I think Obama thought the positives (missile defense, Czech/Poland partnership, etc.) of the land MDS were outweighed by the negatives (cost, Russian opposition).  I am not really in a position to argue for against too much of the technical side of this issue, but I do want to comment on the geopolitical side.  If the US can garner real, and I mean REAL, concessions from Moscow that would help stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon than this deal would look pretty could.  However, this is unlikely to occur and without this, I think the move will end up being a minor, not game-changing, mistake.  The former Soviet states in Eastern Europe look on America favorably for two integrated reasons and this move by Obama may be eroding them.  Most Eastern European states view the US as the protector of their sovereignty and their democracy.  It was not really the idea of missile defense that pushed the governments of the Czech Republic and Poland to sign the treaty, but the real presence of American servicemen and bases on their land.  This US presence would have been a clear ‘No Go’ sign to Moscow and that of course was why Russia felt so much hostility to the treaty.  Putin and Medvedev know that the American MDS system would not be able to negatively affect their missile deployment, but they also knew that it would strengthen the sovereignty and protect these European states from pressure from the Russian Bear.  The greatest downside the US and international security may suffer from Obama’s MDS decision may not be the lack of ability to shoot down an Iranian missile, but the hollowing of US-Eastern European relations and strengthening of Russian might and influence in what they consider their ‘sphere of influence’.

The next few days I’ll discuss the recent moves regarding Iran’s nukes and Obama’s diplomacy/sanction strategy (Teaser: I’m surprisingly feeling that this may be Obama’s best laid out strategy, but the task is still daunting) and Obama’s speech before the UN General Assembly (Teaser: Is he the US President or the UN Secretary General? Not that easy to tell)

Like most Presidential forays overseas, Barack Obama has had some good and bad moments.  His appearances in Turkey and the Czech Republic seem to have soothed fears (for instance about backing out of the MDS in Prague) and built upon already strong, but still nevertheless shaky alliances.  The two biggest criticisms I have so far are his lack of progress in getting the Europeans to contribute more to the conflict in Afghanistan and what is starting to look like an ‘apology‘ tour.  

On the latter, I have seen a pattern where on every stop Obama is either apologizing for American ‘ignorance’, ‘arrogance‘, or ‘mistakes.’  Now don’t get me wrong, leaders need to play to their audience and it is also true that most of Obama’s criticisms about the US have at least a grain, if not a pile, of truth, but it is also disparaging to the great amount of good this country has given to an often thankless world.  I mean he was talking about American ‘arrogance’ in France!  Of course without the United States’ resources and sacrifices, Obama might have had to speak to a room full of Nazis instead.  (I know, I know, bringing up the Nazi’s and WWII, how ‘cheap’)  How many leaders come to the US and talk about their mistakes or arrogance?  

But that is not really what I want to talk about.  The real issue is the Europeans lack of real support for NATO’s efforts in Afghanistan.  The Obama administration has committed to increasing the US troop level in Afghanistan from about 38,000 to almost 68,000 by the end of this year.  After making this unilateral move, Obama was no doubt hoping for an increase from NATO’s other members.  What we got from the rest of NATO this week was 3,000 short-term troops to help out with security during the crucial August presidential election and another 1,400-2,000 that would assist the training of Afghan police and army forces.  Now those troops will indeed help and their targeted purposes are valuable, but it pales in comparison to what is starting to look more and more like the American-war it was in the beginning.  

This is not an acceptable commitment by NATO’s European partners.  The leaders of Germany, France, etc. praised Obama’s new Afghan-Pakistan strategy, of which a key part was more troops to provide security to Afghan civilians and government, and respond with just this?!  No lessening of restrictions on troops nor anymore to do the hard fighting.  

Even more disturbing is the trend that this chosen action, or one might say lack there of, for the Europeans portends.  This lack of commitment is just the latest acknowledgement that many of these NATO partners lack just that, a commitment, to the Afghanistan conflict.  The New York Times quoted these disheartening words from an autonomous European diplomat;

“No one will say this publicly, but the true fact is that we are all talking about our exit strategy from Afghanistan.  We are getting out. It may take a couple of years, but we are all looking to get out.”

Though this needs to be taken with a grain of salt as well, when combined with the lack of hard resources provided to the conflict, one has to think that this statement might be shared by many others in Europe. Though, I have always been a strong supporter for NATO and continue to believe in its relevance, this is a sad and divisive moment in its history.

I definitely put most of the blame on the Europeans for this weak display of burden-sharing in Afghanistan, but Obama needs to take criticism as well.  One of the promises of his presidency was that he could get our allies to work with us to a greater degree, in other words turning soft power into hard power.  In my mind, Afghanistan and NATO was a key cog in this declaration and so far the results have been poor.  That being said, there is still time and the US part of the new strategy has barely begun to be implemented.

As North Korea prepares to launch yet another ballistic missile test into the earth’s atmosphere, with the officially professed purpose of sending a satellite into orbit, but what most analysts fear will be a saber rattling test of the Taepodong-2, the NK’s most advanced missile with an estimated range of 4,200 miles and capable of reaching Alaska, I guess it’s a good time to discuss a US missile defense system (MDS) again.  

But to tell you the truth, I’m still just so wrapped up on GPP’s Great Power Rankings to go into too much analysis, so here are some interesting resources debating the issue for you to check out.  While the Obama administration seems to be ready to put the Bush accelerated US MDS plan on hold, as it has been critical of its ability to function and its cost and has let Moscow now that the MDS in Czech and Poland are on the table, there are those pushing back strongly against this policy.  The conservative Heritage Foundation has released a short propaganda film about the dangers of neglecting a MDS in the US and Avi Davis of the American Freedom Alliance held an interesting, informative, yet one-sided debate favoring missile defense on Blogtalk Radio.  Both the video and radio broadcast leave much to be desired in terms of debating the negatives and positives of the issue, but they nevertheless bring forth valid arguments.  Though it is now a bit dated, Michael E. O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution provides a more centrist, and Democratic party-centered view, also in favor of the system.  

Despite these advocates’ views, MDS is obviously a criticized and controversial issue.  How do these scholars and proponents of MDS answer these six specific criticisms of the MDS?

1. Technology  2. Is there really a threat?  3. Is it worth the costs?  4. Does it aggravate friends and foes alike?  5. Does it undermine international law?  6. Can’t the system be easily countered by a massive attack/suitcase nuke?

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.

The Center for American Progress (CAP) recently came out with a report titled ‘Building a Military for the 21st Century‘ filled with recommendations for the incoming administration.  Funny enough, CAP’s founder, John D. Podesta, is the head of Obama’s transition team.  The report is authored by some heavyweights, including Lawrence J. Korb, and here is a synopsis of their visions for a new military:

Operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have highlighted the changing threat environment for the United States. It is increasingly likely that, in this post-9/11 world, U.S. troops will more frequently be assigned to non-traditional warfare tasks, including both kinetic and non-kinetic counterinsurgency operations, rather than full-scale conventional wars with near-peer competitors. While proficiency in conventional warfare cannot be allowed to lapse, the next administration should consider the type of conflicts most likely to be encountered when allocating limited funding to procurement, training, force expansion, and other budgetary requests.

I largely agree with this assessment, as the United States and the international community is faced with a far greater threat from non-state actors and insurgent groups than from traditional armies and great powers.  Yesterday’s post highlighted this fact, as African nations are filled with internal disputes, transnational crime, and rising levels of extremism and terrorism, all conflicts that cannot be readily solved by conventional forces.  However, I believe that the US must maintain its preponderance of conventional forces for several reasons.  One being that it discourages other states, especially great powers, from even attempting to challenge the US in this regard, and this is a positive thing for the whole international community.  A second important reason is that history has not ended and though it is difficult to imagine at the moment, the US may be faced with a conflict involving our conventional forces.  If such a time came, we must be ready.  But all in all, the report, which seems to agree with assessments made by Thomas P. Barnett in his influential ‘The Pentagon’s New Map‘, is correct in proposing a more mobile, fluid military, one that can more easily fight irregular conflicts and situations.  Here is a video of Barnett doing one of his famous lectures on this new type of war and the military we need to combat it:

The CAP report also highlights the inefficient and wasteful budget of the Defense Department and proposes areas and weaponry to be cut.  Though they are right in this assessment of the DoD’s bulging belly, their proposal to cut funding for missile defense systems (MDS), including the one about to be deployed in Poland and Czech, may be costly mistake.  These MDS have not shown much progress, but they have the opportunity to be quite the strategic asset, especially because of the fact that almost definitely the United States would be the only state with them.  Of course, I WANT TO SEE RESULTS and with the tough economic times we need to cut back in all areas, but I just don’t want to see the DoD abandon a tool with so much potential, not to mention reneging on a deal with our allies Poland and Czech Republic.  

Check out the report and tell me what you think.  How much of the DoD budget should be shifted to weapons and systems for irregular war?  Is Great Power war over for good?  What would you cut in the DoD budget?  

In a surprise move for a president being called the lamest of lame ducks, the Bush administration is making a hard push to get both Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. The diplomatic push is not just advocating the acceleration of the MAP method, a slow process of aligning military and political structures between a state and NATO, but is in fact pursuing the outright immediate acceptance of each of these Russian neighbors.

This is a surprise move for several reasons. The US tried to go through the usual Membership Action Plan (MAP) process back in April during a NATO Summit in Bucharest, but Germany, France, Spain, Italy and several other members opposed even this, apparently fearing antagonizing Russia. For these NATO members, there was not many positives to come out of such a move. Does this current US move therefore mean that the Bush administration believes something has strategically or politically altered this position? Or is this just a last minute effort by the Bush administration to get these allies and Russian neighbors into the Western alliance?

This diplomatic move by the US comes just days and weeks after reports that the government of Georgia was guilty of an aggressive attack in South Ossetia that no doubt helped provoke a Russian counterattack and from bellicose statements by President Medvedev regarding the US missile shield in Poland and Czech. This seems indeed like a gambit by the Bush administration. While everyone has been talking about a return to an ‘old world order’ and a setback for US democratic and strategic gains, the Bush administration seems bent on showing the opposite. Most foreign policy scholars and pundits all asserted that the US overreached in its encroachment into Eastern Europe and that it would be forced to back down to Russia’s ‘sphere of influence’, but the near opposite seems to be occuring as the US has stood strong on the missile shield, given Georgia $1 billion dollars in aid, and now is asking its NATO partners for a Ukrainian and Georgian shotgun wedding.

Man oh man, what do you think France, Germany, and other NATO members who were against Georgia and Ukraine’s membership think about this new purposal?  Is there a chance they could change their mind?  What does the US have to gain by this move?  Is this just a hopeless last gasp by the Bush administration?  Does Bush fear that Obama may not pursue further NATO membership and therefore wants to get it done or at least started before he leaves office?  And most intriguing, what would Russia do if Ukraine and Georgia were all of sudden in NATO?

This is truly a gambit by Bush, one that may have some very important implications for NATO and European security :

“This is a real turnaround of the U.S. position,” said a senior NATO diplomat who requested anonymity because of the delicacy of the issue. “We reached a compromise in Bucharest after much haggling. Now, we are being asked to cancel it and effectively discard the MAP program. This is putting the unity and credibility of the alliance at stake.”