Patterico's Pontifications

3/26/2010

U.S.-Russia Announce New START Treaty

Filed under: International,Obama — DRJ @ 4:44 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Flanked by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama announced today a new START treaty with Russia — replacing the one that expired in early December:

“Obama said nuclear weapons “represent both the darkest days of the Cold War, and the most troubling threats of our time.” He hailed the treaty as the start of a new effort to rid the world of that threat.”

Clinton said the treaty, which must be ratified by the U.S. Senate and the Russian Dura, adheres to Reagan’s promise to “Trust, but verify.” But there isn’t much in the reports about what those verification provisions entail.

Jake Tapper says this announcement could be considered Obama’s moment of relief rather than his accomplishment, since negotiations nearly fell apart due to American miscalculations:

“Negotiations were always tough.

“What we in retrospect learned and therefore maybe underestimated was that Russians hated the old START treaty,” a senior [Obama] administration official said.

Current Russian leaders hated the verification mechanisms in particular but also, having signed the treaty in July 1991 just months before the collapse of the USSR, they ”believe they signed that treaty at a time of weakness.” Thus in negotiations they tried to reduce the number of inspections, and the quality of inspections

Any inclusion of a missile defense system within the treaty would have also severely complicated, if not ruined, plans for US Senate ratification of the treaty, which requires a 2/3rds vote.

Part of the problem, one official said, was that President Obama felt his staff “had kind of bungled” announcements about key changes to the planned missile defense system.

In January, two planeloads of US officials – including National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones (ret.) and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen – had flown to Moscow to meet with General Makarov and others “to seal the deal,” the US official said, “and missile defense didn’t come up once.”

It was a day-long meeting – a “tough long slog on negotiations, a lot of in the weeds stuff” on the number and intensity of inspections to come – and the issue was never raised. “We thought we were done,” the official said.

But the President had announced plans to change plans for a Europe-based missile defense system in September, and suddenly last month Romanian President Traian Basescu announced that his country would allow ground-based missile interceptors as part of the new plans for a US missile defense system.

The Russians “heard about what we were doing in Romania and they decide to take another hard run at trying to put missile defense in this treaty. They kept pushing and pushing, in Geneva and various places.”

Obama at G20

Obama and Medvedev “during a brief pull-aside following the G-20 Summit Leaders working dinner at the Phipps Conservatory and Botanical Gardens in Pittsburgh, Pa., Sept. 24, 2009.” (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The Obama Administration says the Russians dropped their missile defense demands, reportedly after Obama talked directly to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and threatened to walk away from talks. An official described it as Obama facing down the Russian bear:

“At the end of the day it was a pivotal moment,” the official said, suggesting that the Russians saw President Obama as someone who wasn’t going to “cave.”

American reports maintain this shows Obama de-linked the START treaty and missile defense, but international reports cast doubt on that claim:

“Within minutes of President Obama making an announcement at the White House, Moscow claimed that for the first time the new treaty would establish a legally binding link between strategic weapons and missile defence systems, hinting that it might impose restrictions on America’s anti-missile programme, which the Russians oppose.

However, Robert Gates, the US Secretary for Defence, who attended the White House announcement ceremony, alongside Hilary Clinton, the Secretary of State, and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that there would be no limits on missile defence. He said that the treaty would not prevent the US from “improving and deploying” missile defence systems in Europe and elsewhere.”

So much for getting the Russians to back down.

— DRJ

16 Responses to “U.S.-Russia Announce New START Treaty”

  1. Sounds like we know who “caved”. But it will take time to figure out since this “most transparent administration in history” ain’t.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  2. Hopefully the Administration read the documents before signing on.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  3. “So much for getting the Russians to back down”

    Makes sense to believe what the Russians say, rather than our commie president.

    imdw (803b85)

  4. Maybe if Obama had a history of making truthful statements, imdw, that wouldn’t be true.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  5. The guy lies to Americans every time he opens his mouth, so why wouldn’t he lie to the Russians?

    Dopey (a812c5)

  6. the first schiessekopf will find a way to leave us more vulnerable, one way or another.

    after all, that, and lying, are what he does best.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  7. I don’t know if Obama is lying, but at the very least it’s another Obama Administration miscalculation when Russia announces plans to link missile defense to START on the same day Obama says they have been de-linked.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  8. Obama plays checkers, our enemies play chess.

    GeneralMalaise (cbc4cc)

  9. Makes sense to believe what the Russians say, rather than our commie president.

    Sadly, I can easily take such a comment at face value rather than assume it’s nothing but sarcasm. Moreover, I don’t believe my response is because the guy in the White House is a liberal. His background is so flaky and sleazy — surrounded by characters like Jeremiah “Goddamn America” Wright — that I have no more confidence in him than I would in, say, Mark Sanford, the flaky Republican ex-governor of South Carolina.

    Of course, a belief that compassion means never having to say you’re sorry and absolves one of all guilt has always been more important to the left than honesty. Look at all the liberals who happily shrug their shoulders and do a tap-dance routine when issues like Hillary sniper-fire Clinton and Barack transparent-and-bipartisan-legislation Obama are being raised.

    Mark (411533)

  10. He already sold out the Poles on missile defense, and now he’s moving on Israel. Excellent work from our Great Leader.

    Dmac (ca1d8c)

  11. what’s with the person all in black with the blue hair?

    happyfeet (71f6cb)

  12. I think that’s the Prime Minister of India.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  13. Here’s a photo of the Prime Minister at the G20. He’s in black with a blue turban.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  14. Obama is alternately green and showy or pompous and showy.

    Vermont Neighbor (0e568c)

  15. 20 years ago the U.S. President negotiated a reduction in nuclear arms with Russia. 20 years from now, the U.S. President will negotiate a reduction in nuclear arms with Russia.

    This is one more attempt to change the subject, since no progress on the economy, employment, or Afghanistan/Iraq will be forthcoming.

    TimesDisliker (8a5b81)

  16. Interesting take…

    “Agreement on a new strategic arms-control treaty between Russia and the U.S. was accompanied in the West by self congratulation and self delusion. President Obama said it was a step on a path toward “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, said that the treaty, which cuts the number of warheads allowed on each side by roughly a third from 2,200 to 1,550, must be followed by new reductions. His statement was supported by campaigners for Britain’s Committee for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) who urged world leaders to “build on this momentum.”

    In Moscow, however, which stands to benefit most from a treaty that allows it to maintain strategic parity with the U.S. while retiring large numbers of weapons it cannot afford to replace, the mood was different. President Medvedev was in Sochi berating trainers over Russia’s performance in the Olympics in Vancouver. Prime Minister Putin gave a speech on the dangers posed by spring flooding. Only the foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, discussed the treaty from which he said Russia could pull out if it concluded that U.S. missile defense had compromised its nuclear deterrent.

    The difference in reactions underscores a point about the treaty which is often missed. The U.S. sees it a means of cementing U.S. – Russian relations and gaining Russia’s cooperation whereas Russia sees it as precisely the kind of inexplicable strategic concession that Russia will now seek to elicit on other issues as well.”

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTE5MjhmNmI2YTQ5OTE2NzEwODQ3NWRlNjVmZWMyMWY=

    GeneralMalaise (2bc526)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0932 secs.