Obama 'ready to drop shield plans for Russian help on Iran'

[K1052]

Obama denies offering Russia missile shield deal

By Ross Colvin and Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday denied offering Russia a deal in which Washington would slow deployment of a missile defense shield in Europe in exchange for Moscow's help in a nuclear stand-off with Iran.

The New York Times reported that Obama had sent a letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev last month suggesting he would back off deploying a new missile defense system if Russia helped stop Iran from developing long-range weapons.

"The report that was in The New York Times didn't accurately characterize the letter," Obama said after meeting British Prime Minister Gordon Brown for talks at the White House.

"What I said in the letter is what I have said publicly, which is that the missile defense that we have talked about deploying is directed toward, not Russia, but Iran," he said.

"And what I said ... was that, obviously, to the extent that we are lessening Iran's commitment to nuclear weapons, then that reduces the pressure for, or the need for a missile defense system."

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signaled on Tuesday that Moscow was willing to talk to Washington about the missile defense shield but that Iran's nuclear program, which it is involved in, was a separate issue.

The United States and some European nations, including Britain, fear Iran's nuclear program is a cover to develop atomic weapons. Tehran insists is for the peaceful generation of electricity.

Moscow, which plans to start up a nuclear reactor at Iran's Bushehr plant by the end of the year, has used its veto in the United Nations Security Council on a number of occasions to water down or defeat U.S.-led efforts to impose tougher sanctions on Iran.

Obama has offered Tehran economic incentives if it abandons its nuclear program but he has also warned of tougher economic sanctions if it pushes ahead with it.

MOSCOW SAYS 'NO SWAPS'

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking on a visit to Jerusalem, said the United States shared Israel's concerns about Iran seeking nuclear weapons and would "do all that we can" to deter Iran and prevent that from happening.

She also sought to reassure Moscow that the planned missile defense shield was aimed only at thwarting potential missile strikes from Iran.

U.S. officials have said the United States will go ahead with the planned deployment of the missile shield in eastern Europe, but only if it is shown to work and is cost-effective.

Moscow has viewed the plan to site missiles in Poland and a radar tracking station in the Czech Republic as a threat to its security in its traditional backyard.

"If the new (U.S.) administration shows common sense and offers a new (missile defense) structure which would satisfy European (needs) ... and would be acceptable for us, we are ready to discuss it," Medvedev said on Tuesday.
"If we are talking about any 'swaps' (Iran for missile defense) this is not how the question is being put. This would not be productive," he told a news conference in Madrid, where he was on a state visit.

Medvedev's comments signaled possible flexibility by Moscow on an issue that contributed to a sharp deterioration in ties between Russia and the United States under former U.S. President George W. Bush and then-Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Obama has said he wants to "reset" U.S.-Russian relations to halt a drift in ties and build good relations with Moscow.

http://www.reuters.com/article.../idUSN0348931520090303

 

[filetitan]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
A question, Why would we ally ourselves with the weak countries and then become "enemies" with the more powerful ones?

I would rather have Russia as an Ally rather than France or Belgium.

:thumbsup:

+1

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
A question, Why would we ally ourselves with the weak countries and then become "enemies" with the more powerful ones?

I would rather have Russia as an Ally rather than France or Belgium.

The GDP of France is more than twice that of Russia... I would say that makes them considerably more powerful than Russia. Furthermore, they are one of the most influential members of the EU, a group that will only increase in power in the future.

 

[Moonbeam]

Go Obama. Good plan.

 

[filetitan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
A question, Why would we ally ourselves with the weak countries and then become "enemies" with the more powerful ones?

I would rather have Russia as an Ally rather than France or Belgium.

The GDP of France is more than twice that of Russia... I would say that makes them considerably more powerful than Russia. Furthermore, they are one of the most influential members of the EU, a group that will only increase in power in the future.

??????? we are not talking about economics here (Military strength) <Russia

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: filetitan

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Andrew1990
A question, Why would we ally ourselves with the weak countries and then become "enemies" with the more powerful ones?

I would rather have Russia as an Ally rather than France or Belgium.

The GDP of France is more than twice that of Russia... I would say that makes them considerably more powerful than Russia. Furthermore, they are one of the most influential members of the EU, a group that will only increase in power in the future.

??????? we are not talking about economics here (Military strength) <Russia

The size of a country's economy is directly related to the military power they can muster. Furthermore, France's military budget is higher than Russia's ($61 billion to $50 billion), they have far better training and equipment, and vastly superior logistics support. The only thing Russia has over France is sheer numbers of men in uniform, and much of that is achieved through low quality conscription.

So how is Russia more militarily powerful than France again?

 

[Craig234]

Or, 'Obama desices shield is a terrible waste of money, and wants to get rid of it, and decides to get some value for doing so by using it in a trade with Moscow'.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Looks like the brilliant Obama is being played like a fiddle by the Ruskies.. I think what happened here is Obama made the offer, because he doesn't really want the missile shield. Putin and crew saw right through it, released the Obama offer, then promptly gave him the middle finger on Iran.

Good job Obama.. you look like an idiot now. GWB had the right idea. Tell Russia you are going to put your defense shield right next door.. even if you don't plan on it, or don't think it will work.. and you have leverage.. Obama was a fucking moron, he should have said he planned on EXPANDING the shield and then when the Russians freaked out, use it as a bargaining chip.

I guess world politics isn't the same as community organizing.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
GWB had the right idea.

thats an incredibly stupid thing to say giving our current economic condition...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

I guess world politics isn't the same as community organizing.

Idocy in the form of a 'cute smartass' line is still idiocy.

 

[IGBT]

what do you think he'll do to roll off Taiwan??

 

[yllus]

Links to linkage

Three things of interest here:

1. This is the first in what I expect will be a series of linkage/grand bargain efforts by the Obama administration to various rivals and adversaries;

2. Given the number of officials that talked to Baker, this seems like a planned leak by Obama's foreign policy team -- i.e., they want everyone to know about this proposal to the Russians. This is curious at first glance, because linkage strategies tend to have greater success when done covertly. In this case, I suspect the leak was designed to force the Russians to make a decision one way or another, while giving Obama political cover if they reject the linkage (note that they seem to be adopting the same straegy towards Iran).

3. The letter was sent to Medvedev and not Putin. I'm guessing diplomatic protocol played a role in that decision, but one wonders if it was also part of an effort to split Medvedev away from Putin.

My hunch is that, in the end, the Russians will spurn this deal. Russia has sizeable commercial and strategic interests in Iran, and will want to maintain as much flexibility as possible in dealing with Tehran. If Moscow is smart, however, they will try to parlay this as a means for acting as the interlocutor between Iran and the West.

On the other hand, it seems though the Obama administration can't lose. If the Russians say no, then Obama's hand is strengthened in both Western and Eastern Europe, and Russia loses some leverage in trying to get missile defense out of their backyard.

Interesting. If it's a planned leak, this makes for great political cover in keeping the missile shield politically viable - if the U.S. has reached out its hand to Russia and had it slapped back, what choice does it have but to proceed? It also forces Russia to take some ownership of the developing nuclear weapon situation in Iran.

Outside of that, even if the offer was flatly rejected (which it seems to have been), it's a nice opening gambit to start diplomatic talks on the issue of Iran and Russia's support of that country.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: yllus
Links to linkage

Three things of interest here:

1. This is the first in what I expect will be a series of linkage/grand bargain efforts by the Obama administration to various rivals and adversaries;

2. Given the number of officials that talked to Baker, this seems like a planned leak by Obama's foreign policy team -- i.e., they want everyone to know about this proposal to the Russians. This is curious at first glance, because linkage strategies tend to have greater success when done covertly. In this case, I suspect the leak was designed to force the Russians to make a decision one way or another, while giving Obama political cover if they reject the linkage (note that they seem to be adopting the same straegy towards Iran).

3. The letter was sent to Medvedev and not Putin. I'm guessing diplomatic protocol played a role in that decision, but one wonders if it was also part of an effort to split Medvedev away from Putin.

My hunch is that, in the end, the Russians will spurn this deal. Russia has sizeable commercial and strategic interests in Iran, and will want to maintain as much flexibility as possible in dealing with Tehran. If Moscow is smart, however, they will try to parlay this as a means for acting as the interlocutor between Iran and the West.

On the other hand, it seems though the Obama administration can't lose. If the Russians say no, then Obama's hand is strengthened in both Western and Eastern Europe, and Russia loses some leverage in trying to get missile defense out of their backyard.

Interesting. If it's a planned leak, this makes for great political cover in keeping the missile shield politically viable - if the U.S. has reached out its hand to Russia and had it slapped back, what choice does it have but to proceed? It also forces Russia to take some ownership of the developing nuclear weapon situation in Iran.

Outside of that, even if the offer was flatly rejected (which it seems to have been), it's a nice opening gambit to start diplomatic talks on the issue of Iran and Russia's support of that country.

Nice opening gambit? The Russian told Obama to go F--k himself in regards to Iran. I guess if being bitchslapped by the Russians is a nice opening gambit then I'd hate to see a bad one.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Another Obama win.

Axe a costly missile shield we don't need.

Improve Russian relations.

Get help with Iran.

Thanks for the info CAD.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Go Obama. Good plan.

Originally posted by: Craig234
Or, 'Obama desices shield is a terrible waste of money, and wants to get rid of it, and decides to get some value for doing so by using it in a trade with Moscow'.

good news!

it's back on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10...europe/21biden.html?hp

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: loki8481
good news!

it's back on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10...europe/21biden.html?hp

Biden...in Poland? Must....resist....joke.....

 

[sciwizam]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Another Obama win.

Axe a costly missile shield we don't need.

Improve Russian relations.

Get help with Iran.

Thanks for the info CAD.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Go Obama. Good plan.

Originally posted by: Craig234
Or, 'Obama desices shield is a terrible waste of money, and wants to get rid of it, and decides to get some value for doing so by using it in a trade with Moscow'.

good news!

it's back on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10...europe/21biden.html?hp

"Can't forget Poland?" redux?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Another Obama win.

Axe a costly missile shield we don't need.

Improve Russian relations.

Get help with Iran.

Thanks for the info CAD.

And what "help" do you think we need with Iran? Arent all of you far-left whackos in favor of Iran getting "the bomb" to counter those pesky Zionists?


Typical partisan crap. Agree with whatever your elected President does. How do you feel about Obama striking a sovereign nation that we arent at war with (Pakistan)?

For the record, I applaud this. Russia is not our problem, this isnt 1970. We need good relations with Russia, for together our power can stomp out radical Islam. That is who we need to focus on. Yes, Russia is becoming a resurgent power based on Fossil Fuels, but with a MAD relationship, who gives a shit? Nobody wants to fight.

Those cave-dwelling, virgin-seeking assholes, on the other hand, need to be destroyed or imprisoned. That is where our priorites lie at this time.

ROFL!

even when you agree with the "far-left whackos" you find some way to throw in a partisan cheapshot!

you wiN!!

 

[Carmen813]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
BHO drops the US's pants and bends over for his socialist overloards

Now I'm not sure this information is entirely accurate, but assuming it is - is he insane? Russia isn't our friend in the area of military/security. Selling out our own defense or the defense of our friends for Russia's supposed help with a enemy state? Seems like a bad "deal" IMO.

Just a reminder, it's 2009.

 

[BarrySotero]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The Europeans are not our true friends. Why should we create an enemy to protect them? It's useless anyways since it won't protect them from their biggest enemy - themselves. A missile defense shield will not stop another genocide in Europe.

It's already well established that Obama plans on focusing US relations in other regions. You should check out the British press freaking out over Obama's view of the British. The 21st century American foreign relationship will be different than the 20th century.

It's not well understood that the missile defense shield in Europe was not just for Europe but the US. Long range ballistic missiles need to be intercepted in the medium ranges. Iran has already shown it can launch an ICBM. If Iran ever tried to launch one at US missile defense in Europe could be used to intercept it.



Alas Obama is also going to open up missile tech to his comrades in China (at least he is consistent in catering to our enemies or potential enemies)t

The president issued a little-noticed "presidential determination" Sept. 29 that delegated authority for determining whether missile and space exports should be approved for China to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke...

The presidential notice alters a key provision of the 1999 Defense Authorization Act that required that the president notify Congress whether a transfer of missile and space technology to China would harm the U.S. space-launch industry or help China's missile programs..

Henry Sokolski, director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said restoring Commerce Department control over the sensitive experts is a "step backward."

"It's as though Commerce's mishandling of missile-tech transfers to China in the 1990s never happened," said Mr. Sokolski, a former Pentagon proliferation specialist. "But it did. As a result, we are now facing much more accurate, reliable missiles from China."

Mr. Sokolski said he expects the U.S. government under the new policy to again boost Chinese military modernization through "whatever renewed 'benign' missile technology" is approved.

"It was foolish for us to do this in the 1990s and is even more dangerous for us to do now," he said.

Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, which monitors export control policies, said he was surprised by the decision to shift responsibility back to Commerce -- a change that Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush did not make.

"It is shocking that it would be delegated to the secretary of commerce, whose job it is to promote trade, rather than to the secretary of state or the secretary of defense, who have far more knowledge and responsibility within their organizations for missile technology," Mr. Milhollin said.

Mr. Milhollin said a similar delegation of power would have been criticized in previous administrations. "In fact, the delegation turns the present law upside down because Congress passed it after finding that the Commerce Department had improperly helped China import U.S. missile technology in the 1990s," he said."

http://www.washingtontimes.com...side-the-ring-2059116/

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
BHO drops the US's pants and bends over for his socialist overloards

Now I'm not sure this information is entirely accurate, but assuming it is - is he insane? Russia isn't our friend in the area of military/security. Selling out our own defense or the defense of our friends for Russia's supposed help with a enemy state? Seems like a bad "deal" IMO.

Why do you believe in socialized military ?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
How swiftly we forget, Kennedy went hperspastic at the idea with the threat of a Cuba with nuclear armed missiles that could first strike hit us in a matter of minutes. Yet we assume that Russia should sit idly by when we create the same loaded gun threat against them by basing missiles in Poland?

What are some of you idiots smoking?

Obama is 100% correct, the cold war is supposed to be at an end, the object is to reduce tensions, not increase them.

loaded gun? a paltry half a dozen interceptor missiles couldn't do sh!t against russia's arsenal. russia's outrage about it is completely fake and only advances their own interest.


edit: old thread is old

 

[Sinsear]

He's for it? Or against it? Or for it? Or against it?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: loki8481
good news!

it's back on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10...europe/21biden.html?hp

I'm looking forward to more information on this; I don't much about missle systems and the like. Up til now, the decision to scrap the previous plan and (apparently) abandon our Eastern European allies in hopes of getting Russian cooperation in dealing with Iran looked to be flawed and/or poorly played.

No cooperation has been forthcoming from Russia (Hillary's recent trip to Moscow was an embarrassing failure) and therefor much has been written/said about this 'mistake' reflecting the inexperience and naiveté of the administration. But if this new missle system is an upgrade over the previous one perhaps this is 'payback' for Russia's lack of cooperation? I notice the article did not include an response from Russia to this news.

Fern

 

[alien42]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Another Obama win.

Axe a costly missile shield we don't need.

Improve Russian relations.

Get help with Iran.

Thanks for the info CAD.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Go Obama. Good plan.

Originally posted by: Craig234
Or, 'Obama desices shield is a terrible waste of money, and wants to get rid of it, and decides to get some value for doing so by using it in a trade with Moscow'.

good news!

it's back on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10...europe/21biden.html?hp

what are you smoking? absolutely nothing has changed.

Obama scrapped Bush's shield for a new plan that will cost far less and be ready much sooner. did you not even read the first sentence of the article you linked to?

'Poland, smarting after President Obama announced last month that he would scrap Bush-era plans to deploy an antiballistic missile system in Eastern Europe, will accept an offer to host parts of a new, more mobile, missile defense system, Polish officials said Tuesday.'

 

[manowar821]

Considering I think the idea of a missile shield is repulsive, what-the-fuck-ever.