Putin Postures
Well… this is unexpected.
Vladimir Putin, bitterly opposed to a U.S. missile shield in Europe, presented President Bush with a surprise counterproposal Thursday built around a Soviet-era radar system in Azerbaijan rather than new defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. Bush said it was an interesting suggestion and promised to consider it.
Putin’s formula would force a major rethinking of U.S. plans for defending Europe against attack from hostile regimes such as Iran or North Korea. While outright acceptance of Putin’s idea appeared doubtful, the White House seemed eager to avoid further inflaming tensions by giving it short shrift.The Russian president said he would abandon his threat to retarget missiles on Europe — if Bush accepted the Kremlin’s missile-defense proposal.
On the one hand, Azerbaijan is closer to Iran and offers a good opportunity to have facilities close to them. On the other hand, we already have facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan (both sides of Iran) and Poland integrates better into our overall defense network. I suspect that we will reject Putin’s offer, which is exactly what he expects us to do.
Oh, and Azerbaijan (a Muslim country rather closely tied to the Iranians) just happens to be on the direct-flight path between Iran and Moscow.
I don’t believe the plan for Europe involved engagement of the missiles in the boost phase, so Azerbaijan (or Armenia or Georgia, if Putin were interested in having it in a semi-secure country) wouldn’t be a particularily-good place to put it. OTOH, the airborne laser would work great there, because that is designed for boost-phase engagements.
Posted by steveegg on June 07, 2007 at 2126 hrs
Leave it to Numbnutz to restart the Cold War.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 07, 2007 at 2218 hrs
kr,
That’s like saying that if you put on a bulletproof vest in Milwaukee you are causing crime. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. Putting a missle defense system in Eastern Europe does not cause Putin to do anything. He may use that to rationalize his actions but that is his choice. If the missle shield was causal, then Putin wouldn’t have a choice on how to react. How come you don’t say that Putin is restarting the cold war?
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 0725 hrs
And what exactly did Putin do to kick off Bush pushing the defense shield?
Seems to me with Americans now wary of terror alerts everytime this administration gets in trouble, now he has to posture in Europe.
Iran is now where near having nuclear launch capabilities.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 0731 hrs
And what exactly did Putin do to kick off Bush pushing the defense shield?
So we can’t install a missle shield unless a country that happens to have missles agrees? Back to my analogy, should you have to ask the thug in Milwaukee if you can put on your bulletproof vest?
Iran is now where near having nuclear launch capabilities.
Strawman fallacy. If Iran does not have launch capabilities (an assumption, though probably correct) you somehow use that to justify Putin aiming warheads at eastern Europe. Back to my analogy, there are no guns in the middle schools (an assumption) therefore the thug has the right to aim his gun at me if I am wearing a bulletproof vest. Sounds silly, but it is the same argument you are presenting.
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 0848 hrs
The radar site in Azerbaijan is too close to Iran, and would have a very limited amount of time to track inbound missiles that could be launched from Iran.
This is just about Putin putting Bush on the defensive and forcing him to react. Very shrewd move.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 0853 hrs
What this is really about is Russia desire to be important. The missile sheild does not really have anythign to do with Russia - they are not the primary threat. BUt becuase Russia needs it to be all about them Putin has decided that we are trying to build a missile sheild to aimed at preventing them from attacking Europe.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 0917 hrs
An administration that knows what it’s doing would have talked to Russia before doing this. It’s called diplomacy.
After all, didn’t Bush look into Putin’s eyes? Isn’t Russia the kind of economy libertarians think is successful? Vladamir is making these guys look like amateurs, which they kind of are.
Love Jon Stewart’s comment last night about “Bush said it was an interesting suggestion and promised to study it”. In other words, he is going to try and find Azerbaijan on the map.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 1129 hrs
So now Bush is a libertarian? Huh, didn’t know that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 1259 hrs
kr,
Diplomacy is not asking permission. When we targeted our missles, we decided where we were going to point them without asking permission. We did what we thought was in the best interest of our Country. Why in the world would we need to discuss putting a missle shield up?
Are you capable of saying that Putin is wrong? Where is Putin’s diplomacy? Bush takes a defensive action and Putin takes an offensive one yet you claim Bush is restarting the cold war. Are you capable of discussing the merits of a missle shield in general and its location in specific?
Your reliance on insulting people to distract from your lack of reasoning is very tiresome.
Joe,
I believe you are primarily correct. The Russian national identity tends to be one of inadequacy and fear of irrelevance. We must also remember that Russia has been attacked several times with devastating consequences. With the U.S. tied to Poland and Czech, the protective barrier they fought so hard for after WWII will be gone.Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 1300 hrs
You are right, diplomacy is not asking permission. It is negotiating.something foreign to the rightwing talk show/FOX news world of Bush international relations.
Merits of a missle shield? From Joseph Cirincione – senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and author of the new book, Bomb Scare:
“President Bush is rushing to deploy a technology that does not work against a threat that does not exist,” Cirincione says. “Iran is at least 5 to 10 years away from the capability to build a nuclear weapon and at least that far from having a missile that could hit Europe let alone the US. And anti-missile systems are still nowhere near working despite $150 billion spent since the 1983 Star Wars program started and years of phony tests staged to demonstrate ‘progress’ and ‘success.’”
And of course not giving a crap about what people want is a hallmark of this administration:
The people of the Czech Republic and Poland continue to oppose the plans. Recent polls show that over 60 percent of Czechs are opposed and only 25 percent of Poles support the missile defense plan.
The mayor of the Czech village of Trokavec where the radar site would be located recently held a referendum and 71 of 72 votes were cast against the plan. The mayor of Stitov, Vaclav Hudec, and “most of” his village’s 58 residents “are bitterly opposed” to the radar site.
This nonsense “star wars” defense has always been destabilizing to international diplomacy and here is fresh evidence.
The Russians have always been excellent chess players, so Bush as usual is getting himself into a game he can’t play with our mainstream media cheering him on. What’s insulting? The comments about Bush? He earned them. For that matter what the hell is he doing in the office still?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 1401 hrs
kr,
You negotiate when you want the other side to do something. The Russians are the ones who want us to do something different. They are the ones who need to engage in diplomacy and negotiations.
It seems that you are incapable of presenting reasons that address the issue at hand. I have not once said that the missle shield and its location was either good or bad. I have not commented on Bush or Putin and their respective intelligence.
Do you think that Putin’s reaction was the right reaction? Try to answer without using the words Bush, right-wing, Fox, or conservative.
Whether the some of the people of Poland or Czech want the missle shield sites there or not is irrelevant to whether Putin’s reaction was right. Are you capable of presenting sound or cogent arguments or must you always use fallacies. If you are not able, please let the rest of us know so that we can start treating your posts with the irrelevancy they lately deserve.
Tad
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 1420 hrs
Since everyone ont he left jumps up and down about the Heritage Foundation etc. I am calling bullshit on citing to the Center for American Progress. After all they are self-described leftists. http://www.americanprogressaction.org/aboutus
But on the substance - it is a good thing that we are getting ready to deploy the missle shield years before Iran delivery systems materialize. This idea of waiting until its too late before we act is just stupid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 1433 hrs
Putin’s reaction against what? A missile shield that doesn’t work that even the joint chiefs regard as a “pet rock?”
You got to have something that’s defensible Tad. And you are presenting sound, cogent arguments for a technology that as of yet has not proven to work?
I so glad you are the arbiter here when it comes to definition of terms. Diplomacy also involves keeping your allies in the loop and not acting unilaterally. Russia is still an arbiter.
And sorry to add another element here (nature of a blog I’ll bet), but for a president who has done nothing in the way of securing loose nukes I don’t need your lectures about anything Bush has to do with our security and Europe’s security. I’m all for real security measures. The missile shield doesn’t fall under that category.
It’s the other way around Joe. I have a feeling that Iran will perfect their capabilities long before we do on SDI.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 1529 hrs
I so glad you are the arbiter here when it comes to definition of terms. Diplomacy also involves keeping your allies in the loop and not acting unilaterally. Russia is still an arbiter.
Yeah, but they’re not an ally.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 1910 hrs
...a technology that as of yet has not proven to work?
Get your facts straight.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123026360
http://www.nowpublic.com/navy_ballistic_missile_defense_success_at_sea_todayPosted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 1921 hrs
Oh really Tony—http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3970&from;_page=../index.cfm.
You so very much want to believe, but Bush has been wrong on so many things before.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 08, 2007 at 2236 hrs
You reference a test that failed after I reference two that worked. Guess what, that’s why they test this stuff. You’re not going to get away with your assertion that this technology doesn’t work. The success rate on these tests is very high. And btw, it’s not about believing Bush. I’m no fan of the man. It’s about faith in the finest military and the best defense industry in the world.
Also, I’m still trying to figure out your assertion that Bush is a libertarian, but am not having much success.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2007 at 0706 hrs
I know of no one among the weapons systems experts who regards the missile defense system as being a boondoggle.
Tony, you tell me where I said Bush is a liberatarian. Do all you guys fog up with mention of the word Bush by a liberal, or Hillary by anybody?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2007 at 1917 hrs
I know of no one among the weapons systems experts who regards the missile defense system as being a boondoggle.
Then we’re in agreement.
Tony, you tell me where I said Bush is a liberatarian [sic].
Sure, #8 above:
An administration that knows what it’s doing would have talked to Russia before doing this. It’s called diplomacy.
After all, didn’t Bush look into Putin’s eyes? Isn’t Russia the kind of economy libertarians think is successful? Vladamir [sic] is making these guys look like amateurs, which they kind of are.
You sandwiched in the libertarians line right between a sentence about Bush and one about ‘these guys’. Either you called him libertarian, or your writing was even sloppier than usual.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 09, 2007 at 2024 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134049
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 09:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 104
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 10:07 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).