Obama Continues Bush’s Russia Policy

March 3, 2009

So Obama offered Russia a deal. Except that thist is no deal anyone would take:

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.

Let's recap:

The Bush administration unilaterally declared to install a missile "defense" system in Czechia and Poland, allegedly against Iranian missiles which Iran does not have and is unlikely have within the next decade if ever.Even the U.S. NATO partners were surprised by this.

The Russian's assume, correctly in my view, that these missiles are intended to enable a U.S. nuclear first strike capacity. All missiles defense systems have an inherent attack capability. It would only need a few minutes from launch the of such missiles to reach Moscow and other Russian decision centers.

They could either decapitate Russia or could be used as a defense against a Russian response strike should the U.S. launch a major nuclear first strike. The Mutual Assured Destruction policy that for long assured the non-use of nuclear weapons would be weakened or even ended by those installations.

The Russian's tried to negotiate and offered a bilateral common missile defense against the alleged Iran threat. The U.S. declined.

In response the Russians threatened to install short range nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad to be able to hit the missile defense in Polen an Czechia.

When the Obama administration came into power, Russia made noise that it would refrain from that move if the U.S. would pull back on missile defense. It also offered cooperation on several other issues including Afghanistan.

Obama could have used that to let the missile defense issue just die away. Instead, The Obama administration now wants to blackmail Russia in a rather unrelated (from the Russian standpoint) issue.

Of course it can not agree to that. Once giving in to such blackmail would put Russia in a cycle where the U.S. would press for more concessions, and more, and more …

The New York Times piece linked above puts a lot of official U.S. spin into its story:

Mr. Bush also emphasized the linkage between the Iranian threat and missile defense, but Mr. Obama’s overture reformulates it in a way intended to appeal to the Russians, who long ago soured on the Bush administration.

I do not see anything in reformulated in that proposed deal that could appeal to Russia. There is absolutely no difference between the Bush and Obama administration on this issue.

The U.S. obviously follows Israel's dictate and presses for more sanction to be put on Iran and for eventually attacking it. Iran weakened by further sanctions, and in the end taken over by the U.S. just like Iraq, would be bad for Russia's strategic position.

I expect Moscow will on one side negotiate about this offer and on another side make some surprise move against U.S. 'interests' of its own. If Obama wants to play hardball, I am sure Russia is capable to deliver a decent team and play of its own.

Posted by b on March 3, 2009 at 11:40 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Here is a pertinent piece on Ria Novosti

U.S., Poland playing Patriot games
…
This may mean anything, from readiness to abandon the plan to reaffirming it, or to taking a pause to determine what additional benefits the White House could get from renouncing it. If it does, would such benefits be worth the effort?
The three-day visit by Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski to Washington shows that the White House is considering the third scenario.
Sikorski said after his talks with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on February 25 that he did not know whether the missile shield plan would go ahead.
…
Washington also has other reasons for playing the Patriot games. It said it might abandon its ABM plans for Poland and the Czech Republic if Russia agreed to cut its strategic nuclear weapons arsenal by 80%, bringing the permissible level to 1,000 on either side.
Russia has no reasons to jump for joy at the U.S. proposal, which has not even been clearly formulated. In fact, why should Moscow cut its ballistic missiles when Washington is working to strengthen its ballistic missile defense and take up nuclear cruise missiles with a range of up to 3,000 km (1,865 miles)?
Cutting strategic offensive weapons at the U.S. request would amount to giving it a big advantage in intermediate-range missiles and ballistic missile defense.
When deployed in the regions of the two nuclear powers’ border confrontation (such as Poland), weapons, including ballistic missile defense systems, become geopolitical instruments. Besides, the U.S. needs Patriots in Poland as an ace in the Iran game.
Pentagon chief Robert Gates told Polish newspaper Rzeczpospolita in mid-February that the future of the missile shield and Patriots in Poland depended directly on Moscow’s stance on Iran. If Russia accepted the U.S. view and forced Tehran to abandon its nuclear program, there would be no need for the missile shield and Patriots in Poland.
However, Russia is unlikely to do so. It has completed the construction of the first power unit at the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran and is ready to sign more civil nuclear contracts with it. Pressurizing Iran at this point would mean losing them.
And lastly, deploying Patriots without the deployment of the ballistic interceptor missile would be quite senseless, because Poland is now reliably protected by NATO’s anti-missile systems.

Looks like the Obama-cons are continuing with the neocon games in Eurasia. While simultaneously being tied with their balls in Afghanistan and a precarious economic conditions back home. Annoying Russia beyond a certain point can be very counter-productive. These are not the 90s.

Posted by: a | Mar 3 2009 12:15 utc | 1

it is clearly not a real offer, but some public cover up over the fact that Russia got a deal with Iran before the US.

Posted by: outsider | Mar 3 2009 12:34 utc | 2

“The Obama administration now wants to blackmail Russia”. ~ Tch, b, really, you’re as shameless as Will at the Post. A few minor points:
First, where’s the transcript of what was actually put on the table? and who released the version we’re getting through the (ever so-accurate and truthful) NYT’s?
Second, the issue of missile defence has been on the negotiating table over the last 30 years, with the chimp administration curtailing talks, promoting provocotive installations and instigating a new range of atomic weapons. Apparently, this offer reverses that course, consists of reducing those weapons, and is opening dialogue channels. But “The U.S. obviously follows Israel’s dictate.
b, b, b, you’ve got a couple of the kids who read you so wound up they can hardly write coherently. We all know there’s plenty of real bad news to go around. Why are you reducing every issue you can find (real or imagined) to Murdoch hysteria?

Posted by: waldo | Mar 3 2009 13:11 utc | 3

It should be noted that there are many who feel the missiles are red herrings to the real objective of installing a new radar station in the Czech Republic which would be able to monitor a large swath of Russian territory previously not covered by US radar.
The Russians don’t really care about the missiles so much as they care about a new radar station that would enable the US to monitor Russia. Imagine the US reaction if China were to say that it was going to install a high-tech radar station in Mexico. The US would go apesh*t.
This is why Bush et al rejected Russia’s logical offer to install the radar station in Armavir in southern Russia. Russia called Bush’s bluff once with the Armavir offer. Let’s hope that the US is not bluffing again but rather, is serious in engaging Moscow in a serious discussion about Iran. Moscow has been pleading with Washington to get serious for a long time (think Kosovo, Georgia, missile shield, global monetary system, etc.).

Posted by: Timothy Post | Mar 3 2009 13:16 utc | 4

How about a counter-offer: let the Russians install anti-ballistic missiles in Cuba in case Chavez or Morales goes rogue and develops nuclear missile capability to threaten Eastern Europe…

Posted by: ralphieboy | Mar 3 2009 13:29 utc | 5

How do we know, with absolute certainty, that Obama is not in the process of unwinding Bush’s deals?
Yes, this would be hard for him to do, and yes (therefore) it would take some time, and therefore (yes) we cannot yet know, with absolute certainty, that Obama is not in the process of unwinding Bush’s deals.
To insist with certainty is to rush things, and I, for one, feel pressure from you, b, to say “yes” to your point.
I resist, and feeling pressed to resist is something I find, shall we say, somewhat “wearing”?

Posted by: alabama | Mar 3 2009 14:48 utc | 6

this actually is getting quite funny. So the USA is not building anything in Poland or the Czech Republic.
This is Reuters – probably telling the truth – http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSTRE5223AC20090303
and this is the Guardian spreading silly propaganda – http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/03/obama-russia-iran-nuclear

Posted by: outsider | Mar 3 2009 16:26 utc | 7

an aside, from tha haaretz article:

One question to which Israeli officials will be seeking an answer from Clinton is what role Dennis Ross, the secretary of state’s newly appointed special advisor for the Gulf and Southeast Asia, will actually play. It is widely expected that Ross will focus on the Iranian nuclear issue, but this has not been stated officially.

they looove dennis ross.
I, for one, feel pressure from you, b, to say “yes” to your point.
oh please. it remains to be seen if ‘The U.S. obviously follows Israel’s dictate’, but just reading the list makes me puke. where’s the list of US demands for israel? furthermore, what’s the ‘or else’ if the US doesn’t kowtow to israels demands? screw them!
nyt: The officials who described the contents of the message requested anonymity because it has not been made public.
…………“It’s almost saying to them, put up or shut up,” said a senior administration official.
…………
really? might that senior official be dennis ross?

On Tuesday, a press secretary for Dmitri A. Medvedev told the Interfax news agency that the letter did not contain any “specific proposals or mutually binding initiatives.”
Natalya Timakova said the letter was a reply to one sent by Mr. Medvedev shortly after Mr. Obama was elected.
“Medvedev appreciated the promptness of the reply and the positive spirit of the message,” Ms. Timakova said. “Obama’s letter contains various proposals and assessments of the current situation. But the message did not contain any specific proposals or mutually binding initiatives.”
She said Mr. Medvedev perceives the development of Russian-American relations as “exceptionally positive,”

i’m not so sure how much of this nyt article is accurate, and how much is used to ratchet up the iran threat. who’s peter baker. he’s married to susan glasser, another reporter. her ‘radical islamists’ report contributes to the meme circa spring (both 5/13/05). image makers. i don’t know. the contributor, david sanger, author of
The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power

Sanger takes readers into the White House Situation Room to reveal how Washington penetrated Tehran’s nuclear secrets, leading President Bush, in his last year, to secretly step up covert actions in a desperate effort to delay an Iranian bomb. Meanwhile, his intelligence chiefs made repeated secret missions to Pakistan as they tried to stem a growing insurgency and cope with an ally who was also aiding the enemy–while receiving billions in American military aid. Now the new president faces critical choices: Is it better to learn to live with a nuclear Iran or risk overt or covert confrontation? Is it worth sending U.S. forces deep into Pakistani territory at the risk of undermining an unstable Pakistani government sitting on a nuclear arsenal? It is a race against time and against a new effort by Islamic extremists–never before disclosed–to quietly infiltrate Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program.

i am more inclined to think the reuters piece outsider posted is more accurate, and carries the same quotes from the Medvedev’s press secretary.

Posted by: annie | Mar 3 2009 16:39 utc | 8

again
more reviews of mr sanger’s book which is less than 2 weeks from publication.
telegraph

Iran has amassed enough partially enriched uranium to manufacture a single bomb: Obama will have to decide whether to live with a nuclear Iran or attempt – by diplomacy, stealth or force – to disarm it

History does not often provide second chances. But if, as seems likely, Khatami decides to run against Ahmadinejad in Iran’s presidential election this June and then goes on to win, Obama will be its grateful recipient. As Sanger puts it: “If we stay on the current path, Iran is getting the bomb.”
…..
Obama faces a Himalayan range of problems. Sanger does an authoritative and at times devastating job of capturing them – although solving the Israel-Palestine conflict is inexplicably absent from his list.

i smell agenda.
David Sanger at the NY Times is one of those top-level reporters who often willingly carries water for the Bush administration – promulgating “unofficially official” leaks
my digging paid off, it’s official:
The evening was sponsored by the Center for a New American Security.
lol, “Times’ David E. Sanger: Obama Must ‘Re-Balance The Portfolio’ And Address Multiple Global Threats”.On Thursday, the Pulitzer Prize winning reporter gathered with friends and family at the Willard Intercontinental Hotel in Washington D.C. to introduce his new book The Inheritance: The World Obama Confronts and the Challenges to American Power.

What should president-elect Obama worry about most in the next 12 months?
Obama doesn’t have much time left on Iran. By the time he’s sworn in, the Iranians will have just enough uranium to make one nuclear weapon. Within a year or two, they’ll have enough uranium to declare a significant nuclear capability.

we have a pulitzer prize winning nyt reporter w/his big new iran fear ratchet book.

Posted by: annie | Mar 3 2009 17:17 utc | 9

Suspending judgment re Obama does not mean doing so forever and day. The other side of the suspend judgment coin is doing so with a heaping dose of skepticism.
There was a certain advantage to Bush hiding behind Cheney, and not being accessible to the media. He could refuse to bomb/blockade Iran or pardon Libby, and then have Cheney carry the message to the zionists within and without.
Obama is hands on, so he’s left himself open to direct pressure on Iran, not least from the slew of neocons he’s appointed. He’s to be admired for his ability to do politics, fine, but there’s a saying from somewhere…the smart bird get caught by the beak.
Is it surprising that Obama has cancelled his press conference with Brown? It looks like he’s been blindsided here, so one question is, who within leaked to the NYT? Israel and it’s US allies have been ratcheting up, and today, there’s a story out that Schumer petitioned Bush for this deal a year ago. Really, it will be interesting to see how long Obama can avoid being Lewinskyed into a pretzel.
American politics. A barrel of monkeys is a couple of quiet hours in the library compared.

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Mar 3 2009 17:23 utc | 10

@Timothy Post – I do not think that the radar is the real problem. There are other ways to get radar coverage over Russia – Satellites, AWACS airplanes etc.
@waldo @3 – But “The U.S. obviously follows Israel’s dictate.
b, b, b, you’ve got a couple of the kids who read you so wound up they can hardly write coherently.
Your Obama shilling is trollish. Steve Clemons – certainly not a political radical, but a Washington insider makes the same point about the “Israel’s dictate” link then I do:

Israel is crossing the line by instructing the American Secretary of State and President where there lines “should be”.

Posted by: b | Mar 3 2009 17:54 utc | 11

who within leaked to the NYT?
how ‘within’ is ‘American officials’ or ‘The officials’ ?
first paragraph:”American officials said Monday.”
3rd paragraph: “The officials who described the contents of the message requested anonymity because it has not been made public. ”
not til fourth paragraph: ““It’s almost saying to them, put up or shut up,” said a senior administration official. “It’s not that the Russians get to say, ‘We’ll try and therefore you have to suspend.’ It says the threat has to go away.”
it? the letter is ‘almost like saying to them’? i smell potential spin. this last paragraph could have been referencing ‘Among other things, the letter discussed talks to extend a strategic arms treaty expiring this year and cooperation in opening supply routes to Afghanistan.
‘
if it was referencing iran, how does (‘It’s not that the Russians get to say, ‘We’ll try and therefore you have to suspend.’) this apply? was the only senior administration official’s (dennis ross, holbrook?) quote in reference to the alleged contents of the letter re iran? whoever leaked the info at the beginning of the piece had an obvious agenda, with the timing and all. besides the first 2 references to officials was plural, the last was one person. chances are the information from the beginning of the report, was not garnered at the same time as the other quote.
plus, aa b points out this meme (repeated twice in the article) is total spin

The plan to build a high-tech radar facility in the Czech Republic and deploy 10 interceptor missiles in Poland — a part of the world that Russia once considered its sphere of influence — was a top priority for President George W. Bush to deter Iran in case it developed a nuclear warhead to fit atop its long-range missiles.

bla bla bla
to ‘suspend judgment’ implies there is something to be judged. thus far, i have no idea what was in that letter besides what some ‘officials’ want me to believe (which seems to contradict w/the russian response). i am not in a position to judge what has yet to be revealed. as far as i am concerned i want the defense shield totally scrapped. i will judge any threat to build one accordingly.

Posted by: annie | Mar 3 2009 18:02 utc | 12

Reuters article says Obomba claims the reports about this letter to Medvedev are inaccurate.
I assume that means the reports are accurate.

Posted by: ran | Mar 3 2009 18:23 utc | 13

That someone leaked to the NYT of course is meant to apply pressure, and this implies that the policy on Iran is not firm yet. Probably one avenue that the admin is exploring.
To suspend judgment implies that truth is what we’re after, and to me this means demoting preconceived ideas and wants to the status of hypotheses until reality sets in, which it invariably does.

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Mar 3 2009 18:28 utc | 14

Remind me again, what are the European targets for these Iranian missiles? This whole issue has been a joke since day one, only to pretend that Europe is solidly behind the US vis a vis Iran. Why would Iran waste a missile on Warsaw when it has so many US bases and carriers to target in the Gulf? That’s if Iran wanted to invite massive retaliation.
My take is that Obama wants to save some money by cutting this ridiculous project but he has to look like he’s getting something in return. The Russians want to take credit for blunting US recklessness and don’t want to appear like they are giving up anything. Cue the dance number…
Meanwhile, Sanger (nee Judith Miller), et al. want to exact more concessions for Israel in return for Obama’s supposed neglect of the Iranian threat. Or, the companies building the missile-shield sites are pushing these leaks to try to stop the cancellation.

Posted by: biklett | Mar 3 2009 18:55 utc | 15

Thanks, Annie. Another mole flushed out!
I love the reviewer’s line: “History does not often provide a second chance. . .” Yes, every event of the last 100 years proves that you should always act on your first impulse.

Posted by: seneca | Mar 3 2009 19:02 utc | 16

To suspend judgment implies that truth is what we’re after
Thrasyboulos , to judge a letter implies we know the truth of the letter. and if the nyt article is true, why is russia wearing a happy face about it? why don’t you tell us what the letter says. and while your at it, why don’t you tell us what israel wants to know regarding ross. what role Dennis Ross, the secretary of state’s newly appointed special advisor for the Gulf and Southeast Asia, will actually play. and why wasn’t he just appointed special envoy to iran if that is in fact who he is? and if israel knows who he is, why are they asking?

Posted by: annie | Mar 3 2009 20:09 utc | 17

What biklett said. Any disentanglement will send all those with a potential interest or contract squawking like poultry frightened by airplane shadows.

Posted by: anna missed | Mar 3 2009 20:27 utc | 18

A nukulear Iran? I think not. Read the reports from the IAEA over time.
Iraq had WMD? Biological or whatever? Not, now confirmed. The only surprising thing is that none were ‘found.’ Actually, everyone knew that did not matter, it wasn’t worth the trouble to invent anything, the US public doesn’t care, doesn’t follow the news, or more fairly is not given the opportunity to do so.
North Korea has rockets that can hit the the US? As I saw on CNN, impressive pictures, with an arrow pointing right at NY! I know nothing about the technical details but the threat is obvious nonsense.
The terrorist threat, Islamic fundamentalists, cyber attacks, maybe the Pashtun peasants in Pakistan will send poison letters?
A country terrified, hyper anxious, protective, defensive, paranoid, hysterical, posturing (see Israel) has lost the upper hand, for ever, is dealing from a position of weakness, or only counting on coercion, bullying, military strength. Baad calculation. Obama is rightly doing his best to reverse that. As it appears on the surface.

Posted by: Tangerine | Mar 3 2009 20:37 utc | 19

ran 13 Reuters article says Obomba claims the reports about this letter to Medvedev are inaccurate.
the reuters article outsider posted titled Russia willing to talk missiles, Iran separate doesn’t reference obamas claims, just the russians

Asked about a report in the New York Times that U.S. President Barack Obama had written to him offering to back off deploying a new missile system in Eastern Europe in return for help with the Iranians, Medvedev said signals from Washington were positive but the two issues were separate.
“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,” Medvedev told a news conference in Madrid, where he was on a state visit.

i’m going to assume Medvedev is quoted correctly and that he has read the letter. this directly contradicts the nyt article. w/nyt history of making stuff up to carry water for the neocons i have no idea why anyone would take there word for anything directly refuted by direct quotes from the president of russia.
also the russians claim this letter was IN RESPONSE to the initial letter sent from the president of russia to the new prez. why would the first greeting contain a threat?

Posted by: annie | Mar 3 2009 21:13 utc | 20

Hi Annie,
We’re in agreement. We don’t know what’s in the letter, precisely, how vague it is, who leaked it. If I were to guess it would be that someone in the Obama administration wants to create some reality out of discussion points. We don’t know the truth about what’s in the letter, therefore cannot judge with finality. Therefore suspend judgement. Clear?
So far, Medvedev has denied the NYT story, and so has Obama. Therefore the interesting questions are, who made something definite out of something vague, and why.

Posted by: Thrasyboulos | Mar 3 2009 22:23 utc | 21

i see what you mean Thrasyboulos. who made something definite out of something vague, and why.
hmmmm, it certainly was splattered all over the news today, eclipsed US: ‘Inescapable’ movement to Palestinian state.

Posted by: annie | Mar 4 2009 2:47 utc | 22

Annie, you do very, very good work. Congratulations and thank you.
b, aside the fact that at this juncture I was trolling for no-one but in fact, pointing out that your sensationalist wanking aimed at Obama,“Obama blackmails Russia” which is worse than any trolling I’ll ever do, is fucking trash and if you didn’t know it before, you do know it now.
As for “Israel dictates to America”, that wasn’t even true when the fundie chimp and his Fred Phelps moral majority were shoving their ‘God makes us do it’ line down everyone’s throat.
Benefits to Israel of U.S. Aid
Since 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)
Foreign Aid Grants and Loans
$74,157,600,000
Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)
$9,047,227,200
Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments
$1,650,000,000
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
Total Benefits per Israeli
$14,630
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.
Aid to Israel
Grand Total
$84,854,827,200
Interest Costs Borne by U.S.
$49,936,680,000
Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers
$134,791,507,200
Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli
$23,240
Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel’s often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel’s annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.
In addition, there is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1 billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1 billion annually in recent years.
Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world’s population and already has one of the world’s higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel’s GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries.~http://www.wrmea.com/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm
Israel has been a tool of the US utilised to destabilise the Middle East for 50 years. Any capacity to dictate to the US rests on that premise. Rearrange the deck chairs a little and Israel’s bigotry and war-crimes will stand out in bas-relief. And those chairs are currently being shifted, hence the propagandists that Annie so capably exposed crawling from their lairs under the auspices of right-wing ‘think-tanks.’
Once again for the feeble minded ~ I troll for no-one. Glenzilla keeps my optimism for the new presidency under strict control. But I will not stand by and watch what happened to Clinton, to happen again.

Posted by: waldo | Mar 4 2009 3:28 utc | 23

Oh, and Annie, I didn’t praise your clever, intuitive and laser-focus work enough. Brilliant. Thanks again.

Posted by: waldo | Mar 4 2009 3:30 utc | 24

annie
it just seems like caudeville schtick to me – when you want to invade somewhere in the middle east – you pretend earnestly to believe in palestinian sovereignty – but they talk about a palestinian authority that is an empty shell – some awful dream dreamt by some sociopath in the state dept

Posted by: remembereringgiap | Mar 4 2009 3:31 utc | 25

Financial Times with Medvedev’s answer to the Missile Defense/Iran linkage – just as I expected: Russia hails new US tone on missiles

Mr Medvedev on Tuesday said Russia would not be involved in any deal designed to dissuade the US from installing the system near its borders.
“If we are talking about some sort of trade or exchange, then I can say that the question cannot be put that way – it’s not productive,” he said.
But he added: “What we are receiving from our American partners is evidence of one thing at least, that they are willing to discuss this problem, which is already good because just a few months ago we were receiving different signals.”
He reiterated that Moscow would be willing to participate in missile defence if it were a “global” project and not a “fragment, located near the Russian border”.

Posted by: b | Mar 4 2009 6:07 utc | 26

‘Not productive’ to link US missile defense, Iran in talks: Medvedev
MADRID, March 3 (AFP) Mar 03, 2009
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Tuesday it was “not productive” to link talks over a US missile defense system in Europe with Iran’s suspected nuclear program as proposed by Washington.
“If we are to speak about some sort of exchange, the question has not been presented in such a way, because it is not productive,” he said when asked about a letter US President Barack Obama wrote to him regarding the two issues.
“Our American partners are ready to discuss this problem,” added Medvedev at a joint news conference with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. “This is already good.”
Earlier Tuesday the New York Times reported that Obama suggested in a secret letter sent to Medvedev three weeks ago that Washington would back off deployment of the missile defense shield if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range missiles.
Confirming that Obama sent a letter to Medvedev, a senior US official told AFP on condition of anonymity that the missive covered “a broad range of topics including missile defense and how it relates to the Iranian threat.”

Posted by: a | Mar 4 2009 6:37 utc | 27

I think this story is FUD and disinfo. There are a lot of players in the establishment that want their aggressive posture, regardless of whether it ends in a nuclear war or not. Some of the devotees of population reduction may actually want a nuclear war. . .regardless, I am of the opinion that, in light of Medvedev’s remarks, that this leak is false info designed to cement the nutsy-neocon foreign policy in place.
Let us hope that effort fails, and that Obama has a bit more sense than his predecessors.

Posted by: Anonymous | Mar 4 2009 17:47 utc | 28

This is FUD and disinfo; I am almost certain of it, in light of Medvedev’s recent remarks. I am of the opinion that the faction within our government that wants an aggressive stance (and in some cases, an outright nuclear war to effect their desire for a massive reduction in the human population) is trying to cement the Bush foreign policy in place through these leaks of false information. In many cases, the impression of what our foreign policy is can be just as important as the actual foreign policy, and that explains why these “Obama has the same policy as Bush” stories are so prevalent, and so often contradicted.

Posted by: Li | Mar 4 2009 17:51 utc | 29

b, your 26 link repeats the election stance of O re the missile defense.
US officials say the plan would only proceed if it was shown to be practical and cost-effective.
i always read this as a way out. i read it somewhere yesterday but the words were changed to ‘technically’ sound, which implies if was deemed in working order it would be built. i always thought the ambiguity of the statement was a way of evading coming out and saying ‘it isn’t a feasible solution to peace’ ie not practical and never will be.
also the framing. not admitting what we all know is the reason for it, defense against russia by way of saying it was for iran, and since the perceived threat of iran will also lessen, we won’t need it for them either.
r’giap, my point was more the timing. finally we have this conference in cairo and not a peep about it in the press. the entire news coming out of the region is dominated by iran, who’s running the show!
also, i would like to make one more point. i am not convinced ross is the ‘point man’ for iran. i know they think if they keep repeating it they think they can make that happen. for anyone who hasn’t read this state department press briefing re ross, i highly recommend it.
listen to the reporter trying to repeatedly corner woods into calling ross an envoy. trying to pigeonhole him to iran. he ain’t fallen for it.
Let me be clear, he’s not an envoy. He will not be negotiating. He’ll be working on regional issues. He will not be – in terms of negotiating, will not be involved in the peace process. But again, he is going to be advising the Secretary on long-term strategic issues across the region.

Posted by: annie | Mar 5 2009 17:12 utc | 30

Back to Main