Blogs and Stories
Your Move, Mr. Putin
RIA-Novosti / AP Photo; Gerald Herbert / AP Photo
Obama’s decision to drop the planned missile shield in Eastern Europe is hardly a bow to the Kremlin—the program will continue on a larger scale. The real question, says Michael Idov, concerns Putin’s side of the bargain.
President Obama has chucked overboard another item of baggage bequeathed to him by George W. Bush: the missile-shield initiative that would deploy 10 interceptors in Poland and a sophisticated radar system in the Czech Republic. To say that this program chafed Russia is to say nothing: The Kremlin even thought it droll to wave Obama into office by announcing—on November 5, 2008!—that it would place nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad, Russia’s long-suffering Westernmost enclave, as a countermeasure. And now, seemingly with no immediate provocation, the radar is intercepted and the interceptors are off the radar. What gives? Is Obama capitulating before the Kremlin? Should the hawks be vindicated in their vision of the president (or any Democrat, really) as a foreign-policy weakling?
Hell, no. The beauty of this move is that it costs the U.S. absolutely nothing. The program itself is not being shuttered or downsized—quite the opposite; the missile shield will now be implemented in a kind of modular form but on a larger scale, throughout Europe. (“Possibly,” points out The New York Times in a hilariously dry aside that undermines its own headline two paragraphs in, “even in Poland or the Czech Republic.”) The switch to smaller SM-3 missiles is sensible and realistic and in keeping with the administration’s goal of dealing with nonexistent problems in the decreasing order of likelihood; however crappy a state our world is in, a full-scale nuclear attack by Russia is not exactly high on the clear-and-present-danger list.
Everyone wins. Obama gets to streamline the military, and the Kremlin, which loves nothing more than a sustained heat of Western attention, gets to announce that the White House caved in to its pressure.
Everyone wins. Obama gets to streamline the military, and the Kremlin, which loves nothing more than a sustained heat of Western attention, regardless of the nature of that attention, gets to announce that the White House caved in to its pressure. Depriving Moscow of a thing to whine about is, perversely enough, a victory in itself. (I’ve written about this odd aspect of the U.S.-Russian relations in the past.) Moscow’s other current grievances—the perceived U.S. interference in Ukraine and Georgia, for instance—are less tangible and don’t cohere into any specific demands. Thus, the only question is what will be Medvedev’s (just kidding—Putin’s) tit for Obama’s tat. One obvious guess is a more docile position on Iran: The Kremlin continues waxing upset about any new sanctions, but it will be interesting to check for a change of tone when Iran talks to the world’s six nuclear powers on October 1. Whatever Russia’s side of the bargain is, there’s little doubt that it was predetermined well before Thursday’s announcement—most likely during Obama’s August visit to Moscow.
Still, this leaves Obama open to mild political fallout at home. The zero-sum conservatives Stateside, who think that if Russia is pleased it automatically means America has failed, will pick up on the Kremlin’s inevitable gloating for the domestic audience and take it at face value (or pretend to). The idea that Russia has somehow strong-armed the U.S. into this tweak is laughable. In scrapping the Polish and Czech installations, the White House has essentially put down an old dog that drove the neighbor nuts and got a litter of kittens instead; whether the neighbor considers it his personal victory is rather beside the point.
As for the fact that the administration managed to announce the move on the 70th anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Poland: a bit awkward, but surely meaningless, though I imagine it will rattle some nerves in Warsaw.
Michael Idov is a contributing editor at New York magazine and has covered Russia for The New Republic. His debut novel, Ground Up, will be published later this month.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
Amateur Hour at the White House
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Airports From Hell
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
8 New Internet Sex Fads
Rachel Kramer Bussel is the editor of Peep Show: Erotic Tales of Voyeurs and Exhibitionists, Bottoms Up and over 25 other erotica anthologies, and hosts and curates In The Flesh Reading Series.
Obama's Russia Problem
Michael Idov is a contributing editor at New York Magazine and has covered Russia for The New Republic. His debut novel, Ground Up, has just been released.
OBAMA: You're move Mr. Putin.
PUTIN: Jump.
OBAMA: How high?
@reardongalt.. the small minded folks like you, is there not a tea bag party you should be attending?
Nice contribution.
Anyway, I seriously doubt that any actualy security issues will come of this move, i definetly do not think its in russian interest to want to start another world war but it gives me pause. A man quintessentially positioning himself to become russia's dictator is getting more influence and clout, he is a power hungry man, and we should always be wary of the power hungry. This will probably turn out to be a domestic win for putin at the expense of russias neighbors.
This move is good for the US. Your position is short-sited.
whoever said it wasnt?
I have never believed that the Russians intended aggression against NATO, and cannot imagine how it would be in their interests to start a world war that might go nuclear. Obviously, no one this side of sanity is ever going to do that. Similarly, I can understand why they do not want NATO extended any further to the east, and I doubt that Obama is going to do so anyway.
Nor can I imagine that the Russians are all that happy with Islamic states on its southern borders that are armed with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, so that might end up being a basis for some cooperation between Russia and the West.
At least, no one is continuing with the silly pretense that this anti-missile system in Eastern Europe had anything to do with Iran. The Russians always insisted that it was directed against them, and in this case they had it right all along. Personally, I would be happy to use this occasion for further reductions in nuclear weapons in both Russia and the US, for these things are only useless monstrosities that only a certified lunatic would actually want to use. No one seems to have picked up on this angle, though--that of arms reduction talks between the US and Russia.
In any event, the US is not exactly the Great Superpower of 1945. We haven't been in a long time, and are no longer strong enough to play the role of hegemon around the world. We have immense problems at home that we must concentrate on, so we should just be content to be one power among many and give up any remaining delusions about trying to reshape the world in our own image. We should work with other powers when they are willing to work with us, and play our part in reformed global organizations that deal with problems of poverty, hunger, disease, social and economic development. I firmly believe that at least 90% of the problems in this world have no military solution at all.
There are no winners among the individual citizens of planet earth when it comes to building missiles and building missile defense systems. Building weapons and weapon defenses only benefit war profiteers. We are evolved enough as a species to know this, yet we are constantly bombarded by media spread fears that we should be afraid of people of different ethnicities and religious beliefs who will destroy us if we disarm our planet. Whether our leaders are truly consumed with fear or whether they are driven by war profits it does not change the fact that continuing the culture of war is an immoral dead end for future generations. Where are the real leaders of the human race?
I agree that there is a terrible waste of resources devoted to weapons of any kind. However, Iran keeps building missiles and Obama can't stop them. I'd rather have a defense system than not when their missiles start firing.
lefty, it's just like with guns. If you outlaw them, only outlaws are left with them, and law abiding folks are at their mercy. Same goes with missiles.
That is a very weak argument about the potential of the human species. You are, and people are, what they believe they are. I believe we are capable of much more than just potential victims of the most vile of our kind.
Amazing how everyone misses the whole point of the missile defense system: Iran. Russia is an annoyance as they proved in Georgia last year (they just can't resist being the bully in the schoolyard, what idiots), but the real threat is the religious nut-jobs in the middle east with their finger on the trigger just waiting for a nuke.
leftygoleft: The only problem with your argument is that the wackos will indeed do their best to kill off their enemies if given the chance. It's not that Iranians in general are bad, just that they allow religious morons with a Nazi-like agenda to be in power. If you don't think that they would blow up Israel if there was no threat of retaliation then well you just don't understand how things were in the 13th century very well (the same mentality Iran still has today).
Yes, the Iranian regime is fascist and I hope its own people overthrow it, but I have never believed the anti-missile system in Poland had anything to do with Iran. The Russians were right all along that it was directed against them, even though Bush-Cheney always denied it.
leftygoleft asks where are the real leaders of the human race. Well, not in Iran. So while they talk of of exterminating millions of people, and would if they could, leftygoleft saves his fury for war profiteers"and those who would defend us. Very typical of the left, like the leaders of the human race in 1939 who conspired with a maniac to cut Poland in half between them
You sound like a pathetic media soundbyte. Most Iranians are young progressive and anti-war. I seriously doubt that comparing 1939 and Hitler to the modern age of instant communication is going to fly with any intelligent person today.
Sure, let's start another illegal preemptive war that will supposedly pay for itself in oil revenues and yet leave us in the hole for a trillion dollars more.
The fact of the matter is, revolution is coming in Iran. As lefty points out, most Iranians are young and polar opposite to Ahmadinejad. This past election was the rumblings of a sea change. Even if they don't ultimately win this time around, there is momentum, it is growing, and there will be revolution. More likely than not, the revolution will be velvety. We only strengthen Ahmadinejad's position by vilifying him and outspokenly supporting the opposition..
And Neville Chamberlain was a leader of the British Tories, hardly a man of the Left.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
dabeall: Luckily the real risk to humanity - George W. Bush - is no longer in office.
You did notice his two unwinnable and unnecessary wars, didn't you? You and your grandchildren will certainly be paying for them.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
dabeall: Personally, I hope Obama is more successful in the "War on Terror" (obsolete terminology, by the way) than Bush was.
I don't call 9/11 being very successful, do you? Too bad Bush and Cheney didn't pay more attention to the page-and-a-half section of the President's Daily Brief from 6 August 2001, headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US".
By the way, I suspect the Iraqis were happier under that "tyrannical dictator" than they have been since we "won" the war in Iraq (Mission Accomplished!).
Dabeall: apparently you could use a few lessons in international relations and economics. GWB may be out of office, but we'll be feeling the effects of his 8 years of failed policy for years to come. Look up "leading versus lagging economic indicators".
Iraq was a more or less stable country when we preemptively (illegally) invaded. Currently, it's a borderline failed state. We were lied to from the start - it didn't pay for itself from oil revenues, there are no WMDs, and the only connection Al Qaeda is the insurgents that crossed the border AFTER we invaded.
Now if you look at Iran and take a second to realize that the entire world is not falling over itself to be friends with America, you might understand why overtly opposing Ahmadinejad only strengthens his position, and overtly supporting the opposition weakens their cause. If we sit back and keep a low profile, Iran will be on its way to becoming a free, democratic state by the time they would have nuclear capabilities. Look no further than this year's election - the winds are changing and the momentum is growing. Let's try not screw it up with Bush era cowboy antics.
Our strength is not very great since our economy has declined over the last 30 years, and is now in the tank. We are no longer strong enough to be the global power we once were, but only one power among many in a multi-polar world.
"...According to a survey published Saturday in Polish daily Rzeczpospolita by polling firm GFK, some 48 percent of respondents said the U.S. decision was good for Poland with only 31 percent disagreeing. A solid majority, 58 percent, said the move would have no impact on Poland's security. The public doesn't seem sold on the notion that the move was just about providing the most effective defense against Iran..."-Reuters
http://tinyurl.com/my9baq
Excellent point to bring up - I hadn't thought to check on local opinion polls.
A little off topic but close enough....
ISLAMABAD (AP) -- Pakistani police raided a local security firm that helps protect the U.S. Embassy on Saturday, seizing dozens of allegedly unlicensed weapons at a time when unusually intense media scrutiny of America's use of private contractors has deepened anti-U.S. sentiment.
Two employees of the Inter-Risk company were arrested during the raids in Islamabad, police official Rana Akram said. Reporters were shown the seized weapons -- 61 assault rifles and nine pistols. Akram said police were seeking the firm's owner.
U.S. Embassy spokesman Rick Snelsire said the U.S. contract with Inter-Risk to provide security at the embassy and consulates took effect this year. It is believed to be the first U.S. contract for the firm, said Snelsire, who did not have a figure for its amount.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/09/19/world/AP-AS-Pakistan.html?_r= 2&partner=TOPIXNEWS&ei=5099
This is ridiculous - why don't we have US soldiers and personnel guarding embassies?
Come on, Putin does not have to give up anything or make any concessions in this move. Maybe he gives the US some additional freedom in the overflight priviledges vis a vis Afghanistan but that's not really a concession since he's doing it already. Nope, this was a chess move and in reality, it's Obama's turn to move.
The Russians knew correctly that the missle thing was never about Iran, that it was more about them. If Obama wants to see what Putin and Russia is really up to, then he should scrap the missles but commit to the big radar /listening base in the Czech Republic and the commitment to NATO exercises in Poland and the diversion of a brigade or two from Germany.....that should flush Putin out. He'll probably cut by half to 2/3 the natural gas to Prague and Budapest for that.
We(old NATO) have to demonstrate our commitment to these new members of NATO in a manner of than just words in a speech or on some peice of paper in Brussels. This could be an oppotunity. If not, then we will be seen as surrender monkeys.
I can't believe that we ever thought Russia would launch missiles at Europe for any reason. U.S. missile sites in Europe obviously have just been political gamesmanship to discourage Russian aggression in any of the old basic (non-nuclear) forms.
Iran, however, is another matter. The religious fanatics there actually are crazy, and there exists a reak need for a missile system protecting Israel.
Imanutjob wants Israel wiped off the face of earth. He thinks the 12th Imam is going to come up out of his specified well and that will mean the beginning of Muslim rule over all the world.
We need missile defense.
Brzezinski summed it up perfectly: (to paraphrase) Obama ended a technology that didn't work meant to protect us from a non-existent threat (Iran has no long range missles). Why does it drive conservatives crazy when foriegn policy is based on reality and not fantasy. Answer: reality is harder to deal with.
Censorship Alert:
TDB has hit the boards hard today, removing dozens of posts. I recall some of them, because I have a response posted to a now-nonexistent comment. NONE of the posts I recall were objectionable in any free society. They were not vitriol, although TDB is rife with vitriol that is not censored. They did not have foul language or serious personal attacks, although TDB that are standing do.
What's going on Daily Beast? Even though none of mine have been removed, I say goodbye to TDB, at least until they stop this McCarthy-like assault.
Wonder if this one will be removed, too?
connie47: Ritarita seems to be a non-person now.
It happened to me a few weeks back - all my posts were deleted for a few hours before mysteriously reappearing. There is yet hope for Ritarita.
She's back
LQQK
I'm back.
Good as new.
Victim of a technical glitch
I'm assuming-
Since snark isn't usually enough
To warrant the death penalty
Around here.
In terms of your concern
As Elvis would have said-
Thang you verah much.
There's obviously a very cranky, priggish intern who works on weekends.
Now we have turned our backs on Poland & the Czech & left them for Russia to come in & take over goes to show you how much Obama knows about foreign affairs,Russia has just make friends with Iran & I am sure they are laughing at us & Obama. Robert Gates either has lost his mind or has been bought out. Obama & Clinton are trying to tell Hondurus to bring back their old leader that they just kicked out of the country & brought in who they want. Obama & Clinton are trying to make Chevez happy by telling Hondurus to bring back the old crooked guy that they just kicked out. Since when did we start trying to make a dictator happy? One that not only is friends with the crooked Hondurus guy that was just kicked out but also, with Castro. What is going on? We do not want international law here in America. We want our Freedoms & our Constitution to be followed. Stop trying to change America into a government controlled socialist government. I do not think people voted for Obama to take away all our rights, spread the wealth, run corporations out of America to other countries & make sure to over tax us because they will have no other means to pay for their senseless enviormental projects (that are a bunch of nonsense) but should not be even on the list of priorities, cap & trade is ridiculous as it will cost millions their jobs & we can't afford to be changing energy around. We need to use our own energy like drilling for oil here & now, forget electric cars no one is going to want them. We do not want our currency to change, like the UN brought up. And why is paying so much attention to the UN.
They hate America & are totally useless. They are so crooked & out dated & we need to only attend their meetings but not to participate in their plan.
We haven't turned our backs on NATO. Conservatives simply cannot understand that--or they willfully and deliberately disregard it--but I do not believe there is ever going to be a Russian attack against NATO.
It's not "appeasement" to realistically admit the limits of American power, that we have been in decline for 30 years, and are no longer strong enough to play the role of global superpower and hegemon--even if it were desirable.
We have huge problems at home, a very weak economy and these problems must be addressed.
Let's just act like what we are, one power among many and cooperate with other countries if they will cooperate with us, playing our part in global social and economic development where we can, helping to reform the World Bank, IMF and WTP so they will be more "user-friendly" to the developing countries, as so on. Let's not be aggressive, dumb or militaristic, always looking at the world down a gun sight like our former president from Texas.
No, I don't believe there's going to be a war with Russia, or even another Cold War, and there might even be some limited cooperation between us on issues like Islamic fascism and terrorism, where our interests happen to coincide.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.