It’s not often that a journalist manages to provoke immediate responses from the presidents of both the United States and Russia, but Peter Baker pulled it off Tuesday. Writing in The New York Times, Baker revealed the existence of a “secret letter” in which Barack Obama suggested that if Russia helped prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the United States might abandon its planned missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Both presidents denied that the letter offered an explicit quid pro quo, but interestingly both noted that such a trade could be a good one. Dmitri Medvedev stressed the two were already working together on Iran, and Obama pointed out that if the Iranian threat were eliminated, there would be no need for the missile defense system. Given that the two are set to meet next month in London, this seems like a positive development.
The proposed Central European missile defense system is probably the second or third biggest source of contention in U.S.-Russian relations (behind NATO expansion into Georgia and Ukraine, and perhaps Washington’s concerns about democratic retrenchment in Russia). At first glance, this makes sense: We need only remember the Cuban Missile Crisis to recall how sensitive great powers can be about another great power putting missiles too close to their borders. But on closer inspection, it seems bizarre that this issue is souring relations between the two countries. A limited system comprising ten interceptors cannot threaten Russia’s ability to retaliate in a nuclear conflict, so Moscow need be concerned only if the current plan is just a down-payment on a more extensive future system. From Washington’s perspective, the system is an odd priority given that it is designed to protect Europe, not the United States, from attack. What’s more it remains unclear if the system even works. (Among other things, the rocket booster for the European interceptors has yet to be tested.)
By contrast, the United States has quite a lot to gain by reducing Russian concerns. First and foremost, securing Russia’s assistance and thereby potentially resolving the Iranian nuclear issue surely would improve U.S. security more than a missile defense system in Central Europe ever could, especially if this is part of a broader effort to secure Middle Eastern peace.
Second, the economic crisis may be causing splits in the Russian ruling elite, with Russia’s siloviki (current and ex-security personnel) gathering behind Prime Minister Putin and a faction of economic liberals grouping around President Medvedev. Combined with the fact that the economic crisis has likely already made foreign scapegoats--particularly “the West”--favorite targets of Russian leaders, additional conflict with the United States would likely only help the Putin faction, while mitigating supposed threats from the West would likely strengthen Medvedev. A U.S. decision to back away from the missile defense system would be portrayed as a victory in Russia and would help Medvedev by demonstrating the virtue of more constructive engagement with Washington. And in the long term, the United States is likely to be better off if the economic faction behind Medvedev doesn’t lose this power struggle, as the siloviki are likely to be more antagonistic to the West.
Third, to the extent that the United States wants to “press the reset button” in its relations with Russia, resolving the issue of Central European missile defense might be one of the more painless ways to do so.
Finally, if dollars for defense are going to be harder to come by in a time of massive deficits, it is legitimate to ask whether a Central European missile defense system provides the best bang (or lack of bang, in this particular case) for the buck in terms of protecting the United States. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the European system could cost up to $14 billion.
There are, however, two important caveats that the Obama administration ought to keep in mind if it heads down this path. First, we have to be careful about the Czech and Polish reactions if we abandon the system. Both governments invested political capital in approving the deployment of the system, and both expected that that the missile defense system would provide, as the International Herald Tribune put it, a “guarantee of extra protection from the United States, above and beyond the mutual aid that NATO members can demand of allies if they are attacked.” It is crucial then that any decision to abandon the missile defense system be couched as a specific decision to review Bush administration policies and not as part of a new attitude of conciliation toward Russia at the expense of important Central European allies. Similarly, the administration will need to reassure the Russians that the United States takes their security concerns seriously while demonstrating that it did not shutter the system because of Russian threats.
Overall, given Russian political developments over the last decade, it seems likely that there will continue to be many points of friction between the United States and Russia during Obama’s term of office. Thus, we ought to carefully reduce or remove sources of conflict where we can, especially when there’s little cost to U.S. national security. And if in doing so the administration can nudge Russian domestic politics in a potentially more pro-Western direction, then so much the better.
Joshua A. Tucker is an Associate Professor of Politics at NYU and a National Security Fellow at the Truman National Security Project.
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (17)
What a strange piece, filled with wishful thinking and non-sequiturs, incl this whopper: "It is crucial that any decision to abandon the missile defense system be couched as a specific decision to review Bush administration policies and not as part of a new attitude of conciliation toward Russia at the expense of important Central European allies...." It's a policy change... but not a policy change! Also, the notion that a) Medvedev is a liberal, b) has any real control over Russian foreign policy, and c) would have any popular support for a pro-Western turn in Russian foreign policy even if a) and b) were true, is ludicrous. There is not a chance in hell that Russia will seriously help the ... view full comment
What a strange piece, filled with wishful thinking and non-sequiturs, incl this whopper: "It is crucial that any decision to abandon the missile defense system be couched as a specific decision to review Bush administration policies and not as part of a new attitude of conciliation toward Russia at the expense of important Central European allies...." It's a policy change... but not a policy change! Also, the notion that a) Medvedev is a liberal, b) has any real control over Russian foreign policy, and c) would have any popular support for a pro-Western turn in Russian foreign policy even if a) and b) were true, is ludicrous. There is not a chance in hell that Russia will seriously help the West by reining in Iran in the next decade. Even the most liberal Russian regime-- and the prospect of a liberal regime in the next 5 years is a fantasy-- would recognize the objective facts that Iran: is in Russia's backyard, is a fellow energy exporter, provides Russia with a huge increase in influence in a region where they've been nearly absent for decades, and not least, is the source of a multi-billion slurry of cash, including vzyatky, for senior officials who are on the take, regardless of westerners' desperate desire to slot them as wicked siloviki or earnest liberals. Giving up missile defense for Russian cooperation is a lovely idea in the abstract, but Putin's gangster regime won't deal in good faith. At most, they'd engage in the same back-channel deals they did in 2000-2002 with Saddam, with sanctions-busting sweetheart deals and many millions in OFF-style direct payments from Tehran to the Kremlin. TNR, please find some sober and informed analysis of Russia.
"...it seems bizarre that this issue is souring relations between the two countries."
Russia is one of the two countries. So it's either not bizarre, or at the very least the bizarre should not be surprising.
"...it seems bizarre that this issue is souring relations between the two countries."
Russia is one of the two countries. So it's either not bizarre, or at the very least the bizarre should not be surprising.
This idea of a split between a Medvedev faction and a Putin faction is just some fantasy concocted from who knows where. Putin is in control and nothing we do is going to change that (except perhaps make him more popular). Backing away from missile defense will help, since it deals with Russian concerns, but linking it with help regarding Iran is not going to make progress. Russians think they know Iran better than we do (they probably do) and they see missile defense directed at Russia not Iran so they don't see the link. Getting rid of missile defense is also good because it not in our interest. But to see these fantasy links is to fancy another illusion about Russia-US relations that lead ... view full comment
This idea of a split between a Medvedev faction and a Putin faction is just some fantasy concocted from who knows where. Putin is in control and nothing we do is going to change that (except perhaps make him more popular). Backing away from missile defense will help, since it deals with Russian concerns, but linking it with help regarding Iran is not going to make progress. Russians think they know Iran better than we do (they probably do) and they see missile defense directed at Russia not Iran so they don't see the link. Getting rid of missile defense is also good because it not in our interest. But to see these fantasy links is to fancy another illusion about Russia-US relations that leads only to shocks and surprise on our side.
What tep said. it has taken less than 2 months for this administration to sell out allies in Central Europe for the chimera of Russian cooperation - on anything for any reason.
The Russians want us out of their former colonies. Mr. Tucker, do you not see this?
What tep said. it has taken less than 2 months for this administration to sell out allies in Central Europe for the chimera of Russian cooperation - on anything for any reason.
The Russians want us out of their former colonies. Mr. Tucker, do you not see this?
So, let me get this straight. At the very least we thank two of our presently staunches allies, for standing up to Russian and EU pressure, by selling them out?
Isn't this what Bush I did to the Shiites in Southern Iraq after the first Iraq War? And what we did in Afghanistan after they defeated the USSR, leading to the Taliban . . . I could go on. On of the most damaging moves by the USA in foreign policy has been our policy of supporting groups or nations, like the Kurds over decades, then selling them out for larger Geo-political ends.
As Reagan would say, "There you go again". So that's one thing. Second, as other commentators on this piece have mentioned, whater Medvedev says is a us ... view full comment
So, let me get this straight. At the very least we thank two of our presently staunches allies, for standing up to Russian and EU pressure, by selling them out?
Isn't this what Bush I did to the Shiites in Southern Iraq after the first Iraq War? And what we did in Afghanistan after they defeated the USSR, leading to the Taliban . . . I could go on. On of the most damaging moves by the USA in foreign policy has been our policy of supporting groups or nations, like the Kurds over decades, then selling them out for larger Geo-political ends.
As Reagan would say, "There you go again". So that's one thing. Second, as other commentators on this piece have mentioned, whater Medvedev says is a useful and permanent as what VP Biden says. If an American VP's job is worth, as one previous VP said, [not worth] "a bucket of warm spit" [Well actually I think what he really said was "warm piss"], but either way, Medvedev's position isn't worth that.
But most disturbing is that this academician like so many who teach rather then do, seems to have arrived on the geo-political scene with a historical 'tabula raza'. Gee, why would the Russians be upset about 10 missiles? Is there maybe a history of military or economic interests in this area - Or course there is - it is the history and the future, not 10 interceptor missiles - they are a symbol or a marker.
US techs, US soldiers or just equipment is unacceptable to a Russia that has considered the near abroad as either part of Russia, which Eastern Poland was from the 18th to the early 20th centuries - and otherwise, part of their sphere of influence.
Russia can no more accept American forces or missiles in Poland then the USA would accept them in Cuba, Mexico or Canada - treaties and world opinion be damned no matter where those missiles are pointed.
When Russia attempted to put missiles in Cuba, President Kennedy was willing to risk WW III to make sure that didn't happen. Historically, Poland is closer to Russia than Cuba is to the USA and the USA has never been invaded through Cuba, while Poland was the highway into Russia for invasions since the 11th century - more recently Napoleon, the Kaiser and the Hitler regime.
Those that don't remember history are doomed to remain in the dark about the present and the future. I said that.
It does not really make sense at all, the whole Iran missile thing that is. The US is not threatened with Iran's missiles. Rather, it is all about Israel. Let Israel deal with its own mess. Why should we Americans sacrifice our resources and the precious lives of our young women and men time and time again? As long as the Israeli government does not change course and work on a two States solution, stop expanding settlements, and facilitate a dignified life for its Palestinian neighbors, the Middle East problem will never be solved. The Rambo politics of Israel is the major problem there. Unfortunately, with the cognac-lover Netanyahu at the wheel, nothing will change, at least not for the be ... view full comment
It does not really make sense at all, the whole Iran missile thing that is. The US is not threatened with Iran's missiles. Rather, it is all about Israel. Let Israel deal with its own mess. Why should we Americans sacrifice our resources and the precious lives of our young women and men time and time again? As long as the Israeli government does not change course and work on a two States solution, stop expanding settlements, and facilitate a dignified life for its Palestinian neighbors, the Middle East problem will never be solved. The Rambo politics of Israel is the major problem there. Unfortunately, with the cognac-lover Netanyahu at the wheel, nothing will change, at least not for the better. Why should Israel be allowed to have the A-bomb and not Iran? Hypocrites.
I am always amused by reporters saying "no one is sure that the missile shield will work." They are working from quotes from other reporters who are working from other quotes, and so on. I haven't read any articles inspired by military or scientific experts who really know the truth. If we really don't know, why are the Russians so irate about our wanting to install them. Why would they be afraid. The inability to come back with a weapon that would counter SDI caused the Soviets to fall apart. I don't really trust most press reports but this one has me baffled.
Dempsey Gibbs
I am always amused by reporters saying "no one is sure that the missile shield will work." They are working from quotes from other reporters who are working from other quotes, and so on. I haven't read any articles inspired by military or scientific experts who really know the truth. If we really don't know, why are the Russians so irate about our wanting to install them. Why would they be afraid. The inability to come back with a weapon that would counter SDI caused the Soviets to fall apart. I don't really trust most press reports but this one has me baffled.
Dempsey Gibbs
What a putz. Obama sends a secret letter to the Russians and is publicly and impolitely rebuked. In that letter he offers to sell out two of our most valued allies, and somehow this is a political masterstroke. You're smoking crack, buddy. He has managed to anger the British for no good reason; is selling out the Israelis and is treating with our enemies. It's been 6 weeks and the man has set the stage to make Carter look like a genius.
What a putz. Obama sends a secret letter to the Russians and is publicly and impolitely rebuked. In that letter he offers to sell out two of our most valued allies, and somehow this is a political masterstroke. You're smoking crack, buddy. He has managed to anger the British for no good reason; is selling out the Israelis and is treating with our enemies. It's been 6 weeks and the man has set the stage to make Carter look like a genius.
Russia is in a position to make an Israeli air raid on Iranian nukes expensive by giving or selling the Iranians anti-aircraft systems, but are they really in a position to stop to the Iranian nuclear bomb project? I doubt it. With what the Iranians have already acquired in equipment and technology and what they could presumably get from North Korea, China, and Pakistan via official or unofficial channels, the Iranian bomb project appears to be unstoppable. Perhaps the game is getting Russian acquiescence to a military operation to destroy the apparently soon-to-be Iranian nuclear arsenal.
Russia is in a position to make an Israeli air raid on Iranian nukes expensive by giving or selling the Iranians anti-aircraft systems, but are they really in a position to stop to the Iranian nuclear bomb project? I doubt it. With what the Iranians have already acquired in equipment and technology and what they could presumably get from North Korea, China, and Pakistan via official or unofficial channels, the Iranian bomb project appears to be unstoppable. Perhaps the game is getting Russian acquiescence to a military operation to destroy the apparently soon-to-be Iranian nuclear arsenal.
The writer assumes that Barack actually wants to prevent Iran getting nukes. Why does he believe for one second that Obama has any desire to improve relations with Russia. Simply put: President Barack Obama equals world war 3. That is the "change" that Obamamericans are "hoping" for, isn't it?
The writer assumes that Barack actually wants to prevent Iran getting nukes. Why does he believe for one second that Obama has any desire to improve relations with Russia. Simply put: President Barack Obama equals world war 3. That is the "change" that Obamamericans are "hoping" for, isn't it?
The letter was first released by Kommersant, to undermine or aid whom, Not by the US press.
The letter was first released by Kommersant, to undermine or aid whom, Not by the US press.
There are some points in this article that I agree with, or at least can see the point, while other points I disagree with. On my view (opinion) of things, I see it that as long as Putin has, and keeps, as power as he has, there will continue to be friction between our 2 countries. Putin is just too old school KGB, and as such, enjoys the benefits of his power from that old system. Again, just my perspective of things. It doesn't make them right, wrong, and/or even necessarily accurate, only just what I derive from Putin's past and present actions and words.
There are some points in this article that I agree with, or at least can see the point, while other points I disagree with. On my view (opinion) of things, I see it that as long as Putin has, and keeps, as power as he has, there will continue to be friction between our 2 countries. Putin is just too old school KGB, and as such, enjoys the benefits of his power from that old system. Again, just my perspective of things. It doesn't make them right, wrong, and/or even necessarily accurate, only just what I derive from Putin's past and present actions and words.
With the Russians fobbing off Obama by return, his letter (which he claimed was inaccurately reported by the Times), evinced one thing only. His naivete and his inexperience. The man boxed himself into a corner before the fight has even begun.
With the Russians fobbing off Obama by return, his letter (which he claimed was inaccurately reported by the Times), evinced one thing only. His naivete and his inexperience. The man boxed himself into a corner before the fight has even begun.
All this is a stupid shell game. Betray two of our strongest allies? Give me a break. This is a geo/stratigic/military issue. Poland and the Czech Republic are pawns in the game. They have everything to gain with US missles (lots of money) and nothing to contribute except several hundred kms of land. Don't cry crocodile tears for them.
Are 10 interceptpr missiles a stronger defense against Iranian missiles than the fact the entire country could be incinerated by a US (or Israeli) counter-attack? Of course not.
What is the real reason for the US to deploy missile interceptors in eastern Europe? hmmmm...Could it be, one again, a reflex action by the Bush Administration originating in Cold Wa ... view full comment
All this is a stupid shell game. Betray two of our strongest allies? Give me a break. This is a geo/stratigic/military issue. Poland and the Czech Republic are pawns in the game. They have everything to gain with US missles (lots of money) and nothing to contribute except several hundred kms of land. Don't cry crocodile tears for them.
Are 10 interceptpr missiles a stronger defense against Iranian missiles than the fact the entire country could be incinerated by a US (or Israeli) counter-attack? Of course not.
What is the real reason for the US to deploy missile interceptors in eastern Europe? hmmmm...Could it be, one again, a reflex action by the Bush Administration originating in Cold War thinking?
Why are we even talking about this? "Star Wars" development has already cost a ridiculous amount of money just to prove it doesn't work.
Thinking that deployment in eastern Europe is to defend the continent against Iraniam missiles is silly. Deployment to provoke Russian retaliation is not.
"Teplukhin" is spot on.
"Teplukhin" is spot on.
I am a sore loser. So when I should happen to see that I am losing a game of chess,then I slap the pieces off of the board and then re position them again to my favor. That's the real issue at stake here, the current situation between the U.S. and the Russian Federation really doesn't have to be so dire.
I am a sore loser. So when I should happen to see that I am losing a game of chess,then I slap the pieces off of the board and then re position them again to my favor. That's the real issue at stake here, the current situation between the U.S. and the Russian Federation really doesn't have to be so dire.
The Czech radar stations seem an unnecessary irritant and it's worth probing again -- exactly what political capital was used up with which Czechs? The Czech parliament and leading Czech intellectuals don't see the need for these missiles, they aren't installed yet, so maybe they could go without too much jostling?
I'd like some more research from TNR, however, on whether the Russians really have something to offer in exchange for bagging these missiles. I don't see that they have a track record on reining in Iran. I don't see practically what they can do. But we should engage them and try to bargain. What way can Russia specifically be helpful now, in a practical way, such as to remove this ... view full comment
The Czech radar stations seem an unnecessary irritant and it's worth probing again -- exactly what political capital was used up with which Czechs? The Czech parliament and leading Czech intellectuals don't see the need for these missiles, they aren't installed yet, so maybe they could go without too much jostling?
I'd like some more research from TNR, however, on whether the Russians really have something to offer in exchange for bagging these missiles. I don't see that they have a track record on reining in Iran. I don't see practically what they can do. But we should engage them and try to bargain. What way can Russia specifically be helpful now, in a practical way, such as to remove this bargaining chip?
I'd also like to hear the facts regarding the Russians' claim that these missiles would be set to intercept...and explode over Russian territory. Of course, if the Iranians were lobbing a bomb towards Europe, the Russians would be in the pathway anway, and wouldn't they want to intercept these missiles? So what's up here?
This article is also premised on the notion that Putvedev are two separate leaders with different views and different followers. I'm not seeing that.