• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • 'Do it for Dmitry' Is Poor Policy

    In his latest Los Angeles Times article, Doyle McManus identifies President Obama’s attempts to sell New START, the nuclear arms reduction treaty between the U.S. and Russia, to the Republicans in the Senate as “increasingly desperate.”

    Indeed, the Administration’s arguments for ratifying the treaty have evolved from claiming that the accord is a modest treaty that will enhance U.S. security to asserting that the consequences of rejecting New START will be dire. Most recently, the President has shifted his argument to one of obliging his favorite Russian leader, Dmitry Medvedev.

    In a statement at the NATO summit in Lisbon, President Obama said, “President Medvedev has made every effort to move Russia in the right direction. It’s also important that we don’t leave a partner hanging after having negotiated an agreement like this.”

    This notion is severely flawed. First, as WikiLeaks documents published in Reuters demonstrate, U.S. diplomats correctly described Medvedev as playing the second fiddle to his mentor, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who is calling the shots on the major policy issues.

    Second, in an outburst of a Cold War–style rhetoric, Medvedev, in his State of the Federation speech, just threatened the U.S. with a new arms race if the Obama Administration will not merge the NATO missile defenses with those of Russia—something the Kremlin demands.

    Although the U.S. and Russia have ostensibly “reset” relations, this new bilateral Cold War–style arms control treaty is detrimental to U.S. national security—specifically, nuclear deterrence and missile defense.

    First, there are concerns about the inadequacy of the New START verification regime: The degree of verifiability is lower than in the treaty’s predecessors; and there are U.S. State Department classified and open source reports that testify to prior Russian violations of arms control agreements.

    Secondly, New START fails to account for Russia’s 3,800-strong tactical nuclear arsenal, giving Moscow a tremendous war-fighting advantage in Europe.

    Thirdly, the New START treaty is likely to limit our missile defense options that are critical to countering the emerging ballistic missile threats in Iran and North Korea. Moscow feels that in the long run, U.S. missile defenses would limit its deterrent capabilities.

    From the American perspective however, a missile defense system limited by a treaty with Russia is detrimental not only to the U.S. but also to our allies that benefit from our security umbrella.

    As we argued elsewhere, the “reset button” in fact, needs to be reset again. The resetting of bilateral relations has allowed Russia to pursue its own interests, some which come at the expense of U.S. security, as is the case with New START. Russia is too poor, and its military-industrial complex too dilapidated, to maintain its current nuclear weapons levels.

    But there is more. Moscow’s assertive policy in its “zone of privileged interests along the imperial periphery” (the so-called “near abroad”) has gone virtually uncontested by the Obama Administration. For example, Russia has violated the cease-fire agreement negotiated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy following its 2008 war with Georgia. Moscow recently extended the lease of the Gyumri military base in Armenia until 2044 and made commitments to protect Armenia’s borders against Azerbaijan and Turkey.

    A recent Russian book on the Georgia war describes Gyumri as a staging area for an attack on Tbilisi, Georgia. The Russian–Armenian protocol makes Russia the dominant power in South Caucasus, as the U.S., NATO, the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe are unwilling or unable (due to the Russian veto) to commit to a long-term military presence there.

    So, New START is a complex treaty in a complex security environment. The “Do it for Dmitry” ratification argument fails to take this into account—and makes a disservice to the serious debate about U.S. national security.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to 'Do it for Dmitry' Is Poor Policy

    1. Pingback: Tweets that mention ‘Do it for Dmitry’ Is Poor Policy | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    2. Tim AZ says:

      Never mind anything that Medvedev has to say. He's just a talking head on Putins lap . Putin is running the show and, his threat of an arms race is a sure sign of weakness and desperation. Tear up the New Start treaty and call his bluff.

    3. Leon Lundquist, Dura says:

      Obama thinks the Russian interest is more important than American interests. Isn't it obvious now who Obama serves? He creates uncertainty to stall the 'recovery' but time being precious in the Lame Duck Session, what do the Demo-crats want? Class warfare, income redistribution, dependance on foreign oil. Negotiating with Obama is like North Korea, Iran and frankly, Russia, so offering to negotiate with the House Republicans? That's plenty of nothing! Just like the New START Treaty!

      Considering Obama is going to do the HEART part (turning America inside out with attacks on American Health, Education, Agriculture, Representation & Transportation) it is actually in the best interest of the American People to shut down the Government. That way Obama and his Czars cannot do the HEART part. Cut off their funds.

      When Obama says Russia is heading in the Right Direction? What does that mean? Is that like saying Obama is taking America in the Right Direction? Oh! Communism is the Right Direction. Republicans cannot let Obama rope-a-dope. Bravo the Senate Republicans are sticking together, but then New START is non negotiable! Hell no! Something for nothing! Shut down the Government! Seriously, that is a winner for us! It would probably save a billion dollars a day. Do it right away and you won't have to pay all those Unionized Government workers for their overblown holiday benefits.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.