• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • U.S. President Willing to Give in to Russia’s Missile Defense Demands

    The United States does not need to protect itself from a threat of ballistic missiles. At least that is what President Obama suggests in his recent exchange with Dmitry Medvedev, president of the Russian Federation, during the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul. “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved but it’s important for him [incoming president Vladimir Putin] to give me space,” stated President Obama. “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility,” he continued.

    These comments should come as no surprise. The Administration made clear that it is willing to sacrifice U.S. missile defense when it conceded to Russian demands to limit U.S. missile defenses in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) that entered into force in February 2011. A group of Senators led by Jon Kyl (R–AZ), however, objected to limitations set forth by the treaty. These Senators argued that Moscow will use this language to limit the U.S. missile defense program. Their fears materialized as Russia repeatedly threatened nuclear deployments close to NATO allies’ borders. Moscow also threatened to withdraw from New START if the United States does not “cooperate” with Russia on missile defense.

    Russia’s definition of missile defense cooperation is problematic to say the least. Regardless of the level of knowledge Russia has of the U.S. missile defense program—a result of hours of unilateral U.S. briefings—Moscow insists on having veto power over Washington’s decision to shoot down a missile on its way toward its victims. On other occasions, Russia demanded binding limitations on speed or geographical coverage of U.S. interceptors.

    Due to the pressure of concerned Senators, the President certified that “it is the policy of the United States to continue development and deployment of United States missile defense systems to defend against missile threats from nations such as North Korea and Iran, including qualitative and quantitative improvements to such systems” in New START’s resolution of ratification. It appears the President is ready to walk away from his own commitment.

    After all, it would not be the first time that he failed to honor his promises made pursuant to New START ratification. He already failed to provide funding for U.S. nuclear weapons infrastructure, deemed essential at the time of ratification. If left unchecked, the Administration’s policies will lead to America’s becoming increasingly vulnerable. This is the wrong posture for the United States. North Korea is preparing to launch its long-range missile, and ballistic missile proliferation is growing worse. Heritage research shows that a “protect and defend” strategy—which would combine offensive, defensive, conventional, and nuclear weapons—is the best response for this uncertain environment.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    3 Responses to U.S. President Willing to Give in to Russia’s Missile Defense Demands

    1. Bobbie says:

      "after MY election…" the President admits voter fraud!

      More flexibility for what, Mr. President? Sacrificing more of the good of America(ns?) Challenging her very principles with your abuse of authority? More flexibility for what, Mr. President? Destroying: freedom? Personal dignity? Christianity? What? BESIDES the flexibility you already helped yourself to that made America an open target for Russia, what?

      • Adam says:

        Voter fraud? come on. That's absurd. It could just be he is confident that he is going to win. The republican party is destroying itself in the primaries, and when a choice is finally made they won't have time to mount a reasonable offense. The choices aren't good. Santorum will have an extremely hard time appealing to moderate voters, (which make up the largest part of the voting block), and Romney.. seems to be too moderate to appeal to the true republican base.. I remember George Bush Jr. being given the American presidency by the Supreme Court.. Let's talk about abuse of power… Two words. Guantanamo Bay. That represents an egregious destruction of American principals by the previous administration and an extreme abuse of the power of the executive brance of our government. Destroying Christianity? That's just laughable. Here's a question we should ask ourselves.. What would Russia stand to gain by bombing America? Under what circumstances would that ever happen? The Red Scare is over people. To gain trust, to build a solid ally, we must be willing to meet each others needs and listen to one another.

    2. BETHANY says:


    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.