START Treaty won't stop

Just before Christmas, the U.S. Senate ratified the START treaty with Russia that contained preambular language linking offensive missile reductions to U.S. limits on new defensive missile systems. It ratified the text based on President Obama's assurance that such language was not binding.

Now an indignant Russian Duma is promising to pass a resolution affirming that Russia does indeed consider the preambular language to be legally binding. The Duma would ratify the START treaty, along with any related statements and reservations, in February.

If that happens, there should be some red faces in Washington (I say 'should' because shame is an outmoded and fast-disappearing emotion). The great display of domestic bipartisanship and 'resetting' U.S.-Russian relations achieved by ratifying the START treaty will look like a farce. I have to imagine that the State Department and White House are scrambling to control the damage.

More on the Polish plane crash

Columnist Diana West reports here on the mysterious fog that continues to surround the April 10 crash of a Polish jet in Russia several months, killing Polish President Lech Kaczynski and many other members of the Polish elite.

Some suspicious aspects of the investigation:

-- Russia immediately took control of the black boxes. It provided the Poles only with copies of the recordings, the authenticity of which has been challenged.

-- The Russian air traffic controller on duty at the time of the crash retired three days later and no one knows where he is. Given that the crash was immediately blamed on pilot error, this is odd, to say the least.

-- The Russians stripped the bodies of all possessions, then 'autopsied' them and returned them to Poland in sealed coffins.

The crash happened as the Poles were headed to a ceremony commemorating the 70th anniversary of the Soviet massacre of 22,000 Polish officers at Katyn during World War II. If the crash turns out to have been due to Russian actions, it's hard to say what will happen. The Poles won't forget - but what about the rest of the EU?

Correction - no, modification!

Patrick took issue with yesterday's airy dismissal of Russian allegations of Georgian involvement in the recent suicide bombings in Moscow and elsewhere. He argues that the Georgians have dabbled in Islamist terrorism directed at Russia in the past, and may be doing so again. Unfortunately, he has a point.

Since I'm never wrong, it's time to invoke the Prussian rules of order. For those who don't know them, they're very simple:

(1) the boss is always right.
(2) when the boss is wrong, rule no. 1 goes into effect.

Since I'm the boss of this blog, the rules apply to me!

Black widows

Here's an update on the female suicide bombers who exploded themselves in two Moscow subway stations. Although the head of the Kremlin Security Council accused the Georgian government of instigating the attacks, it's unlikely many people believe that tale. More likely are the following nuggets:

-- one woman may have been mentally retarded - and, indeed, it wouldn't be the first time that such a person was exploited this way.

-- the women are most likely from Chechnya, although that has not yet been confirmed.

-- they may have belonged to a group of some 30 women aged 18-25 who were trained at a terrorist school in Turkey. Nine were previously accounted for, which by my count leaves 19 still at large.

-- the intelligence folks knew an attack was coming, because they were checking women entering the metro. Unfortunately, they didn't find the bombers.

Female suicide bombers are statistically more successful than males (eg, they kill more people), because they arouse fewer suspicions. In Iraq, where they've also been used, it's pretty clear that many are coerced. While many Chechen women may have abundant grounds for seeking revenge, I remain skeptical that they really want to get it this way.

Poland's next steps

Last September 17, the United States unilaterally cancelled signed agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic to install a missile defense system on their territories. U.S. officials explained that the decision had nothing to do with placating Russia (which had threatened to install nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad, aimed at Poland) but everything to do with technical issues. They offered instead a Patriot short-range missile defense system, to be manned by U.S. personnel.

We're now seeing two results of that policy:

-- a senior Russian official threatened that Russia would not permit the stationing of the Patriot system, complete with American personnel, on Polish soil.

-- the Polish and Swedish foreign ministers called for the withdrawal of both American and Russian tactical nuclear weapons from Europe.

Here's my guess as to how the United States will respond: First, it will pretend that no Russian threat exists; then it will find an excuse not to deploy the Patriot system. What's more, it will find nothing to criticize in the call for eliminating tactical nuclear weapons - after all, Obama wants a new universal ban on nuclear weapons.

The American public won't respond, because it'll be too distracted by some domestic issue, and our ties to countries like Poland, who so wanted to be our close allies, will fray and diminish.

Ain't it great not to be Number One any more, and to renounce our attempt to dominate other countries? Get used to it; there will be more debacles like this one.

Thug Putin

Libby brought to my attention this incredible footage of Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin responding like a common street thug to French criticism of Russia's war in Chechnya. Putin has made similarly crude comments in the past, usually to a Russian audience. Now he appears to feel comfortable speaking that way to foreigners in public.

It's either Iran or Israel

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad has come up with his own version of 'you're with us or against us.' In a speech in Istanbul, he said the United States must choose between Iran and Israel. (See here for the version offered by Iranian dissidents.)

Put another way, Ahmedinejad's signaling that our current groveling, as evidenced in this excerpt from a speech by William Burns, a senior State Department official, is far from sufficient: "[The United States seeks] a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. We do not seek regime change. We have condemned terrorist attacks against Iran. We have recognized Iran’s international right to peaceful nuclear power." Here's the rest of his speech; read it and wince.

Betrayal with a capital 'B'

Well, like a slow-motion crash, the Obama Administration finally dumped the missile defense system that was to be installed in Poland and the Czech Republic. The reason: we don't need it, because Iran's long-range missile program isn't on track. Instead, we're going to concentrate on short- and medium-range missile defense systems.

This news broke the same day that the International Atomic Energy Administration (IAEA) announced it now believes Iran can build a nuclear weapon and is likely to 'overcome problems' on developing a delivery system.

I don't know whether our technical assessment of the threat is accurate. (Remember how good our intelligence has been on other threats? But I digress.) If the more immediate threat is the shorter-range missiles, then by all means we should protect against them. But to dismiss the other threat strikes me as short-sighted in the extreme.

I also don't know if the Russians will deliver a quid pro quo for this obvious concession. They're unlikely to support sanctions against Iran; as recently as last week Russian prime minister Putin's spokesman said sanctions were out of the question, especially since there were "no grounds to doubt" that Iran's nuclear program was purely peaceful - dazzling mendacity, especially given the IAEA report.

I also have no idea if there's any way to regain the trust of the Poles and Czechs, our good allies in both Iraq and Afghanistan, now we've pulled the rug out from under their feet so unceremoniously (we did, after all, sign agreements with them, for what the word of the United States is worth). In particular, it's a great way to celebrate the anniversary of the Soviet invasion and partition of Poland in 1939.

When we 'betrayed' Poland at Yalta, at least we had the reasonable excuse of not wanting to take on the Red Army which had already occupied Poland. There's absolutely no excuse this time around.

Correction

Joe points out that the explanation in my previous blog entry about the mysterious Russian cargo ship doesn't make much sense. Inasmuch as the Russians have made no secret about their sales of anti-aircraft missiles to Iran and Syria, what leverage would the Israelis have to make them stop the shipment allegedly contained in the Arctic Sea?

Unfortunately, he does have a point; apologies for the confusion, and I'll have to wait for a better explanation.

The Arctic Sea yet again

Remember the Russian cargo ship that disappeared for three weeks, reportedly the target of pirates operating in European waters? The latest speculation, which is linked to a secret trip Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu just made to Moscow, is that the Mossad found out the ship was carrying S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. (Thanks to Daily Alert.)

The Mossad reportedly gave the Kremlin "time and space to stop the delivery and cover it up in order to save face." In my earlier entry, I had reported the rumor that the Israelis had intercepted the ship themselves.

The Iranians presumably want the missiles in order to protect themselves from an Israeli strike against their nuclear facilities.

Missiles, anyone?

Here's an interesting piece on the mysterious Russian cargo ship, purportedly carrying some $2 million worth of timber from Finland to Algeria, that disappeared in European waters and re-emerged off the coast of West Africa.

Admiral Tarmo Kouts, the European Union's rapporteur on piracy and a former commander of the Estonian armed forces, speculated that the ship could have been intercepted by the Israelis as it took a cargo of weapons, most likely missiles, to the Mideast. And, indeed, Israeli President Shimon Perez apparently made a surprise visit to Moscow the day after the Russians recovered the ship.

Russian ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin denied this story, saying Kouts should stop 'running his mouth.' I'd take that as confirmation! (Thanks to Daily Alert.)

A big mistake

This news report alleges that U.S. officials have decided not to install a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, preferring instead other sites, perhaps in Turkey and Israel.

The missile defense system had become increasingly unpopular in both Poland and the Czech Republic by the end of the Bush Administration. It was also described, wrongly, as being technically deficient. However, it remained a symbol of U.S commitment to the region - a region increasingly under pressure from Russia.

A number of prominent Central and East European leaders recently wrote an open letter to the Obama administration asking it for a genuine commitment to the defense of NATO's eastern borders. Watch for a serious deterioration in our relations with those countries if we don't step up to the plate.

Russia threatening Georgia?

A news reports from Ukraine indicates that Russian forces are occupying positions only 25 miles from Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, in direction violation of the EU-brokered ceasefire put in place last year. In addition, the Russians have significantly increased the forces stationed in South Ossetia and Abkhasia, the two provinces it took over last summer.

I agree with Rick Moran, who speculates here that neither the United States nor the EU will protect Georgia.

Shifting sands

President Obama, in his recent offer to the Russians, appeared to propose abandoning the missile defense system that the previous administration wished to install in Poland and the Czech Republic. The quid pro quo was Russian support for keeping Iran from obtaining the missiles that the system was designed to stop.

The Russians are highly unlikely to help out with Iranian missiles, especially as it was they who sold Iran the missile technology in the first place. Obama, in a further unnecessary weakening of the U.S. position, implied that he might abandon the missile defense system anyway, since it represented 'unproven technology'.

So where did that leave the Czechs and Poles? With both feet firmly planted in midair, wondering if once again they'd been sold out by a great power. The Czech parliament has yet to approve the deal (the prime minister had to delay the vote for fear it wouldn't pass). And the Polish Foreign Minister has just wondered out loud whether his country will regret trusting the United States.

If you can stand to read the details, this editorial from Investor's Business Daily kinda sums up the problem.

If at first you don't succeed...

President Obama must agree with this sentiment, because he certainly keeps on trying. As reported earlier, his very public overture to Russia was rebuffed, and now the same fate has befallen his videotaped message of peace and friendship to Iran. Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei called it merely a 'slogan.' Obama's response: keep on trying.

What I don't understand is why this administration prefers to lead with its most valued asset. Normally, diplomats or special envoys work behind the scenes to set up a deal; only when everything is in place is the prestige of the President put on the line. Once Obama has been rebuffed personally, what tools does he have left? And what does any of this have to do with fixing the problem, which is Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons and their missile delivery systems?

Iranian missiles

Russian General Vladimir Dvorkin, head of Moscow's Center for Strategic Nuclear Forces, spoke publicly of his concern that Iran will soon have intercontinental missiles capable of striking Europe. Once married with nuclear warheads, he expects those missiles will expand Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist acts and in general boost Iran's ability to dominate the Middle East. (Thanks to Investor's Business Daily.)

I doubt if Dvorkin's views will influence official Russian policy. Russia appears to give more weight to profits from technology sales to Iran, and to the possibility of being a regional player in the Middle East in opposition to the United States. So far the Russian leadership appears unconcerned that Russian territory will also be within range of those missiles.

Wouldn't it be great if someone in the Obama administration were listening to Dvorkin?

The ups and downs of soft power

So how are President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton doing in their bid to reboot America's image abroad? Columnist Charles Krauthammer notes that both Russia and Iran have taken hostile, aggressive moves against U.S. interests at the same time that the United States has called for friendlier ties.

In response to such steps as Russia forcing Kyrgystan to close the U.S. airbase that supports the war in Afghanistan, or the Iranians launching a satellite to prove that they will soon have the ability to launch intercontinental missiles, we have done...apparently nothing.

Any new Administration will need time to get organized, but if this one can declare that the Venezuelan vote making Chavez president-for-life was sufficiently fair, or that it is joining the UN's Durban II negotiations, then it should be able to state its dismay at some of these other developments. At least, let's hope it's dismayed.

The good times are over

The financial meltdown, the war between Russia and Georgia, and disruptions in natural gas supplies from Russia have left people in Central Europe and the Balkans feeling vulnerable and angry, coming as they do after years of strong economic growth. The result: riots in Lithuania, Latvia and Bulgaria, and considerable anger directed at the national governments.

Meanwhile, the deadlock over natural gas shipments from Russia continues. Germany told Russia that its credibility as a supplier is in jeopardy; Russian prime minister Putin in turn proposed a consortium to deliver the gas. Ukraine interprets that proposal as an attempt to get control over Ukrainian pipelines. The EU is resisting Russian efforts to enlist it against Ukraine, and is more likely to declare a pox on both houses.

With extremely cold weather in Europe, this ain't no fun. It's worst in Bulgaria and elsewhere in the Balkans, but many European countries also have shortfalls in deliveries. There may be one silver lining to the cloud: EU energy forecasts typically assume ever greater dependency on Russia. This crisis may serve as a wake-up call.

EU will investigate gas pipeline

Well, my previous entry seems to have shamed EU officials into agreeing to monitor natural gas shipments from Russia into Europe via Ukraine...or maybe that's my megalomania peeking through. Seriously, with gas deliveries to many EU member states interrupted, Russia has now gotten the EU to focus on this problem. Whether this is really how a supplier should treat a major customer is of course another issue.

To interfere or not to interfere

The EU has dispatched an official mission to the Mideast in hopes of brokering a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and sending humanitarian aid to Gaza (French President Nicholas Sarkozy is going on his own separate mission, but that's another story).

At the same time, the European Commission (a major EU institution) declined Russia's request to send EU monitors to investigate the source of shortfalls in Russian gas shipments through Ukraine to Europe. The Russians say the Ukrainians are to blame; the Ukrainians say it's the Russians. The Commission spokesman said the EU had no plans to get involved in what it regarded as a bilateral dispute. (Thanks to euobserver.com.)

Does anybody else notice the disconnect? Why isn't the Mideast problem a 'bilateral dispute' that the EU will wisely avoid? Perhaps the truth is that, much as the Europeans malign Israel, they know the Israelis practice restraint and respond to Western imprecations. No particular evidence the Russians would do the same - and they're important energy suppliers.