Cold War Re-Thaw (UPDATED)
Posted by MichaelW on 08 Jun 2007 at 2:47 pm | Tagged as: MichaelW's Page, Foreign affairs
According to the latest reports, Pres. Bush peered into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s eyes again and came away with some surprising results:
After months of angrily rejecting a White House plan for missile defense in Europe, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia surprised President Bush on Thursday with an offer to build a joint system in the former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan.
The proposed system, designed to guard against a missile attack from Iran, poses serious diplomatic and technical challenges, experts said. But the fact that it was suggested by Mr. Putin, and not immediately rejected by Mr. Bush, indicated a desire on both sides to cool the hostile exchanges that in recent months had driven relations to a low point in the post-cold-war era.
The offer came during a much anticipated private meeting between the presidents at a gathering of leaders of wealthy democracies. Mr. Bush said that Mr. Putin had put forth “some interesting suggestions,” and that the two agreed to form a working group of military and diplomatic experts to examine how they could cooperate on missile defense, an issue that has long divided Russia and the United States.
“This will be a serious set of strategic discussions,” Mr. Bush said, standing by Mr. Putin’s side outside the Kempinski Grand Hotel, the luxury resort in the Baltic Sea town of Heiligendamm where the leaders gathered for the Group of 8 meeting. “This is a serious issue and we want to make sure that we all understand each other’s positions very clearly.”
Putin’s recent rhetoric was so hostile (e.g., threatening to aim missiles at Europe), that his new amiable approach is somewhat shocking, especially after spending just a little while in private talks with Bush.
Gazing back into the wayback machine, you may recall that Bush was scoffed at for this statement in 2001:
I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank dialogue.
There was no kind of diplomatic chit-chat, trying to throw each other off balance. There was a straightforward dialogue. And that’s the beginning of a very constructive relationship. I wouldn’t have invited him to my ranch if I didn’t trust him. (Laughter.)
Events since that time have shown Putin to be neither a straightforward nor honest leader, but perhaps in diplomatic discussions he is somewhat more so. And I think that Bush deserves some credit here for blazing a trail to a meaningful bargain. For Putin to go so quickly from threatening Europe to agreeing to have discussions about missile shields indicates that the two world leaders are capable of having direct and frank discussions.
Whether or not a missile defense system adorns the countryside of Europe (and perhaps Azerbaijan?) is yet to be seen. I wouldn’t hold my breath. But the the rapid change in dialogue is notable and commendable.
UPDATE: Austin Bay has much, much more on the change in Putin’s rhetoric, including this (emphasis added):
Many Euro-lefties and Democrats (re:Zbig’s slap about clumsiness) were elated by Russia’s anti-missile rhetoric. Why? Cold War habits on their part. They also invested heavily in condemning anti-missile defense, from Reagan’s SDI on to Bush’s decision to not renew the ABM Treaty. (Heck, Nancy Pelosi was opposing missile defense three years ago.) Talk about a diplomatic fossil – by the mid-1980s technology had overrun the ABM Treaty. However, Reagan’s decision to pursue Strategic Defense fit right in with the Democrats’ propaganda meme of “Republican warmongers.” Remember, like Bush today, they called Reagan “Hitler” and a “cowboy.”
The irony is that missile defense now unites former antagonists.
Technorati Tags: George Bush, Vladimir Putin, missile defense, missile shield, ABM, G-8 Summit
9 Responses to “Cold War Re-Thaw (UPDATED)”
Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed
I was going to point this out in my brief, but here is as good a place as any. That deal is bad news bears all around. Much like the “Agreed Framework 2.0″ Bush negotiated with Kim Jong-il, it is an unworkable plan that will ultimately harm our interests whose only purpose could be trying to counterbalance Iraq when considering Bush’s legacy.
To whit, John Pike from Globalsecurity summarizes this up better than I could:
1 - The US is never going to allow the Russians to be on the critical path of anything so central to the US security posture;
2 - The “re-starting the Cold War” has everything to do with Putin trying to end Russia’s 15 year long [military equipment] procurement holiday, and very little to do with US missile defense in Eastern Europe;
3 - The existing radar brings nothing to the table, in that a new X-Band radar would have to be built;
4 - the forward location means that the interceptors get into a tail chase fairly early on, so the total footprint of the usable battlespace is greatly diminished.
In other words, even if it works and we abandon a big reason we have stated is behind our interceptors, it still has a low chance of being operationally useful.
Also Austin Bay is a bit more than hyperventilating in his analysis.
You see, Bush meets some critics objections (not that they will admit it) but someone else is ready to bitch. I don’t ever want to be President.
Still Joshua, what is wrong with “talking?”
What critics’ objections did he meet? Putin proposed this, not from a spirit of cooperation, but because he wants to monitor us, and possibly act as a spoiler should Iran become more aggressive (though I find this last bit highly unlikely). We would be stupid to accept it.
I think this is like AF2 - something that, on the surface, appears to be a victory or reasonable compromise but is really a major setback.
That he doesn’t talk! That he won’t use diplomacy! I haven’t noticed that the criticism is nuanced. What do we gain from talking to Iran? I don’t know. Syria? So far I don’t see it. If he doesn’t get an agreement, it is his fault, always. It is never that Germany, France, Russia, Iran or Syria are the problem, it is Bush. If we put the missiles in without Russia being on board, or at least mollified, he is raising tensions. Instead, by not taking the bait of Putin’s rhetoric and refusing to get in a shouting match they are talking again.
I am not endorsing the deal, or attacking it, since at this point I have no idea what it really means. I am pointing out that no policy will placate those who want to critique it.
I don’t think Bush plans on accepting it as described, so you may be jumping the gun a bit, but he has Putin talking instead of threatening. I am told that is an unalloyed good. I hope the critics are right.
As for Austin, I don’t see any evidence of hyperventilation. Pretty calm outside of calling Pelosi a fossil. In fact, he seems to be the voice of calm when it comes to Russia, and he is criticizing others hyperventilation.
So because some people criticize him unfairly, then criticism isn’t valid? That’s a bit extreme. I don’t blanketly condemn the man, I just think he makes bad decisions and has poor judgment. However, when he does make good decisions, like staying strong on AIDS funding for Africa, or even modestly bumping funding to Afghanistan, I praise him (as I will today in my brief).
So I don’t really know what you’re saying.
My quip about hyperventilating was based on the section of Bay’s writing you excerpted. His comparison of the Washington Post to DailyKos is a bit overdone, and I totally disagree with his characterization of Pelosi’s opposition to missile defense and he mischaracterizes a speech by Jaap de Hoop Sheffer in which he calls Russia not “in it with the West,” but rather, in full context, “unhelpful, unwelcome and frankly anachronistic.”
He’s pushing his agenda, which is fine - that’s what we all do. But I sometimes get tired of the name-calling and gross mischaracterizations in pursuit of that (meaning, any) agenda (and I say that fully recognizing I fall into the same trap far more often than I’d care to admit or allow).
I didn’t say that. I was making fun of the “talking is always good” crowd. You know, the ones who shamed him into his “deal” with N. Korea. Hence the use of scare quotes. Re-read, tongue in cheek and all that. I am not attacking your analysis at all. I am not qualified to do so at this point. Don’t be so defensive, I asked questions intended to jab at others, not you.
Also, most of the criticism is unfair, or comes from people who have no better ideas either, at least prospectively rather than retrospectively.
Now, I do think it is good that he is talking with Putin, and hopefully the dialogue leads somewhere positive.
Obviously, and I blame you ;^)
I’ll agree to disagree with respect to Pelosi, who has no real policy thoughts as her trip to Syria demonstrated, but still, he is being rather tame compared to those he is criticizing.
Don’t worry, I am here to help you with that ;^)
All I’m going to say, because I think it’s time for a post-work nap, is: “Bah!”
Carry on :-)
It is obvious that Putin outfoxed Bush in such an obvious way that I cannot believe that the U.S. Govt. pundits did not see it coming. Of course, the missle defense system was to be aimed at Russia. However, by making it look like Iran was the one to be defended against Bush sunk his own plan. It was just too easy for Putin to say that he would join in and practically deep six the whole project.