Tuesday, March 03, 2009

Confusing Signals on Russia?

I penned a short essay for National Interest online arguing that the Obama Administration appeared to be adopting the Robert Gates logic on missile defense in Europe: deployment of a system tied to a verifiable Iranian threat (which means that if Russia were to assist in that threat going away, there would be no need for such a system, right?) But now other statements coming out of the administration suggest that the older Obama campaign view remains dominant: that deployment of a system is based less on a threat from Iran and more on whether the technology works--the implications being that the system would continue to be deployed if it could be shown to work.

Something to keep an eye on.

I am astonished that you credit the obvious canard of an Iranian threat to Europe; areyou daft?

If there were an Iraian missile threat, would not Turkey or Greece be better locations for such an ABM sstem?

And why would Iran be a threat to Europe - what is the bone of contention between them?

You must decide if you support Anti-Russian policy of the cold warriors or not. If you do not - then I think it will be a good idea to rebutt this Iranian threat tripe.
Gvosdev is a realist who nevertheless has to deal with the realities within the American foreign policy establishment.

The greater censorship is the one not getting discussed.

I loathe some of these undemocratically selected wonks who wonk off on each other. In reality, they aren't always the best choices.
"realities within the American foreign policy establishment"; i.e. fantasies of graying, fat, bald men that have spent all their working lives in rooms with no windows.

They can lie to one another but we do not have to buy those lies, do we?

However, many can be duped as a result of knowing little on the subject matter and not knowing of other views.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?