Speaking at a briefing two days days ago, Paula DeSutter, Assistant Secretary of State, mentioned that Georgia-related setbacks notwithstanding, State Department is hopeful that "things can evolve in a positive way so that we can move forward on a post-START agreement [with Russia]." That would be very difficult of course, but one can always hope.
The State Department did, as it turns out, take the post-START agreement seriously - the draft document prepared there is reportedly "hundred or so pages long". This stands in contrast with the Pentagon attitude - the DoD-prepared draft is said to be a very short "Moscow Treaty plus" document.
The book
Comments
Pavel
It's hard for me to see exactly what Russia and the United States can agree on. I think the historical opportunity to cut nuclear weapons to the absolute lowest limit by the Kremlin and the Pentagon has been lost. While "zero nuclear weapons" is a worthwhile and worthy goal, I don't ever see that as being achievable.
If Andrei Sitov from TASS hadn’t asked the off topic question to Paula DeSutter on American’s current relationship with Russia, the subject would not have even been broached. It seems Russo-American relations have suffered not only in the Six-Party Talks on North Korea and any Post-START treaty negotiations but on the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty as well. All conversations between Russia and the United States seem to be in “abeyance” now.
Frank Shuler
USA
Agreed,
I also think both the US and Russia are going to wait to see who ends up in the White House come January. Given the candidates significantly different views of how to "relate" to Russia, the implications are potentially very serious.
Jon Grams
I suspect we’ll find the American position on Russia little changed regardless who is Commander-in-Chief in January. In fact, I don’t think there is much difference between Barack Obama and John McCain on Defense either. Obama will take the traditional Democratic Party approach to National Defense; give the Pentagon money (less than they’ll want) but leave the running of the US Military to the generals and admirals. McCain will want to continue the Republican Party’s “transformation” of the military and will spend more money to do so; meddling in the Pentagon’s every decision. Both want a larger ground force of soldiers and marines. Both want to draw-down US military forces in Iraq for the war in Afghanistan. Both want National Missile Defense but greater testing to assure programs will work. McCain wants to cancel the C-17 cargo plane, the Airborne Laser project, and the US Army’s Future Combat System, all Boeing projects. McCain and Boeing just can’t seem to get along. Obama wants a larger navy. The US Defense Budget will adjust to its traditional 3.5% of GNP and the force structure will adjust to the new Administration’s priorities. In the end, little really changes.
Frank Shuler
USA
I fail to understand the point in reduction in Nuclear Arms, if the US wants to add anti-missile systems in Poland and Czeck republic. I had some questions.
1. Is the system really going to be effective in stopping nukes or it is just waste of millions of dollars (and business for defence companies and black money for politicians)?
2. Who do you think it is supposed to save against? Russia, China or someone else?
3. If Russia is the perceived threat, dont you think Russia is mature enough to be trusted?
4. If threat is China, shouldn't those missile sites be based on the opposite side of the globe, rather than in Central Europe?
5. Isn't it only just a stunt to show off the power by US, without any real need to defend against anything?