Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov, in a sign of the tension between Russia and the United States over the missile defense plans, said during an international conference that a strike by his country might be possible.Actually, I'm quite sympathetic to Russian demands here. The Russians have emphatically, consistently, and loudly opposed anti-missile deployments anywhere near their borders for the last thirty years. Did I say they LOUDLY opposed such deployments? LOUDLY! Do you hear me? Do you care?
...In November, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threatened to withdraw from the New START nuclear arms control deal with the U.S. and deploy missiles aimed toward U.S. defense installations in Europe after becoming upset over missile defense consultations between the two countries.
Russian officials Thursday showed a computerized version of imaginary strikes by Russian nuclear missiles on imaginary targets on the U.S. East Coast.
In contrast, the United States has immediately retreated into dreamy fantasy whenever challenged on the matter. The fog of fantasy was particularly thick during the Bush Administration, when Condoleeza Rice was calling the shots, but unfortunately the nightmare's continued under Obama. These days, the U.S. says the deployments are meant to oppose offensive Iranian missiles, but the U.S. will basically say anything, and make any excuse, however implausible, to install those missiles. These deployments curry favor all around the Black Sea, and are good for business.
It's too bad that the Russians have to club the U.S. across the forehead with the equivalent of a baseball bat to get American attention. We have lots of common interests - controlling Afghanistan, controlling Middle Eastern terrorism, strengthening ties in central Asia - and the rest. We should be cooperating; not fighting. But the U.S. still wants its damned missiles next to the Russian border, for some damned reason, so there's friction too.
So, what's so bad about missile defense installations? Wouldn't that stabilize the strategic situation there? If that was only the case!
Missile defenses are likely to be quite ineffective - missiles move so fast that any missile battle is bound to be won by the aggressor, not the defender. Nevertheless, missile defenses give small powers on the Russian periphery a false sense of security, which could give them enough confidence to attack Russia. THAT'S what the Russians are concerned about! And they have good reason to be concerned too. Look what happened in 2008!
Reading about the South Ossetian War of 2008 is sobering. After a major military buildup (featuring lots of help from the Americans and Israelis) over the years, and after a period of severe border tensions, Georgia felt emboldened enough to attack the Russian-held city of Tskhinvali. Even without missile defenses, a minor power on the Russian periphery felt emboldened enough to directly attack one of the most powerful military powers on Earth, possessing enough nuclear might to kill nearly everyone on the planet! How much more emboldened Georgia might have felt with missile defenses (and perhaps a guarantee from NATO to come to its aid and defense)? Could nuclear war with the West be forestalled? What were our 'strategic thinkers' - warmongers like John McCain - thinking?
That's one reason why Georgia should never become part of NATO: it might mean our annihilation, perhaps even if accidentally. But it also illustrates that Russia's concerns are real, and not just arrogant talk.
So why are Americans so deaf to reason that Russians have to threaten our East Coast cities with Armageddon just to get our attention?
No comments:
Post a Comment