Saturday
Nov082008
Russia to Obama: Ball's In Your Court
Saturday, November 8, 2008 at 13:39
In a nationally televised address on Wednesday, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev greeted the President-elect with the message that, if the Obama Administration proceeded with the development of missile defence sites in eastern Europe, the Russians would deploy short-range missiles in Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania.
The US and British media framed Medvedev's statement as a "brisk warning", "a warning shot", and "chilling words". The New York Times tut-tutted, "Mr. Medvedev and his power-broker-mentor Mr. [Vladimir] Putin seem to be more interested in talking tough and drawing lines in the sand than in exploring Mr. Obama’s intentions."
David Clark, who heads the Russia Foundation thinktank, defined the headlines: "The missile deployment is all of a piece with Russia planting its flag in the Arctic and [former president Vladimir] Putin going hunting bare-chested in Siberia, to, at the other end of the spectrum, active military operations in the Caucasus."
The reaction, whether in panicked headlines or calmer analysis, is incomplete to the point of being unhelpful. For the Russian leadership was not reacting to Obama's plans but to those of his predecessor. A quick reminder: it's the Bush Administration that had been putting the challenge with its pursuit of the missile defence bases, manned by American troops, in Poland and Czechoslovakia. This, in turn, has been part of a wider political-military initiative, including American attempts to get Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Bush and his advisors, however, left Obama with the burden of a half-completed project. The bases have not yet been established, and the attempt at NATO expansion collapsed spectacularly with the Russian-Georgian conflict in August.
So Moscow, far from facing an American fait accompli, has a window for a counter-move. Medvedev and Putin could have hung back, waiting for a signal from the President-elect. Instead, possibly judging that the Bush Administration in its last days would press ahead with the base plan, possibly judging that Obama isn't clear on his own position, the Russians have chosen to press the issue.
It's a logical step which deserves a more considered analysis than the New York Times' demand that "they stop trying to bully their own people — and everyone else". The Washington Post's simplistic exposition that "Moscow Alarms East More Than West" , with its undertone of sensible New Europe, empty-headed Old Europe, does not get to grips with the US challenge to Russia in its former sphere of influence and, more specifically, the summer shake-up caused by Georgia's ill-fated challenge to Moscow.
Indeed, Russia could exploit this week's revelations that Georgia used far more cluster bombs in South Ossetia than was previously thought. It could note that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is facing street protests challenging his rule. Most importantly, it could make its latest move with the knowledge that the US Government, far from being on the front foot in its global ambitions, will be facing immediate economic challenges.
In that context, it was telling that there was no reaction from President Bush to the Medvedev speech; the White House spokesman merely offered the non sequitur, ""We have made it clear that missile defense is designed to protect us all from rogue states."
What was even more telling, however, was President-elect Obama's response to this first foreign-policy challenge. How many references to Russia in his 19-minute press conference yesterday? None.
The US and British media framed Medvedev's statement as a "brisk warning", "a warning shot", and "chilling words". The New York Times tut-tutted, "Mr. Medvedev and his power-broker-mentor Mr. [Vladimir] Putin seem to be more interested in talking tough and drawing lines in the sand than in exploring Mr. Obama’s intentions."
David Clark, who heads the Russia Foundation thinktank, defined the headlines: "The missile deployment is all of a piece with Russia planting its flag in the Arctic and [former president Vladimir] Putin going hunting bare-chested in Siberia, to, at the other end of the spectrum, active military operations in the Caucasus."
The reaction, whether in panicked headlines or calmer analysis, is incomplete to the point of being unhelpful. For the Russian leadership was not reacting to Obama's plans but to those of his predecessor. A quick reminder: it's the Bush Administration that had been putting the challenge with its pursuit of the missile defence bases, manned by American troops, in Poland and Czechoslovakia. This, in turn, has been part of a wider political-military initiative, including American attempts to get Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Bush and his advisors, however, left Obama with the burden of a half-completed project. The bases have not yet been established, and the attempt at NATO expansion collapsed spectacularly with the Russian-Georgian conflict in August.
So Moscow, far from facing an American fait accompli, has a window for a counter-move. Medvedev and Putin could have hung back, waiting for a signal from the President-elect. Instead, possibly judging that the Bush Administration in its last days would press ahead with the base plan, possibly judging that Obama isn't clear on his own position, the Russians have chosen to press the issue.
It's a logical step which deserves a more considered analysis than the New York Times' demand that "they stop trying to bully their own people — and everyone else". The Washington Post's simplistic exposition that "Moscow Alarms East More Than West" , with its undertone of sensible New Europe, empty-headed Old Europe, does not get to grips with the US challenge to Russia in its former sphere of influence and, more specifically, the summer shake-up caused by Georgia's ill-fated challenge to Moscow.
Indeed, Russia could exploit this week's revelations that Georgia used far more cluster bombs in South Ossetia than was previously thought. It could note that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili is facing street protests challenging his rule. Most importantly, it could make its latest move with the knowledge that the US Government, far from being on the front foot in its global ambitions, will be facing immediate economic challenges.
In that context, it was telling that there was no reaction from President Bush to the Medvedev speech; the White House spokesman merely offered the non sequitur, ""We have made it clear that missile defense is designed to protect us all from rogue states."
What was even more telling, however, was President-elect Obama's response to this first foreign-policy challenge. How many references to Russia in his 19-minute press conference yesterday? None.
Reader Comments