That Didn’t Take Long
Yesterday I predicted that the Russians would respond to Obama’s unilateral concession by saying “Thank you very much. What else are you going to do for me?”
Right on cue, here’s Putin asking for more, and not with a timorous, Oliver Twist mien either:
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called for trade concessions, including an end to restrictions on high-tech transfers to Russia, following U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision to abandon a missile shield in Europe.
“I’m counting on other decisions to follow this correct and brave decision, including the complete elimination of restrictions on cooperation with Russia and on transfers of high technology to Russia as well as an intensification of World Trade Organization expansion to include Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan,” Putin said at a business forum in Sochi today. [Emphasis mine.]
Note the plural “decisions.” Very nice. I especially like the “I’m counting on it” part. When I say jump, Obama . . .
Translation: we expect you to be the gift that keeps on giving. We’re counting on it.
And Putin has every reason to think his expectations are realistic. Once a chump, always a chump.
Want another illustration of Obama’s unique ability to make Jimmy Carter look like Chuck Norris?: his refusal, contrary to the example of every previous occupant of the Oval Office, to meet with the Dalai Lama. So as not to offend the Chinese.
How nice.
Is there any thug before whom this man will not cringe? The Iranian despots kill, beat, imprison and rape opponents–Obama is virtually silent until shamed into a barely acceptable response. Conceding to Kim Jung Il on bilateral talks. Bowing to King Abdullah of the medieval Saudi “state.” Joining the Chavez book club. Responding to criticism of the United States–you know, the country of which Obama is president–by pipsqueak punk Danny Boy Ortega by whining that he couldn’t be blamed for things that happened when he was young. Now sucking up to the Chinese and the Russians. All the while stiffing long time allies from Israel to Honduras to Poland.
One would hope that Putin’s gleeful rubbing of Obama’s nose in it would have some effect. I am sadly convinced that such hopes would be in vain.
Obama is a Messiah-like man of peace, sent by God to resolve the conflicts of this world. This slander of him amounts to nothing less than heresy. The West has committed many, many sins against the rest of the world and Obama realizes it is time for atonement. I completely agree and hope he has the moral strength to continuing leading the people through these purifying tribulations.
Second, what gives you the right to call certain foreign leaders “thugs”? They reflect the will of their people, unlike the West which is more concerned about its “rule of law” (for corporations), and as such are far more democratic than any Western country.
Comment by poluchi fashist granatu — September 18, 2009 @ 11:58 am
Anyhow, I was trolling.
Obama will continue pursuing basically neo-imperialist policies aimed at containing Russia in eastern Europe, which is proved by the fact that non-GBD missile defense systems will be deployed (SM-3, adaptations of THAAD) and the sale of 48 upgraded F-16 fighters and lots of other military kit to Poland. Similarly, Russia realizes this is a largely empty, rhetorical issue that allows Washington to win a PR victory without having to make any real concessions (to which it made the equally empty concession to not deploy medium-range missiles to Kaliningrad).
Now if the WTO and hi-tech transfers issues are resolved positively with Washington, however, then Russia should consider cooperating with the US on Iran, but certainly not beforehand. One of the key lessons it should draw from the 1990’s is to never make unreciprocated concessions to the eternally hostile West.
Comment by poluchi fashist granatu — September 18, 2009 @ 1:04 pm
48 fighters are something, but I don’t imagine they will be of significant impact compared to the strategic assets Russia has with stand-off missiles, land-based ABM (S-400/S-500), long-range bombers, etc. Russia also has a decent fleet of fighters. They operate something on the order of 100 Su-30s, which are quite modern and very capable planes, not counting their older fleet of Su-27s and Mig-29s, many of which have been upgraded. They operate over 400 Mig-29s alone.
This isn’t meant as some this plane is than that plane thing, I just do not expect Russia is quaking over 48 late-model F-16s.
Last off, SM-3 is not an adaptation of THAAD. They have a similar mission (ABM) but SM-3 is exoatmospheric, while THAAD operates at (very) high altitude within the atmosphere. That makes THAAD useful for later acquisition of targets than SM-3, which needs to catch them before reentry. As a last, “not the same thing”, THAAD is a LM developed missile and SM-3 is a Raytheon design.
Comment by ThomasL — September 18, 2009 @ 2:31 pm
Yes. SM-3 is a version of the Standard Missile. First clue: “SM”.
I didn’t mean to imply they were the same – sorry if you interpreted it that way.
In any case the points are rather moot since Poland and Russia have no reason to have a war.
Comment by poluchi fashist granatu — September 18, 2009 @ 3:03 pm
PS. I checked, and Poland already has 48 F-16’s. Another 48, and there’ll be a hundred fighters roughly equivalent to upgraded Mig-29’s / Su-27’s. Coupled with a modern air defense system around Warsaw, and the Polish nut is for all purposes uncrackable without use of nuclear weapons.
Comment by poluchi fashist granatu — September 18, 2009 @ 3:08 pm
“Shortly after the pullback on the shield programme was announced, Russia’s government said Prime Minister Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives on Friday from firms including General Electric, Morgan Stanley as well as TPG, one of the world’s largest private equity firms.”
“U.S. companies have arguably lost out to some European companies in joint ventures, and better diplomacy will likely improve the chances for investors in the strategic sectors of the Russian economy,” said Carlo Gallo, senior Russia analyst at London-based consultancy Control Risks.
GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC, the network famously friendly to Obama.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-helps-strengthen-General-Electric-Putin-ties-59644627.html
I says it all, it’s cronyism of the worst kind driving foreign policy with Russia. Obama isn’t even subtle. It looks like he threw the Poles and Czechs under the bus for GE and the big financial players on WS. He’s a creep.
Comment by penny — September 18, 2009 @ 4:01 pm
SWP, I wonder how the Russians are reacting to the chants of “Death to Russia” in Iran. They had to stop the official chant of “Death to Israel,” because the people were responding with “Death to Russia.”
Penny – that is an eye-opener and a stunner.
The question is – why would any sane businessperson “invest” anything in Russia, given all of the examples of property simply being taken away on assorted pretexts?
Comment by elmer — September 18, 2009 @ 10:38 pm
Re-That “Death to Russia” theme.
Nothing more than a cynical ploy by Rafsanjani – a man as morally compromised as any other old Iranian revolutionary – to attack Ahmadinejad and his perceived pursuit of closer relations with Russia after the failed Green Revolution, which Ahmadinejad had alleged (probably with some justification) was supported by the US.
What’s funny, though, is how Russophobes jump to embrace any asshole who attacks Russia, no matter his background, as long as he is anti-Russian. I for one would keep a fair distance from anyone chanting “Death to -x-“, whatever the -x- is. A deep and disturbing look into the workings of the Russophobic “mind” (if it can be dignified with the term).
Comment by poluchi fashist granatu — September 19, 2009 @ 12:26 am
Penny,
You mean you’re just now waking up to the fact that Russia became the U.S.’s fourth largest creditor last year and the implications for American policy? Where have you been for the last year? Or is it just too painful as a Russophobe to realize that the Russians (along with the Chinese, Japanese, Kuwaitis and Saudis) were probably one of the unstated foreign creditors who demanded to be made whole when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapsed? I mean seriously, the Democrat apparatchiks (and not a few Republicans) who ran those institutions into the ground never saw what hit them and never could have imagined that their fates were in the hands of foreigners, that the U.S. could go to begging like Russia and Argentina had to the IMF.
And now to the Professor – the Washington consensus to kowtow to China, whether because they are funding the empire of military bases in 120 countries (Heritage, here’s looking at you, for denying that the Chinese are in any way shape or form dumping the dollar) or Hope and Change bailout socialism, is simply too strong, despite the Professor’s Quixotic rhetorical efforts. Either they buy our treasuries or we’re purely printing money Weimar-style to finance 80% of our debt rather than say merely 50%.
Comment by Steve J. Nelson — September 19, 2009 @ 8:40 am
S/O, so you keep fair distance from yourself? And how exactly do you do it? By the way, most of Russians do not react anyhow to this news, since it was hardly showed at Russian state televisions.
Comment by Deith — September 19, 2009 @ 9:00 am
Huh? The Russian media has been all over this.
Comment by Steve J. Nelson — September 19, 2009 @ 9:28 am
“What’s funny, though, is how Russophobes jump to embrace any asshole who attacks Russia, no matter his background, as long as he is anti-Russian.” Indeed.
Comment by Steve J. Nelson — September 19, 2009 @ 9:29 am
“PS. I checked, and Poland already has 48 F-16’s. Another 48, and there’ll be a hundred fighters roughly equivalent to upgraded Mig-29’s / Su-27’s. Coupled with a modern air defense system around Warsaw, and the Polish nut is for all purposes uncrackable without use of nuclear weapons.”
I just don’t see what the big deal is about 100 F-16s. Russia has 100 Su-30s, 400 MiG-29s, 450 Su-27s*, 130 brand new MiG-29S/MTs, and they are waiting for delivery on 48 (coincidence?) new Su-35s and 36 Su-34s.
I honestly don’t have any idea how many of those planes are operational and how many are reserve, but you are looking at an air fleet over 11 times larger. They simply are not comparable forces.
*All of which are slated to be finished upgrading to the Su-27SM standard by the end of this year.
Comment by ThomasL — September 19, 2009 @ 10:48 am
“I honestly don’t have any idea how many of those planes are operational and how many are reserve, but you are looking at an air fleet over 11 times larger. They simply are not comparable forces.”
Then theres the combined NATO air forces, which massively outnumber Russia’s.
really, the balance of air power is massively in NATO’s favor. And that includes Poland.
Comment by rkka — September 19, 2009 @ 12:07 pm
“I just don’t see what the big deal is about 100 F-16s. Russia has 100 Su-30s, 400 MiG-29s, 450 Su-27s*, 130 brand new MiG-29S/MTs, and they are waiting for delivery on 48 (coincidence?) new Su-35s and 36 Su-34s.”
1. As rkka points out, Poland has NATO.
2. That would also imply Poland by itself has big force multipliers through access to superior intelligence & surveillance assets.
3. Why the concern over withdrawal of the US plans to base GBI in Poland? Because it “weakens” US commitment to defend Poland in the case of Russian aggression, according to the “Russophobe” argument.
However, the point here is that even without NATO, an unlikely scenario, Poland will be a very hard nut to crack. Russia’s military is of course much larger, but a) presumably it wouldn’t and can’t all be concentrated against Poland and b) typically the aggressor needs a 3:1 numerical advantage. If Poland has both an advanced Patriot phalanx around Warsaw and 100 upgraded F-16’s, that would be a match, in the region, for all the air assets Russia could realistically throw against Poland. It will be unable to achieve air superiority, so its armored thrusts would be much weaker than otherwise, and could probably be halted by Poland, especially if supported by NATO special forces and access to its intelligence and surveillance assets.
So this argument doesn’t really hold, I think.
Comment by poluchi fashist granatu — September 19, 2009 @ 1:21 pm
I don’t really expect Russia will strike Poland. There isn’t an obvious reason it would, however, I think Russia can effectively use its military superiority to pressure Poland in various economic quarters. There ability to pressure is abundantly clear, as simply the hint displeasing Russia was enough to make the U.S. recoil from aiding Poland. Do you really think if Russia did make a play for some segment of Polish territory, claiming the need to establish a suitable buffer to protect oil or gas interests, for example, that the U.S., France, U.K., and Germany would rush to its aid because of NATO agreements? I seriously doubt it. I think it would be in large part a repeat of the recent Russo-Georgian conflict.
The aircraft centered arguments are also assuming a fixed 1:1 base loss-exchange ratio for F-16 vs Su-30/35/27SM, and then upping the home field advantage to 3:1. It seems highly unlikely that the real exchange ratio between an Su-35 or Su-30 and an F-16 will be 3:1, even with the advantages of defence. I don’t think that holds on the technical merits of the planes, and PAC, while a great system, really isn’t designed for large scale air defence by itself, it is just one piece of the puzzle, and one which is increasingly focused on defence against small numbers of missiles. They need a complete AA system at all levels, and one capable of handling a large number of aircraft and missiles of various types simultaneously. Maybe they have a very effective system, I’m not too sure of their capabilities, but off the top of my head it seems unlikely to me that they really have the stores for sustained resistance against a power that much larger and stronger, and I also imagine that both Russia and Poland know it. As importantly, the loss of 100 Polish aircraft (on the ground or in the air) leads to immediate and unchecked superiority of the Russian forces. The loss of 100 planes to the Russians means they transfer in some reserves. U.K., U.S., and Germany may like to help, but they won’t be doing much good when they have to fly across the totality of Poland in order to reach the scene, and I imagine at that point Russia would start dictating its terms for a settlement.
If Russia has no plans to influence Poland through strength (mind, not the same thing as war, again, I don’t actually think they will attack) then why does it so strongly object to Polish missile defence? Missile defence is by definition purely defensive. What have they to object to but the diminution of their military (read, missile) influence across central and eastern Europe?
One thing the lack of ballistic missile defence also very effectively does is open Polish airfields to intermediate range ballistic strikes, effectively paralyzing their air fleet, be that 100 F-16s or 1000. Again, I imagine both Poland and Russia know this very well.
Comment by ThomasL — September 20, 2009 @ 4:57 pm