Stephen Cohen, The Nation: How Washington Provoked—and Perhaps Lost—a New Nuclear-Arms Race
Putin declares that the long US attempt to gain nuclear superiority over Russia has failed and hopes Washington will “listen now.”
Stephen F. Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian Studies and Politics at NYU and Princeton, and John Batchelor continue their (usually) weekly discussions of the new US-Russian Cold War. (Previous installments, now in their fourth year, are at TheNation.com.)
Cohen explains that President Putin’s speech to both houses of the Russian parliament on March 1, somewhat akin to the US president’s annual State of the Union address, was composed of two distinct parts. The first approximately two-thirds was pitched to the upcoming Russian presidential election, on March 18, and to domestic concerns of Russian voters, which are not unlike those of American voters: stability, jobs, health care, education, taxes, infrastructures, etc. The latter part of the speech was, however, devoted solely to recent achievements in Russia’s strategic, or nuclear, weapons. These remarks, though also of electoral value, were addressed directly to Washington. Putin’s overarching point was that Russia has thwarted Washington’s two-decade-long effort to gain nuclear superiority over—and thus a survivable first-strike capability against—Russia. His attendant conclusion was that one era in post-Soviet Russian-American strategic relations has ended and a new one has begun. This part of Putin’s speech makes it among the important he has delivered during his 18 years in power. (It is on the ACEWA website eastwestaccord.com.)
Read more ....
WNU Editor: One of the better reviews that I have read on Russian President Putin's March 1 speech.
2 comments:
This is indeed a good article. One thing the author does get wrong though is the idea of American missile defense. Theses systems are not designed with Russia in mind. Russia apparently believes they are though.
Might it be better to abandon this missile defense system. They appear to have negative utility. Lets say you defend against a limited threat posed by Iran and/or North Korea but you inflame a bigger threat in Russia. This would not be good policy.
Perhaps with better relations with Russia we might be able to gain some kind of leverage over North Korea and Iran. With no downside risks and huge upside potential it would seem prudent to try and pursue good relations with such an important world power as Russia.
With that said, this is along the margin and is really the only area where the authors get this wrong. Essentially treat Russia as an equal and in some ways superior power that are, respect them, and good outcomes for America are possible. Doing otherwise can only end badly for America.
Candidate Trump started on the right path. As the author points out, endless and needless demonization of Russia has made it hard for POTUS to seize the truly historic opportunity we still have to end this. I do hold some confidence that Republican electoral gains in 2018 will improve our political situation and will make it more feasible to pursue the proper avenues toward Russia.
With that said doing that which is right in the face of stiff and unreasonable opposition is hard. It requires character. Few have such character. I have always been impressed by those who do.
The expansion of NATO to Russia's borders has been arguably one of the stupidest things ever conceived of by a major power. This has no upside benefit for America coupled with huge costs and huge downside risks. When in a hole, STOP DIGGING!!
This leads to arguably the stupidest move ever, support of the Ukrainian coup. Perhaps the US did not organize this even if the Russians think we did. The quick support of our government for this was/is bad optics to say the least. Like school girls experiencing their first crush and not thinking clearly, US leaders ran to the support of corrupt chumps without even thinking about or ascertaining any knowledge of jus who it was/is they were/are supporting!!
russia is never weaker as you hope and never strong as she think
The reagan doctrine is still in effect , US should continue the pressures (sanctions ,expanding the nato east) while push Russia in to high military expenditure and expensive military system
Post a Comment