Hope is Not a Foreign Policy » Russia

John Kerry’s Misinformed Position on the New START Treaty

Tom Skypek — Fri, 09 Jul 2010 02:16:40 +0000

Yesterday, Senator John F. Kerry wrote an op-ed in response to Mitt Romney’s piece published earlier this week in which the former governor argued against ratifying the New START Treaty. Kerry’s op-ed was not only hyper-partisan but, as The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano notes, quite inaccurate as well. Kerry’s op-ed was little more than partisan drivel. It lacked any sort of serious analytical rigor. I would expect a better quality of analysis and thought from the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Romney on the New START Treaty

Tom Skypek — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 11:36:40 +0000

It’s hard to pick President Obama’s worst foreign policy mistake. As far as I’m concerned, his general conduct of American foreign policy has been subpar and a bit too Carteresque. According to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney the New START Treaty is a leading candidate for this administration’s worst foreign policy mistake. In an op-ed in yesterday’s WaPo, Romney presented a very clear argument in opposition to the New START Treaty. I agree wholeheartedly with his advice that the treaty, in its current state, should not be ratified by the United States Senate. Romney argues, “He [Obama] acceded to Russia’s No. 1 foreign policy objective, the abandonment of our Europe-based missile defense program, and obtained nothing whatsoever in return.” I have no problem giving something up to receive something in return–that’s how negotiations work. But it’s unclear to me what exactly we are receiving in return.

Entering into treaties is serious business because it reduces our sovereignty. How does this treaty advance the national interest? That is the question I would need answered, if I were voting on this in the Senate. Flowery language about “Global Zero” and nuclear disarmament would not suffice. To use an Obama phrase, let me be clear: I think a productive relationship with the Russian Federation could be a strategic asset in the coming decades, especially with the rise of China now upon us. However, a productive working relationship must be built on mutual trust and respect. This treaty is simply too one-sided to create the foundation for a stronger relationship with Moscow.

For an opposing view, check out Pavel Podvig’s response.

Don’t Be Facebook Friends with a Spy

Tom Skypek — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:45:43 +0000

It appears as though accused Russian spy Mikhail Semenko was an active social networker. Semenko and his comrades are a case study in espionage 2.0. He had accounts on LinkedIn and Facebook. He even ran a blog on the Chinese economy. What are the lessons here? Well, first, you should know who you’re connected to on these social networking sites. A Facebook news feed could have been a great source of intelligence for Semenko, if he was friends with the right people–say, a congressman on the right committee who posts a little too much on his Facebook account or even a mid-level civil servant working in a sensitive national security position. It seems hard to believe, but it’s true. Spies aren’t just after things like weapons designs and highly classified documents. More mundane and seemingly innocent bits of information, such as a person’s schedule, location or patterns of behavior, can be equally useful to a foreign agent.

If you’re a foreign agent, Facebook is a great way to target potential sources. As such, people who work in sensitive positions, especially three-letter agencies, should be careful about what they put into these publicly searchable profiles. This seems obvious, but you’d be surprised. In military parlance, this is called operational security. Unfortunately, there are a lot of silly kids who don’t practice operational security. I’m not suggesting that we need a Joe McCarthy of Facebook–only that people in sensitive positions be mindful about what kind of information they disclose and to whom.

Also, check out Jim Robbins’s account of his recent encounter with Semenko at a lecture in Washington.

Ilan Berman on U.S. Nuclear Superiority

Tom Skypek — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:45:23 +0000

Ilan Berman, a noted expert on Iran and Vice President for Policy at the American Foreign Policy Council, has a great piece in today’s Defense News on the Obama administration’s (mis)handling of U.S. nuclear policy. Berman reminds us that both Russia and China are modernizing their strategic forces while the U.S. weapons complex is eroding:

Indeed, practically every declared nuclear weapon state is engaged in a serious modernization of its strategic arsenal. The United States, by contrast, has allowed its strategic infrastructure to atrophy since the end of the Cold War.

The results of this neglect are striking, as scholars Bradley Thayer and Thomas Skypek have detailed in a pair of studies. America’s ICBM force is aging rapidly, and the retirement of long-range missiles such as the Minuteman and Peacekeeper in the years ahead will cause a major constriction in the U.S. ballistic missile arsenal, with no replacements in sight. Meanwhile, the U.S. bomber fleet has shrunk by nearly two-thirds since 2001.

An aging work force and poor incentives for science and technology education also raise the possibility that the current decline could become irreversible unless major investments are made, and soon.

The White House doesn’t seem overly concerned by this state of affairs. While some in the Obama administration appear to understand the imperative of nuclear force modernization – Defense Secretary Robert Gates, for one, has emerged as a champion of the Reliable Replacement Warhead program currently languishing in Congress – the prevailing official zeitgeist is squarely in favor of arms control and disarmament.

This trend is deeply troubling, as I’ve noted on multiple occasions. If this situation is not rectified, the ramifications for U.S. national security will be severe. It will be interesting to see how this policy debate unfolds in the coming months as the results of the Nuclear Posture Review are briefed to Congress and the administration continues to work with Russia to carve out a follow-on to START.

Where’s Vladimir?

Tom Skypek — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 11:33:35 +0000

The Russian “Reset”

Tom Skypek — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:41:30 +0000

Brad Thayer and I were quoted recently in a piece on U.S.-Russian relations published by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). The EIU piece provides a solid overview of the arms control negotiations that will occur throughout this year between Washington and Moscow regarding the expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) this December. It certainly looks as though missile defense will be the wedge issue du jour for this upcoming round of negotiations. As EIU reports, “Russian commentators insist that there will be no new START unless the US puts its plans for a missile shield on ice.” It will be interesting to see how these negotiations unfold.

President Obama is clearly receptive to a bargain–at least with respect to the missile defense site in Eastern Europe, as he intimated in his recent letter to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. If Moscow helped Washington to stall Iran’s nuclear weapons program by enacting a targeted sanctions package, would the U.S. still need a missile defense site in Eastern Europe? Theoretically, the primary requirement for a missile defense site in Europe is a nuclear-armed Iran with an expanded ballistic missile capability. So in the absence of a nuclear-armed Iran, what threat is the missile defense site defending against? I understand that this was a “test” of the new administration and I share the view that China’s senior political leadership was certainly in the loop on this. Nikolas Gvosdev examined this issue in more detail last week.

Regrettably, it is unlikely that Russia will be able to separate itself from its financial interests long enough to fulfill its end of the bargain. Think about it. Right now, what’s more important to the Russian leadership–financial gains and economic growth or “good will” from Washington? If you’re Medvedev, you’d probably choose the former.

“Russia Goes Ballistic”

Tom Skypek — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 22:07:45 +0000

Bradley Thayer and I co-authored an article in the September/October issue of the The National Interest entitled, “Russia Goes Ballistic.” Here’s a brief excerpt:

OVER THE next ten to twenty years, the erosion of American nuclear superiority will have major ramifications for the global balance of power. It will place new constraints on our freedom of action and lead our friends and foes alike to doubt the credibility of all instruments of U.S. power. As a result, decades-old alliance structures may fracture amid a drift toward multipolarity. Leadership from Tokyo to Riyadh to Seoul may find new incentives to develop their own deterrents as the relative power of states like Russia and China increases. With our extended-deterrent power lost, the international system will change—and not in Washington’s favor. But this scenario is preventable if policy makers cast away the illusion of safety and act quickly to correct a trend which has plagued Washington for nearly two decades.

Policymakers in Washington need to look seriously at the role of nuclear weapons in the grand strategy of the United States.

Georgia Severs Diplomatic Ties with Moscow

Tom Skypek — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:37:16 +0000

Yesterday, the government in Tbilisi announced that it cut diplomatic ties with Russia to protest the continued presence of Russian troops in Georgian territory. The situation in Eurasia is not improving. Russia’s decision to recognize the “independence” of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was particularly problematic since these two regions are part of Georgia.

This week, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev escalated his rhetoric. Commenting on U.S. plans to install missile interceptors and command and control nodes in Poland and the Czech Republic, Medvedev threatened to use military force: “This will create additional tension and we will have to respond to it in some way, naturally using military means.” Medvedev’s comments are unproductive and only increase the risk of misperception and thereby the risk of military conflict, which is no one’s interest. It is clear that the next president will be forced to confront an increasingly belligerent Russian government. A talented statesman will be required to defuse the mounting tensions in the Eurasian corridor and John McCain is the best man for the job.

Russia Seeks Counterbalance to West from SCO

Matt Schwieger — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:42:07 +0000

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev appealed to China and other Central Asian nations to show its support for Russia’s actions in Georgia at a Shangai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tajikistan today. International press offered conflicting analysis, which of course, is no surprise. What is striking, however, is that the break was not along traditional media fault lines. The following is a snapshot of a few of the headlines…

(CNN) — Russia’s hopes of winning international support for its actions in Georgia were dashed Thursday, when China and other Asian nations expressed concern about mounting tensions in the region.

AP: Asian alliance snubs Russian plea for support

AFP: Medvedev hails support from China, Central Asia

Daily Telegraph Australia Moscow: Russia wins backing from China

Sydney Morning Herald Russia wins backing from China, Central Asia over Georgia

Which is it? Support or isolation? Of course Medvedev claims, “I am sure that the united position of the SCO member states will have international resonance…And I hope it will serve as a serious signal to those who try to turn black into white and justify this aggression,” The actual language of the joint declaration from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, however, points to a more subtle message of reserved support for Russia with clear caveats: namely, the respect for “the unity of the state and its territorial integrity.” It is important to note that none of the other SCO member states joined Russia in recognizing the independence claims of Georgia’s separatist regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Certainly, China is treading lightly on its response to the Georgia situation as it deals with its own internal seperatist movements in Tibet and Xinjiang.

The next US administration needs to highlight and exploit these subtle but important differences that arise between China and Russia on Georgia, and increase our strategic engagement efforts with NATO Partnership for Peace states in Central Asia.

Legendary Campaign Ads: “The Bear”

Tom Skypek — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:53:03 +0000