Азиатские тигры (igor_tiger) wrote,
Азиатские тигры

Несвоевременный СТАРТ

Несвоевременный  START (СНВ-2)
Проблема не в оружии, а в сущности режима, контролирующего оружие. 

The Russians are no longer an existential threat. A nuclear exchange between Washington and Moscow is inconceivable. What difference does it make how many nukes Russia builds? If they want to spend themselves into penury creating a bloated nuclear arsenal, be our guest.

President Obama insists that New START is important as a step toward his dream of a nuclear-free world. Where does one begin? A world without nukes would be the ultimate nightmare. We voluntarily disarm while the world's rogues and psychopaths develop nukes in secret. Just last week we found out about a hidden, unknown, highly advanced North Korean uranium enrichment facility. An ostensibly nuclear-free world would place these weapons in the hands of radical regimes that would not hesitate to use them - against a civilized world that would have given up its deterrent.

Obama's New START treaty is 90 percent useless and 10 percent problematic. One difficulty is that it restricts the number of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. But because some of these are dual-use, our ability to deliver long-range conventional weapons, a major U.S.  strategic advantage, is constrained.

Дебаты по СНВ-2 — шанс для восстановления роли Америки в мире

Times: Попытки Обамы продать СНВ-2 республиканцам привели к росту отчаяния
….Although Medvedev technically has the top job (and titular responsibility for foreign policy), every Russia watcher knows that Putin is the real boss, and that he could reassume the post of president as soon as Russia's constitution allows him to, in 2012.

Are Putin and Medvedev really pursuing different basic policies — authoritarian nationalism for Putin, pro-Western modernization for Medvedev? It's not clear. Some scholars believe the differences are real and that if Medvedev held office without Putin in the wings, he'd move Russia much closer to the West. Others believe the differences are mostly style, not substance. But no one argues that Medvedev could have steered Russia into its current rapprochement with the United States without Putin on board.

scholar Dimitri K. Simes of Washington's Nixon Center notes that both Putin and Medvedev are seeking foreign investment to modernize Russia's economy. The most important change, he argues, hasn't been Medvedev's rise; it's been the fall in Russia's oil earnings, which clipped Putin's wings.

«If we create the impression that we are building an alliance with Medvedev against Putin, that may not be good for Medvedev's political future», Simes warned. «The White House should curb its enthusiasm for Medvedev's sake».

In fact, the White House's chief Russia expert, Michael McFaul, has tried hard to avoid that pitfall. «We do not have a policy to support one person over the other», McFaul said earlier this year.
«There's one president in Russia. We deal with him…. We do not see a difference in policy between Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev».

The White House's real problem isn't Medvedev; it's Obama. Obama's the one, battered by sagging popularity and his party's midterm election shellacking, who can't get the Senate to ratify a treaty that almost every living Republican statesman has endorsed.
Tags: НАТО
  • Post a new comment


    Comments allowed for friends only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded