Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, June 11, 2007
Frank Gaffney :: Townhall.com Columnist
Putin's Ploy
by Frank Gaffney
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Chess is the national sport of Russia. It is, therefore, as Soviet Communists like Vladimir Putin used to say, “no coincidence, comrade” that the proposal on missile defense that he rolled out at last week’s G-8 meeting was a sophisticated gambit, a crafty effort not to advance the protection of Europe and the United States from future Iranian missiles, but to block such anti-missile defenses. Call it Putin’s ploy.

In fact, in the manner of an accomplished master of the game – for example, his democracy-advocating nemesis, Garry Kasparov – Putin is playing on several different chess boards simultaneously.

First, there is the U.S.-Russian relationship. An enemy is required by every would-be totalitarian – and it is increasingly clear that, despite his laughable claim to being “the last democrat,” Putin’s behavior has the hallmarks of a new czar. For Vladimir Putin, it is us. By building up the notion that we are a threat, he is able to garner popular support for his growing consolidation of power and even repression at home. He is also able to justify a new military build-up and adventurism abroad in league with the likes of world-class anti-Americans like Iran’s mullahs, China’s Communist leadership, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong Il of North Korea.

Then, there is the Russian-European “board.” Putin has reverted to traditional Kremlin behavior towards Europe: bullying, coercing and blackmailing, using threats of nuclear attacks and energy cut-offs and other forms of economic pressure Taking a move out of Stalin’s playbook, the man-who-would-be-Czar has even attacked one of the Baltic states, Estonia, albeit with cyber-warfare, not the old fashioned kind.

Finally, Vladimir Putin is trying to affect U.S.-European relations. His service in the KGB during the American-led effort to place intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe nearly a quarter century ago clearly left its mark on Putin. He is not only nostalgic for the Soviets’ superpower status that began to unravel when that deployment went forward. He is also well-versed in the type of divide-and-conquer strategy that narrowly failed to topple key NATO governments and prevent the INF missiles from being fielded.

Today, the Kremlin is hoping to capitalize on U.S.-European strains over Iraq and to use the wedge of opposition to Bush Administration plans to deploy a very modest anti-missile capability in Poland and the Czech Republic to create, and fill, a vacuum of power on the continent.

The Putin ploy seeks to advance these purposes in several ways:

The Russian president has offered a Russian radar in Azerbaijan as an alternative to the detection and tracking radar slated under the Bush plan for the Czech Republic. Never mind that the Kremlin’s obsolescent radar is not designed for the kind of sophisticated discrimination of warheads from decoys inherent in the proposed, modern American system. The idea is not to do the job. Rather, it is to confuse the issue, give Czech opponents an apparent alternative to having the new radar based in their country, and make the U.S. appear unreasonable. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Frank Gaffney Jr. is the founder and president of the Center for Security Policy and author of War Footing: 10 Steps America Must Take to Prevail in the War for the Free World .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Frank Gaffney's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Bad article
Frank J Gaffney, you strike me as one of those spanners in the works, the ghosts in the machine. It's a good thing that people who read these articles have enough intelligence to discrimintate between intelligent journalism and the kind of counter-productive blathering this article represents. Get with the times, Gaffney. Russia is not the enemy. People like you are.

By Europe, Putin means the countries everyone really gives a damn about. His idea is a brilliant one, and he does not at all suggest that obsolete equipment should continue be used. America's desire to put the defense system where they originally want it actually points to the inherent flaws and imperfections in the system related to things like response time, accuracy, second-chance firings etc. That would be the only reason why America might want to continue with the original agenda. And by the way, when I first heard about U.S. plans for those anti-missile defenses I thought, "What the heck are they doing? What fools!" Really not wise.


The whole point
... of course, is that Putin's proposed alternatives would undermine the purpose of defending EASTERN EUROPE (and by extension Western Europe, even though it can't agree on a joint project with the US) against missile attack.

There is no randomness or slop in the intentions of either side. One doesn't install the elements of a missile defense system for decoration, but for specific defense purposes; and one doesn't propose to significantly alter the geography of the array merely to seek political compromise. Putin wants to change the outcome of the project.

Duh.

On an unrelated topic, how can I get one of these "family compounds" some presidents' families seem to have? (Kennedys and Bushes come to mind.) Reagan had a 600-acre "ranch" that was never referred to as a "compound." In a trivial way, this seems like an interesting distinction. What makes an estate a "compound"?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.