Romney's Foolish Foreign Policy

Romney’s Adversarial View of Russia Stirs Debate

By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.

WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney’s recent declaration that Russia is America’s top geopolitical adversary drew raised eyebrows and worse from many Democrats, some Republicans and the Russians themselves, all of whom suggested that Mr. Romney was misguidedly stuck in a cold war mind-set.
But his statement was not off the cuff — and it was not the first time Mr. Romney had stirred debate over his hawkish views on Russia. Interviews with Republican foreign policy experts close to his campaign and his writings on the subject show that his stance toward Russia reflects a broader foreign policy view that gives great weight to economic power and control of natural resources. It also exhibits Mr. Romney’s confidence that his private-sector experience would make him a better negotiator on national security issues than President Obama has been.
Mr. Romney’s views on Russia have set off disagreements among some of his foreign policy advisers. They put him in sync with the more conservative members of his party in Congress, who have similarly criticized Mr. Obama as being too accommodating to Russia, and generally reflect the posture of some neoconservatives.
But they have frequently put him at odds with members of the Republican foreign policy establishment, like Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, who was defeated in a primary this week, and the party’s shrinking band of foreign policy “realists” — those who advocate a less ideological and more pragmatic view of relations with rival powers.
The Romney campaign has been critical of Mr. Obama’s record and positions on a variety of national security issues, including containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and confronting China’s rise. But many of the positions taken by Mr. Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, have either been vague or not fundamentally different from those of the administration.
Russia, however, is an exception, one where Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has carved out a clear contrast to Mr. Obama, who came to office promising to “reset” relations with Moscow, only to find that Russia can be a difficult partner. Just this week, President Vladimir V. Putin abruptly canceled his plans to visit the United States next week for the Group of 8 summit meeting and for talks with Mr. Obama at Camp David.
Mr. Romney was a leading opponent of the most recent arms-reduction treaty with Russia, ratified by the Senate and signed last year by Mr. Obama. Russia figures prominently in Mr. Romney’s book, where he calls it one of four competitors for world leadership, along with the United States, China and “violent jihadism” embraced by Iran and terrorist groups.
Some advisers close to Mr. Romney, who declined to be quoted or identified by name, say Russia is a good illustration of his belief that national security threats are closely tied to economic power — in this case stemming from Russia’s oil and gas reserves, which it has used to muscle European countries dependent on energy imports.
They also cite his tendency to view foreign policy conflicts as zero-sum negotiations. Mr. Romney, an accomplished deal-maker at Bain Capital, views his negotiating skills as an advantage he holds over Mr. Obama.
Mr. Romney signaled his stance toward Russia two years ago, when he argued that the New Start missile treaty with Russia should be rejected, putting him at odds with a long line of former Republican secretaries of state and defense. A number of arms control specialists said they were startled by some of Mr. Romney’s assertions, like fretting about intercontinental ballistic missiles mounted on bombers.
“It would be really fun to watch a Russian bomber with an SS-25 strung to its stomach try to take off,” said Steve Pifer, a former American ambassador to Ukraine and now director of the Arms Control Initiative at the Brookings Institution. “Some of the arguments just left people scratching their heads.”
Within hours, rebuttal pieces to Mr. Romney’s position, laid out in an op-ed article in The Washington Post, were being circulated among arms control experts. Mr. Lugar, who had spent decades working on arms control issues, publicly disparaged some of Mr. Romney’s arguments as “discredited objections.”
Mr. Romney felt the missile treaty was a bad deal partly because it would impede American defenses by preventing ballistic missile silos from being converted to missile defense sites, while treaty supporters said that was not an issue because American officials prefer to build missile defense installations from the ground up.
Mr. Romney also criticized a White House decision scrapping a proposed antiballistic missile shield in Eastern Europe and building in its place a reconfigured system to shoot down short- and medium-range Iranian missiles. Mr. Romney argued that Mr. Obama had caved to Russian pressure, trading away a crucial program with little in return. Administration officials say their reconfigured system offers better protection for American allies.
Mr. Romney’s more recent statements on Russia have also drawn criticism from nonpartisan Russia experts who say he mischaracterizes Russia’s potential economic power and paints an inaccurate picture of Russian recalcitrance. Republicans close to Mr. Romney acknowledge that politics are a factor, but they also say Mr. Romney is driven by fears that Mr. Putin will continue political repression and use his country’s energy wealth to finance military expansion.
Some former diplomats and Russia specialists, and some leading Republicans in Congress, have also questioned his characterization of the country as America’s major foe. Many experts, including some close to his campaign, see a declining power that the United States will need to help manage global challenges. Some analysts also say Mr. Romney understates the help Russia has provided in dealing with rogue states, like backing a heavy-arms embargo and other sanctions against Iran in 2010.
“There’s a whole school of thought that Russia is one you need to work with to solve other problems in the world, rather than being the problem,” said Thomas de Waal, a Russia expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Russia has blocked United Nations Security Council efforts to end violence in Syria, drawing a rebuke from the Obama administration. But analysts also point out Russia’s support for the Iran arms embargo, its cancellation of a surface-to-air missile system sale to Iran and its allowing supplies to be sent through Russia to troops in Afghanistan.
Mr. Romney says natural resources could vault Russia to a position of global influence rivaling any nation by midcentury. But many analysts say Russia’s fate is so closely tied to oil exports that anything short of a sustained rise in prices will lead to cuts in spending on the military and social programs. Citigroup estimates that oil must reach $150 a barrel in coming years (from current export prices of $120) for Russia to pay for Mr. Putin’s spending promises.
The co-chairman of Mr. Romney’s Russia working group, Leon Aron, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote this month that in the short term, “Russia’s most serious risk stems from a near-fatal dependence on the price of oil,” and that it could face a fiscal crisis as soon as 2014 that depletes cash for the military and other commitments. (Mr. Aron declined to comment, but friends say he would never argue, as Mr. Romney has, that Russia is America’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe.”)
Some experts add that the only way the Russian economy could reach the heights Mr. Romney fears would be through a wholesale economic liberalization — one that would be cheered by Western countries.
“It would mean radically reforming and changing the Putin system,” said Angela Stent, a Russia expert at Georgetown University and a former national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/12/u...ebate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&pagewanted=print

Points of particularly dangerous ignorance:

Some advisers close to Mr. Romney, who declined to be quoted or identified by name, say Russia is a good illustration of his belief that national security threats are closely tied to economic power — in this case stemming from Russia’s oil and gas reserves, which it has used to muscle European countries dependent on energy imports.
They also cite his tendency to view foreign policy conflicts as zero-sum negotiations.

Putin is one of the most dangerous leaders in the world....cunning and cruel with resources to create world havoc

Putin has been in power for more than a decade. Care to provide examples of the world havoc he has created?

Putin blew off an Oval office meeting with Obama just the other day, he is an adversary, not our friend

He rescheduled the meeting. That is hardly evidence of being an adversary. Do you have any actual examples to support your claim? Any of examples of Putin's Russia trying to thwart legitimate interests of the United States? Obviously not. You will adopt any position that your new leader takes. If Romney was in favor of cooperation with Russia, you would be in favor of that too. You are incapable of forming your own opinion on this kind of issue.

Russia is only an adversary of the United States if the United States treats it like one. That is what Romney would do. If the United States turns Russia into an adversary again, it would be a very dangerous adversary. Therefore Romney would be a very dangerous president.

What exactly does Putin have to do in his country that is keeping him from meeting with the leader of the free world - another hockey game?

This was a slap in the face, pure and simple.

Would he not hesitate to attack Russia like he would with Iran?

Remind us - how many countries has Obama bombed over the last 3 years?

lol or "liberate" if you're a D.

We need to leave all these other countrys be and back off for a century. Close the border nobody in or out (metaphorically speaking) and build and manufacture things to sell. I can't see us making it to 2025 at this pace.

Is Ireland, Australia, Brazil or Canada beefing with Russia? No, so why are we? What is our problem with dominating everything?

remind me if Obama was ever asked "would you attack Iran?" and his response was "Without hesitation" hm, last time I checked NATO no fly zones weren't "countries being bombed" move on to your next talking point.

Obama is reaching out to the Muslim Brotherhood.

The name, Muslim Brotherhood, leaves me with a very warm feeling. We should reach out to these peacemakers.

I doubt Romney will be bending down to kiss any rings when he's POTUS.

Romney is wrong, we need to watch out for the Chinese not the Russians.
We should be making nice with the Russians we will need their help contain the Chinese.

U righties complain about the no flys in lybia and Egypt . Then do the two faced shuffle and complain that Obama does nothing wh Syria n Iran . Make up your chicken hawk mind!

Can he see Russia from his front yard though? Thats the sign of a politican who is educated on foreign policy!

Pure drama on your part. It was hardly a slap and Putin was polite enough to call. But, as of today Obama has cancelled his trip to Russia for the APEC summit because the DNC is happening the same week. So, in your eyes - tit for tat.

So I guess that means the real money is in making the low IQ demo of Americans afraid of Russia now.

Tina Fey said that in a skit dressed as Palin:
I can see Russia from my house.
Tina Fey the actor on SNL

Palin said:
you can actually see Russia, from land, here in Alaska

You really dont get much correct during the course of a day do you cracker boy?

Your right ! All he will bend to is Wall Street to kiss their asses at the expense of the 99%.

Why ? Does anyone give a shit?

You've got a muschi. I've got a dicka. So whats the problem?

more drama from the right.