Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Mitt Romney on Russia
"He continued the same “we give, Russia gets” policy by signing the New START treaty in 2010. While the agreement compels the U.S. to reduce our nuclear launcher and warhead limits, the levels it sets for Russia are above what the Russians possessed at the time the agreement was reached. In other words, New START gave Russia room to expand its arsenal while requiring the United States to reduce our own. In any event, even if we put aside the demerits of the treaty, it was a squandered opportunity to extract concessions from the Russians that would have advanced our interests. Thus, President Obama failed to press for meaningful reductions not only in Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal, but also in its extensive tactical nuclear force. And he failed to elicit Russian help in dealing with North Korean and Iranian nuclear ambitions."
So....what is Mitt promising to do?
"Mitt Romney will review the implementation of the New START treaty and other decisions by the Obama administration regarding America's nuclear posture and arms-control policies to determine whether they serve the best interests and national security of the United States."
What. What? 'Review to determine *IF* they are in the best interest of the U.S.??
But Mitt - You just said they were failures. Why not say you will work to repeal the START? Funny wording there (basically giving yourself and easy out while throwing bones to your base).
"Mitt Romney will pursue policies that work to decrease the reliance of European nations on Russian sources of energy. He will explore increasing technical assistance to the Eastern European nations currently developing the Turkey-to-Austria Nabucco natural gas pipeline, which will supply Europe with a cheaper source of energy and options apart from Russian oil and gas.
Explain to us why WE need to do this and Europe cannot?
"A Romney administration will also work with the private sector to spur access to untapped shale energy resources in Western Europe."
OK. Work with them how? Any details on what the U.S. government is going to be involved in or how? And again - why the US?
"With the Kremlin’s leverage over the energy supplies of Central and Western Europe, its stockpile of nuclear weapons, its recent history of aggressive military action, and the power it wields in multilateral institutions like the United Nations, Russia is a destabilizing force on the world stage. It needs to be tempered."
I'll quote here from another writer:
Tempered how? By, according to “Mitt’s Plan” on his Russia page: reassessing (and possibly discarding) Obama’s mutual disarmament treaty with Russia, enacting policies to redirect European funds away from the Russian oil industry, strengthening military and trade relationships with other Central Asian states, and bolstering “civil society” movements, within Russia, to resist the influence of the “authoritarian” government.
And then—voilà—stability in the region? Targeted economic interference, military assistance to regional adversaries, encouraging domestic unrest—all time-tested cornerstones of any good roadmap to peace, right? If you think so, vote Romney."
"A Romney administration will build stronger relationships with the states of Central Asia by enhancing diplomatic ties, increasing military training and assistance, and negotiating trade pacts and educational exchanges."
This implies that ties are weak - does Mitt have any examples or sources for this assertion? If so, why not add them to his site?
"A Romney administration will be forthright in confronting the Russian government over its authoritarian practices."
Anyone can confront them. I could send a strongly worded letter myself. Care to explain HOW you will confront them?