With that out of the way (just sayin’…), there’s this from the Global Security Newswire:
NATO might be willing to collaborate with Russia in operating facilities that would promote information exchanges for missile defense, alliance chief [AKA Secretary General] Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Wednesday (see GSN, July 5).
I’ve heard of the fog of war. Is this the Fogh of peace?
Of course, “might be willing” leaves a lot of wiggle room. Still, the intellectual consistency of the whole conundrum seems telling: the U.S. underwrites NATO member-states’ security of which Russia is the remaining major concern. In the meantime, NATO (which depends totally on the funding contributions of alliance members with the U.S. paying well over half) ponders how Russia might be brought into missile defense.
The two sides since November have been studying options for joint efforts on missile defense. However, they remain at odds over how such a program should be structured, and Moscow continues to highlight Western antimissile activities as a threat to its strategic security that could produce a new arms race.
So Russia rattles the ‘new arms race’ saber unless it’s brought into missile defense. Bringing Russia in is the same as surrendering to their threat. Is that seems the same as appeasement or is there a more subtle (and diplomatic) term?
This proverbial can will likely be kicked for quite a while.