Bush and Putin discussed Russia's new nukes. Why weren't we informed?

The Russian minister was asked why the country was trying to improve its nuclear capabilities at a time when the international community is working to get countries like North Korea and Iran to abandon their nuclear programs.

"Of course it is necessary to improve missile system in order to avoid any accidents. This is standard procedure," Fedotov said.

Fedotov said that "as everything we have, it's totally defensive."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said President Bush and Putin had discussed the issue previously. He suggested that close ties between the two leaders makes alarm unnecessary. But he didn't eliminate Washington's concern.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBLUTWQR1E.html

Why did the American people have to learn about this in the press? Does it make anyone more comfortable to know that Bush has "close ties" to Putin? What do you make of the quiet collusion between the two leaders on the issue of the expansion of our mutual nuclear defenses? Does this go beyond smart diplomacy? I think it is a smiley face on a new cold-war nuclear arms race with Russia as they threaten to expand their arsenal at the same time Bush is advocating a 'new generation' of smaller, 'useable' nuclear weapons.

I'm not comforted at all by their backroom dealmaking on this issue. We need to know what the president really knows about Russia's new nuclear inituitive, when did he know it, and why weren't we told before Putin made his speech.

react.

Best keep them in the dark. We know best. Jeezus is behind us. Trust me.

I'm guessing they got caught flatfooted and he's stuck with making reassuring noises, but without committing to an official stance for the record:

Q: I'm going to shift gears. President Putin has spoken to the Russian military leadership and said that Russia will be testing new nuclear missile systems which, he said, "will be the systems of the kind that other nuclear powers do not and will not have in the near future." What is the administration's assessment of what he's talking about? And isn't that a rather threatening thing to say?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think that our view is that this is not something that we look at as new. We are very well aware of their longstanding modernization efforts for their military. I might point out that we have a very good relationship with Russia. The President and President Putin have worked very closely together to establish that relationship. And they have worked together to move beyond some of the issues of the past and develop an agreement to significantly reduce our nuclear arsenals. And that's, I think, what is most important.

But I think -- what I took from these comments, it is something that they have talked about before, and that's modernization of their military. We are allies now in the global war on terrorism.

Q: So modernization of the nuclear component of the military is okay with this President?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, like I said, that it's something that -- we don't view it as something that is new. It's something that we are well aware of, that they were working on some modernization efforts for their military.

Q: And it seems that one of the points of the modernization effort is to evade missile defense systems, that that's one of the things that these new missiles will be able to do. The President is okay with that? He doesn't --

MR. McCLELLAN: We have a very different relationship than we did during the Cold War. And we are working together to significantly reduce our nuclear arsenals. There is -- we both recognize the need to no longer have that size of a nuclear arsenal, and that's what we're working together on to reduce.

Q: Can I ask a more general question, then? You said a couple of times that there's a new relationship and a good relationship with the Russian Federation and that President Bush specifically has a good relationship with President Putin. What's it getting the United States if Putin is crushing the free media, if he's not building down nuclear arsenals, but building them up, and if he's opposing the United States --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, no, he's reducing nuclear arsenals. That's what we agreed to do. But let me point out to you that the fact that we do have a good relationship enables us to speak very directly to our Russian friends about those issues. And the President has spoken directly to them about areas when we have concerns, one of which you mentioned right at the top there.

Q: But this is not an area of concern?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, like I said, I checked here, and it was something that was not viewed as new to us.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041117-8.html

Nothing new, good relationship, nothing new, good relationship, nothingnewgoodrelationship... look at all the handwaving and tapdancing. Dubya just deployed the first stage of his ambitious much-vaunted missile shield and Putin suddenly tells the world he's got a shield killer -- and that ain't no thing to them? Bullshit.

And here's something about that nuclear reduction he keeps blathering about:

The Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SORT) signed by Washington and Moscow on May 24, 2002 appears to be a move in the right direction at first glance, but when compared with previous U.S.-Russia nuclear reduction treaties it is a missed opportunity for international security and nuclear disarmament. SORT contains nominal reductions at best. The treaty limits deployed strategic warheads to 1,700-2,200, but it has no timeline for implementation and allows each side to take its weapons out of storage on the first day of 2013. SORT does not call for the elimination of any warheads or delivery vehicles and does not include short-range tactical weapons.

President Bush was correct when he stated that this treaty would “liquidate the legacy of the Cold War.” SORT single-handedly diminishes the value of past U.S.-Russian arms control agreements by failing to build on the foundation of its predecessors. Fundamental differences separate SORT from previous U.S.-Russia nuclear reduction treaties on what is being reduced, the form reductions take, the timetable for implementation, and the lifespan of the reductions.

...

The treaty contains no provisions for limiting delivery vehicles and provides no timetable for carrying out the reductions other than the implementation deadline, which is also the expiration date of the treaty. The treaty does not call for the destruction of any nuclear warheads, allowing them to be retained in storage as a responsive or ‘hedge’ force. SORT falls significantly short of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties (START) by failing to even limit the number of delivery vehicles.

Setting no limitations on the number of delivery vehicles allowed and the storage of warheads removed from deployed status will make the reductions under SORT easily reversible in the future.

http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/2002factsheet.htm