Putin Presents Bush With Plan on Missile Shield

[Neil D]

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: June 7, 2007

ROSTOCK, Germany, June 7 — After months of angrily rejecting a White House plan for missile defense in Europe, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia surprised President Bush to day with an offer to build a joint system in the former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan.

President Vladimir Putin of Russia, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President Bush at the Group of 8 meeting today in Heiligendamm, Germany.

Related

At Group of 8 Meeting, Bush Rebuffs Germany on Cutting Emissions (June 7, 2007)

The proposed system, designed to guard against a missile attack from Iran, poses serious diplomatic and technical challenges, experts said. But the fact that it was suggested by Mr. Putin, and not immediately rejected by Mr. Bush, indicated a desire on both sides to cool the hostile exchanges that in recent months had driven relations to a low point in the post-cold-war era.

The offer came during a much-anticipated private meeting between the two presidents at a gathering of leaders of wealthy democracies. Mr. Bush said that Mr. Putin had put forth “some interesting suggestions,” and the two agreed to form a working group of military and diplomatic experts to examine how they could cooperate on missile defense, an issue that has long divided Russia and the United States.

“This will be a serious set of strategic discussions,” Mr. Bush said, standing by Mr. Putin’s side outside the Kempinski Grand Hotel, the luxury resort in the Baltic Sea town of Heiligendamm where the leaders gathered for the Group of 8 meeting. “This is a serious issue and we want to make sure that we all understand each other’s positions very clearly.”

For Mr. Putin, the offer seemed to accomplish two purposes: giving the appearance of willingness to compromise on missile defense while calming jitters over his recent threat to again aim missiles at Europe. “This will make it impossible — unnecessary — for us to place our offensive complexes along the borders with Europe,” he said, speaking through a translator.

The unexpected proposal came on a day marked by compromise over climate change and more clashes between protesters and police at the summit meeting. The United States agreed to “seriously consider” a European plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, thus averting a potential clash between Mr. Bush and the meeting’s host, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany.

But the climate change news paled in comparison to the startling developments on missile defense. With tensions between Washington and Moscow rising over Mr. Bush’s plan, a senior White House official said Thursday that Mr. Putin indicated before the meeting that he wanted to raise an idea directly with the president. But Mr. Bush was not aware of the details.

Experts say that Mr. Putin’s proposal faces a number of daunting, and possibly insurmountable, hurdles. Russia leases but does not own the radar station in Azerbaijan, for instance, and the facility is an early warning system, not the X-band radar that is used to guide anti-missile interceptors, and which the Bush administration wants to build in the Czech Republic.

Trust between the two nations is also an issue. The plan would require the kind of intense cooperation in which only the closest allies can engage. With the two sides already embroiled in disputes over the future of Kosovo, the state of democratic institutions in Russia and how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program, some experts raised questions about whether Mr. Putin was serious — and, if he was, whether the White House would ever accept the offer.

“For that kind of cooperation, to be treated seriously by the United States and NATO, they would have to have more trust than people really do now toward the Russian military,” said Stephen Sestanovich, an expert on Russia at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The question is can you one day have the Russians acting in such a way as to advertise their lack of trust in the United States, and the next day insist that the United States trust them?”

Still, Thursday’s announcement at Heiligendamm was a far cry from what some had expected from the two presidents, given Mr. Putin’s recent harsh statements.

In recent weeks, the Russian president has made a veiled comparison between the United States and the Third Reich, complained of “diktat and imperialism,” and, most recently, threatened to once more aim Russian missiles at Europe if the president went through with his missile defense plan. Earlier this week in Prague, Mr. Bush chided Mr. Putin for backsliding on democratic reforms — an issue that Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, said did not come up at Thursday’s meeting.

On Thursday, however, the two men stood shoulder to shoulder, laughing and smiling as they recounted for reporters what Mr. Bush described as “a very constructive dialogue.”

“I told Vladimir we’re looking forward to having him up to my folks’ place in Maine,” the president said, referring to an invitation he has extended for the Russian leader to visit the Bush family compound in Kennebunkport for further talks in the beginning of July.

Mr. Putin, for his part, praised the president for a “spirit of openness.”

When they were done, Mr. Bush extended his right hand for Mr. Putin, who took it, and then clasped his left hand over the entire handshake.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/world/europe/07cnd-Russia.html?em&ex=1181361600&en=d1e509a9a21d96be&ei=5087%0A

[Dr. Shane]

Quite the diplomat that Mr. Bush.

[bevin]

ROFLOL

He is attempting to recover from a series of foreign policy disasters, and has finally getting the message that he needs to be not quite so arrogant and domineering.

His previous approach has annoyed our friends and allies so far that they are almost all opposed to us, and he grabbed onto a suggestion from Putin like a sinking man grabbing a life jacket

/Bevin

[Woody]

Quote:

and has finally getting the message that he needs to be not quite so arrogant and domineering.

Being arrogant and domineering is what got the Russians to the table.

[Dr. Shane]

Of course the anti-Bush folks will never give credit when credit is due, which only hurts their own credibility. Refusing to give a man credit when credit is due says more about the critic than the man being criticized.

Indeed, Putin came up with the suggestion only after Bush first, refused to back down and second, continuously made it clear that Russia is not considered an enemy of the United States. Well, once President Putin got the message he came to the age, old conclusion: if you can't beat them, join them.

[Neil D]

Of course the anti-Bush folks will never give credit when credit is due, which only hurts their own credibility. Refusing to give a man credit when credit is due says more about the critic than the man being criticized.

[Dr. Shane]

I doubt the history books will reflect many sentiments of the anti-Bush crowd.

Quote:

maybe they have a legitament beef with the president

Partisan politics for the most part. I don't see too many critics that have a list of good things they like about Bush and a list of bad things. The anti-Bush crowd can find no good in anything he does. Some have literally even criticized him for the number of sheets of toilet paper he uses when he wipes.

Quote:

one of Bushes supporters here on C/A has consistently referred to the Russians as a source of reliable intelligence

Remove the word "reliable" from that quote and it would apply to me. Of course we didn't know the intelligence wasn't reliable until after the invasion. Did we?

Quote:

we all know that President Bush's abilities as a diplomat...

are really showing us that his critics are wrong about him.

[Neil D]

I doubt the history books will reflect many sentiments of the anti-Bush crowd.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

So why don't you quit with the Right wing partisan political speech and become normal again

Is that what giving credit where credit is due called? What about when I said Libby's obstruction of justice was worse than Clinton's obstruction of justice? Was that right-wing and partisan too?

Quote:

I guess that depends if the history books are pro-bush or whether they are impartial...

History books are supposed to be compiled by a group of historians so that a single person's preferences do not result in a slanted view of history. Of course it is not a perfect process, few American history books give a balanced perspective of the South's side of the Civil War.

Quote:

you sure promoted it as reliable.

In regard to the Russian intelligence: President Putin informed President Bush prior to the Iraqi invasion that Russian intelligence had learned that Saddam was planning to attack the US on our soil using WMDs and terrorists. That is true. There is no spin there.

After the invasion we discovered that the intelligence, while accurate, was outdated. Saddam had planned to attack the US on our soil using WMDs and terrorists in 1996. Again, that is true. There is no spin there.

Now President Bush didn't know whether to trust the intelligence or not. No one knew how reliable it was until after the invasion. I never said the information was ever reliable. I have only repeated that fact that President Putin did warn President Bush. That is reliable.