Published: Sunday, July 7, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Yet again, Russia is getting the better of the ever-deferential Obama administration regarding missile defense.
Obsessed with placating Moscow to achieve further, U.S.-weakening cuts in strategic nuclear warheads, the administration in March nixed European deployment of U.S. systems capable of intercepting missiles targeting U.S. soil. But what's sauce for the American goose is not sauce for the Russian gander:
While insisting on legal restrictions on U.S. and NATO systems that would protect Europe and the U.S. against long-range Iranian missiles, Moscow is building new, advanced missile-defense radar systems.
The Washington Free Beacon reports two already are deployed, in Siberia and near St. Petersburg; another, near the Black Sea, will be ready by year's end, with more in the works. Bolstered by modernized anti-missile interceptors, these systems can simultaneously track up to 500 objects up to 3,700 miles away.
“The Russians are upset with U.S. missile defenses in Europe and here they are building a network of missile tracking facilities,” says one U.S. military official who sees that project as part of a larger Russian buildup of offensive and defensive capabilities that represents a growing strategic threat.
Yet the Obama administration isn't calling out Moscow over that buildup or demanding limits on Russian missile defense — more evidence that it's more concerned with pleasing Russia than with keeping America safe.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Nelson Mandela: The real legacy
- Detroit’s bankruptcy: An object lesson
- ‘China City’
- Accord in Geneva: Smelly side deals, too
- The Box
- Sunday pops
- ‘Merit selection’ for judges? No thank you
- PSERS time bomb: Tick, tick, tick, tick ...
- ‘Racism’? No
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances