John LeBoutillier
Tuesday, June 19, 2001

Then-National Security Adviser General Brent Scowcroft often lamented this collapse of our longtime adversary. The general actually preferred the status quo of a permanent USA-USSR competition to the unpredictable future that was to include a breakup of the old Soviet Union.

The general's boss, the first President Bush, gambled that by working with President Yeltsin we could avoid future conflicts and problems. In that light, the first Bush administration literally threw billions of dollars into loans to Moscow. Year after year we read stories filled with dire predictions of "harsh winters" which could result in widespread starvation, political instability, unpaid soldiers and a resultant political instability.

Out of this 'scenario' could emerge "another Stalin." The only way to avoid this? Prop up old Boris with another 10 billion!

The problem with our easy lending practices was that we got too little in return for our generosity. Then-Secretary of State James Baker refused to link these loans to a total destruction of the Russian ICBMs. Instead, Baker only insisted on a symbolic "re-targeting" of these missiles. This meant that some corporal changed in a computer somewhere the American targets. Chicago was out and Canada was in. Big deal! Five minutes later he could just switch it back!

Allegedly there was also a program – again paid for by the sucker known as the USA – to de-actify Russian ICBMs and destroy them. Few, if any, active missiles were actually destroyed – other than a few for politically useful "photo ops."

The result of this ill-conceived strategy during Bush I was that while Yeltsin remained in office and we sank $40-50 billion in wasted loans with which Moscow propped up its faltering military, we still had to spend billions here at home to prepare our nuclear forces for the still-existent Russian threat.

So, in other words, we paid twice for our defense!

What we should have done was to link our generous financial assistance to a financially sick Russia with an absolute insistence that all their ICBMs be destroyed.

Or, to put it another way, we should have bought their ICBMs.

Well, we did not.

And now Russian President Putin is clearly threatening the USA with a rapid expansion of Russia's ICBMs if we go ahead with the full missile shield.

He said yesterday in an interview, "We will reinforce our capability by mounting multiple warheads on our missiles. The nuclear arsenal of Russia will be augmented multifold."

Now who is starting a "new arms race"?

Furthermore, the very first thing Putin did after his meeting with Bush II on Saturday was to call Chinese President Jiang Zemin to report in.

Putin's words and actions should be taken by the USA as a threat – and it is a threat made from profound economic and military weakness.

Russia cannot sustain any type of economic progress – and also engage the USA in a meaningful arms race. And they know it!

So they hope to intimidate us into slowing down.

China – militarily still way behind us – has the underlying economic ability over the next 25-50 years to build themselves into a military superpower. But, for the moment, they are incapable of matching us.

Thus we have a window in which to build the missile shield – with no fear of any severe repercussions.

Now, the question is will we have the political will to build it?

Or will Putin’s threats and bluster intimidate some of our spineless politicians?

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Bush Administration
Missile Defense
Russia
China/Taiwan