Tentative Inspection Program Would Allow Russia to Visit U.S. Nuclear Sites — Clinton: U.S. & Russia Can Cooperate Video — Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) — Russia is changing, and changing its military doctrine — Ronald Reagan TV Ad: “The Bear”


Tentative Inspection Program Would Allow Russia to Visit U.S. Nuclear Sites

The plan, which Fox News has learned was agreed to in principle during negotiations, would constitute the most intrusive weapons inspection program the U.S. has ever accepted.

Russia and the United States have tentatively agreed to a weapons inspection program that would allow Russians to visit nuclear sites in America to count missiles and warheads.

The plan, which Fox News has learned was agreed to in principle during negotiations, would constitute the most intrusive weapons inspection program the U.S. has ever accepted.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who met with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said publicly Tuesday that the two nations have made “considerable” progress toward reaching agreement on a new strategic arms treaty.

The 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires in December and negotiators have been racing to reach agreement on a successor.

Clinton said the U.S. would be as transparent as possible.

“We want to ensure that every question that the Russian military or Russian government asks is answered,” she said, calling missile defense “another area for deep cooperation between our countries.”

On another critical issue, Lavrov declared that it would be counterproductive to threaten Iran with more sanctions over its nuclear program — as he resisted efforts by Clinton to win agreement for tougher measures should Iran fail to prove its program is peaceful.

Clinton visited Moscow on her first trip since becoming America’s top diplomat, in an effort to gauge Moscow’s willingness to join the U.S. in imposing sanctions.

Clinton said the U.S. agreed it was important to pursue diplomacy with Iran.

“At the same time that we are very vigorously pursuing this track, we are aware that we might not be as successful as we need to be, so we have always looked at the potential of sanctions in the event we are not successful and cannot assure ourselves and others that Iran has decided not to pursue nuclear weapons,” she said at a joint news conference.

Iran insists it has the right to a full domestic nuclear enrichment program and maintains it is only for peaceful purposes, such as energy production.

President Obama — who visited Russia in July — has vowed to “reset” U.S.-Russia relations. On Tuesday, Clinton apologized for missing that meeting because of a broken elbow.

“But now both my elbow and our relationships are reset and we’re moving forward, which I greatly welcome,” she said.

She was to meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev later Tuesday.


LB Comment:  The above Fox article is simply very poor reporting, no research on START as well as other conservative blogs on this subject matter, especially on the below Nikolai Patrushev interview.

Listen very carefully to Ms. Clinton speech and her linked interview at the end of this post.  No wonder the entire world is laughing at us!

Echo of Moscow


Translation: We offer you to take part in the new cartoon contest!

Task: create a collage or a cartoon on “Barack Obama – Nobel Prize


Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)


Purpose and Background

The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) [long title: Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms] is the first treaty to reduce the number of deployed strategic offensive arms. It reduces and limits such arms by 30 to 40 percent from their pre-START levels and stipulates an aggregate throw-weight limit of 3,600 metric tons. In particular, START mandated that after seven years (by December 5, 2001), the United States and Russia would reduce and limit their total number of deployed strategic nuclear delivery vehicles (SNDVs) to 1,600. Launchers associated with eliminated missiles also had to be eliminated. In addition, both sides were required to reduce their total number of warheads to 6,000 (attributed to deployed ballistic missiles and deployed heavy bombers). These final reduction limits were met by the December 2001 deadline.

As of January 2009, the United States had 1,198 SNDVs and 5,576 attributed warheads, and Russia had 814 SNDVs and 3,909 attributed warheads. Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan were required to eliminate all of their deployed strategic delivery systems, and they have since disposed of their nuclear weapons or transferred the weapons to Russia.

Separately, in equal political declarations, the Parties agreed to declare on an annual basis the number of nuclear submarine-launched cruise missiles (SLCMs) each planned to deploy (not to exceed 880) at entry into force and for each of the following five years (1994-1999). Since that agreement was reached, each side has unilaterally taken all nuclear SLCMs out of deployment.

The Treaty will remain in force for 15 years after entry into force (1994-2009), followed by a determination of successive five-year extensions.

In a joint statement issued July 3, 2007, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov reaffirmed their commitment to continuing to carry out strategic offensive reductions after the START treaty expires December 5, 2009. The two officials also said they had discussed the possibility of developing a new “… post-START arrangement to provide continuity and predictability regarding strategic offensive forces.” This new arrangement would be pursued as part of their commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the obligations specified in Article VI of the NPT, which states:

Each of the Parties to the [NPT] undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. [NPT, Article VI]

On April 6, 2008, President Bush and then-President Putin issued the “U.S.-Russia Strategic Framework Declaration,” stating their intention to produce a legally-binding agreement after the START treaty expires in December 2009. The United States had previously proposed extending the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) beyond 2012 with additional confidence building and transparency measures, but Russia resisted this initiative.


On January 3, 1993, the United States and Russia signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II (START II), wherein the Parties agreed to further reduce the number of SNDVs carried to be no more than 3,000-3,500 deployed warheads. This would reduce deployed warheads to one-third of pre-START levels. START II also obligated Russia to eliminate all of its SS-18 missiles and prohibited the deployment of any intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with multiple warheads. Under START II, heavy bombers would be counted based on the number of nuclear weapons they are equipped to carry.

On June 14, 2002, Russia withdrew from START II—one day after the United States formally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Importantly, both countries also signed the new Moscow Treaty on May 24, 2002, which stipulates a lower level of deployed nuclear warheads than called for under START II.

START II never entered into force even though the U.S. Senate provided its advice and consent to ratification on January 26, 1996 and Russia ratified the Treaty in April 2002. Much changed between 1996 and 2002. On September 26, 1997, the United States and Russia signed the START II Protocol and the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Demarcation Agreement. Both agreements required ratification and were submitted to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent.

The START II Protocol and ABM Demarcation Agreement were intended to address Russia’s concerns regarding START II implementation costs and U.S. plans to deploy a National Missile Defense system. The Protocol also extended the final deadline for START II limitations and reductions to December 31, 2007, and required half of all reductions and limitations to be completed by December 31, 2004. The Demarcation Agreement delineated between strategic (banned by the ABM Treaty) and tactical (allowed by the ABM Treaty) missile defense systems.

Senate leaders decided not to consider either of these agreements until after the new administration took office in January 2001. Although Russia ratified START II and its 1997 Protocol in April 2002, the Russian legislation prohibited the deposit of Russia’s instrument of ratification until the United States ratified the START II Protocol and ABM Demarcation Agreement. The Treaty, its Protocol, and the ABM Demarcation Agreement have now become obsolete and are not expected to enter into force.

Potential Facility Impacts

Key Verification Measures

Under START, the Parties are obliged to provide initial and updated data declarations of the technical characteristics of items of inspection (IOI), the numbers and locations of deployed IOI; notification of IOI elimination or conversion; and facility close-outs. National technical means (NTM) and cooperative measures provide additional verification of treaty compliance. Moreover, START permits 13 types of scheduled and short-notice on-site inspections at declared facilities, as well as continuous monitoring.

The States Parties completed scheduled baseline inspections by June 1995, and the United States continues to conduct continuous monitoring at the Russian ICBM final assembly plant in Votkinsk. Russia also had the right to conduct continuous monitoring at a declared U.S. facility near Promontory, Utah, but Russia opted not to exercise this right and in 2001 this facility became subject to suspect-site inspections only. START also contains provisions for requesting a visit with a special right of access (SAV) to address an urgent compliance concern. No SAVs have been requested during the 14 years of START implementation and none are expected. If a SAV were requested, the United States could refuse the visit or, if accepted, negotiate conditions limiting its scope and the level of access granted to the inspection team.

Each treaty year, the United States and the other combined Parties as a group, have the option of conducting up to 28 short-notice inspections. In a short-notice inspection, the inspecting Party must provide notification of the intent to conduct an inspection no less than 16 hours prior to the inspection team’s arrival in the inspected Party’s country. Between 4-24 hours after the inspection team’s arrival, it is obliged to declare which site it intends to inspect. Within a maximum of nine hours after the site is declared, the inspected Party is obliged to transport the inspection team to the site and allow the inspection to begin. An inspection team may request to conduct a sequential inspection no earlier than 18 hours after the start of the first inspection.

Inspection activities are directed at IOI and are somewhat intrusive. They allow the inspection team to make close visual observations, take photographs if there are questions or ambiguities, and to take measurements. Protective measures, such as shrouding, route planning, and limiting access are implemented by site personnel and the U.S. escort team. These measures should provide adequate protection for most non-treaty-related activities and other sensitive information at an inspection site.

Current Activities

Recent Developments

On November 17, 2008, representatives of the United States, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine met in Geneva, Switzerland as required by Article XVII Paragraph 2 of the Treaty, which required the States Parties to meet on the issue of extending the Treaty prior to December 5, 2008. The States Parties did not reach an agreement at this meeting.

On April 1, 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met in London. The leaders released a joint statement saying that the two countries would “begin bilateral intergovernmental negotiations to work out a new, comprehensive, legally binding agreement on reducing and limiting strategic offensive arms to replace the START treaty.” Russian and U.S. experts met in Rome on April 24, 2009, to begin drafting a new START treaty, and official negotiations between the two countries began on May 19 in Moscow.

During their July 6-8, 2009, meetings in Moscow, the two presidents signed a Joint Understanding for a follow-on agreement to START which commits both parties to a legally binding treaty that will reduce nuclear weapons. The Joint Understanding commits the United States and Russia to reduce their strategic warheads to a range of 1,500-1,675, and their strategic delivery vehicles to a range of 500-1,100. Under the expiring START and the Moscow treaties the maximum allowable levels of warheads is 2,200 and the maximum allowable level of launch vehicles is 1,600.

Inspection Status

As of August 17, 2009, the United States had conducted 647 inspections and Russia had conducted 470 inspections under the START treaty.

The United States continues to conduct its portal monitoring activities at Votkinsk, Russia. These monitoring activities will continue as long as the START treaty remains in force and IOI are assembled there. No SAVs have been requested to date.


Photo: Catherine Shtukin / “Izvestiya”

Russia is changing, and changing its military doctrine

Izvestia Interviews Russia’s Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev

Interviewed by Vladimir Mamontov (English Translation)

Question: Nikolai Rakhmanov, for the crisis year of which only the projections we have not been listening, including from people who respected and in authority in the economic sphere: and on the “island of security” and of decades of recession and the withdrawal from it, and “second wave”. In your opinion, that in them the truth?

Reply: Diagnostic come to us from outside of the crisis is really a very difficult task. Certainly the fact that in connection with the crisis of development of the domestic economy slowed substantially, requires considerable effort and funds to offset the negative processes. However, in Russia in recent years created a significant domestic economic potential and a margin of safety, including in the financial sphere. With their use of the country’s leadership has taken a number of anti-crisis measures, demonstrating its effectiveness.

Federal Center is doing today what is necessary to not only minimize the effects of the crisis, but also to create conditions for future growth. A certain part in this work by the Security Council of Russia and its apparatus. Recalled that the President of the Security Council on the Constitution is the president of Russia Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is among the permanent members.

Answer: We often with the participation of leading scientists, economists and heads of major banks and companies, meetings were held, during which detail the causes and conditions that caused the crisis, had predicted the possible scenarios of its development and proposed solutions which were the basis of the complex of anti-crisis measures.

The results are visible even now: the situation in the economy and social sphere relatively stabilized, the downward trend in general perelomlena. However, to relax in any case impossible.

First, you need to make every effort to reduce tensions on the labor market, creating new jobs, the implementation of state social guarantees of health, housing, utilities in the area. Let me repeat for a wide audience of readers of “News” that I spoke at a recent meeting in the Urals and Siberian federal districts: the responsibility for solving these social problems largely lies with the heads of regions.

in: In May, the President approved the National Security Strategy of 2020. What is being done to implement it?

about: I recall the main principle, identification of strategies: reliable state security is only possible through the sustainable socio-economic development of the country. According to the plan, structure and content it is interrelated with the concept of long-term socio-economic development of Russia until 2020.

October 5 President of Russia has approved the Concept of counter-terrorism in Russia, is in full swing work on the new Federal Law “On Security” and the Military Doctrine. This year’s meetings of the Security Council also considered the basis of public policy in the development and application of supercomputing and Grid technology, as well as the priorities in the fight against drug trafficking.

In general, the embodiment in the life of the Strategy set out in the framework developed by the Comprehensive Plan, detailing the necessary measures and specifying the timing of their implementation.

When making management decisions we have taken into account as the worldwide situation and the specifics of specific regions of our country. This is such a format works as retreats under the guidance of the President of Russia. In recent months, they were three: in Dagestan, the Stavropol region and the Kaliningrad region. In particular, in the summer in Makhachkala discussed measures to address threats to national security in the southern federal district.

The same purpose on behalf of the Heads of State meetings are held the Secretary of the Security Council in the federal districts. They with envoys of the President and heads of federal subjects dealt with issues of national security to be tailored to specific regions, and also discussed a plan to implement the Strategy. In the current year have already been held six such visits, the seventh is scheduled for late October in NWFD.

in: Talking about the development of the new edition of the Military Doctrine, you reported last week that it is the possibility of drawing Russia pre-emptive nuclear strikes. The reason?

about: The current military doctrine is a document of transition, namely the end of XX century. The analysis of military-strategic situation in the world and its development prospects through 2020 indicate shifts in emphasis from large-scale military conflict in local wars and armed conflicts.

Although not lost their relevance and prior military dangers and threats to our country. So, do not stop work on the Admission of new members to NATO, the military activity is activated unit, intensive exercises conducted of U.S. strategic forces with perfecting the management of the use of strategic nuclear weapons.

Maintain such additional destabilizing factors as the trend of proliferation of nuclear, chemical, biological technology, the production of weapons of mass destruction, the increasing level of international terrorism, escalating the struggle for energy and fuel and other raw materials. Do not liquidated before the end of war and internal danger, as evidenced by the situation in the North Caucasus.

Thus, any objective conditions for the refinement of the military doctrine, which should include a flexible and timely response to current and prospective changes in political-military and military-strategic situation in the medium term.

Armed conflict is proposed to subdivide the large-scale, regional and local wars and armed conflicts (both interstate and domestic).

It was determined that Russia considers its most important task of prevention and containment of any outbreak of military conflict. In this state the main approaches to solving this problem. At the same time stressed that Russia considers to be legitimate use of Armed Forces and other troops to repulse aggression against it or its allies, and maintaining (recovery) of the world on the UN Security Council, and other structures of collective security.

With regard to the provisions of the possibility of using nuclear weapons, this section of the military doctrine formulated in the spirit of the Federation of Russia for nuclear status, able to implement the nuclear deterrence of potential adversaries from aggression against Russia and its allies. It is in the foreseeable future the most important priority of our country.

Also adjusted the conditions of use of nuclear weapons in repelling aggression with conventional means of destruction not only in large-scale, but also in regional and even a local war.

It also provides the variance of possible use of nuclear weapons, depending on the conditions of the situation and the likely intentions of the enemy. In critical to national security situations is not precluded application, including pre-emptive (preventive) nuclear strike against the aggressor.


In addition, let’s say, a purely military content of the draft document addressed issues of military and economic security, a priority which determined the improvement of defense-industrial complex. Full-fledged functioning of the defense industry enterprises and organizations not only help solve the defense problem, but also carries serious social function, allowing you to raise living standards, especially in Russian regions.

The project was discussed during the retreats Security Council secretary in the federal districts. There have been very sensible proposal heads of regions, which we seriously analyze. I think that by the end of the year a new version of the military doctrine will be ready for submission to the President.

in: The National Security Strategy is a significant place is given equal strategic partnership, that is, in fact it is a multipolar world order. It really is formed or an idea is akin to the dream of “bright future”?

about: imperfection of the existing world order clearly demonstrated the financial and economic crisis. It manifests itself in the device and the global financial system, and international trade and in the mechanism of pricing for raw materials and energy. All the systems and mechanisms are adjusted to serve the interests of the notorious “golden billion”.

Each country faces a choice: accept a way of life and moral values of Western civilization, hoping someday to become a part of it, even though, according to Brzezinski, as a “junior partner”, or else to preserve their identity and try to change the existing world order for the better ?

We believe that the idea of forming a polycentric international system more relevant than ever. As the president of Russia Dmitry Medvedev: “Peace can not be managed from one capital, and those who refuse to understand it, will only create new problems for themselves and others.”

However, defending the idea of multipolarity – is not an alliance against “, not confrontation with the West in general or any single Western country. It aims to build a better, more just world.

What about its reality, then look at what has become a central platform for the development of international economic policy? “Group of Twenty,” uniting not only the industrialized, but also developing countries, and the state with an economy in transition. In fact, this format is gradually replacing the “big eight”, which has historically developed as the western center of force.

The dollar, the cornerstone of the financial system of a unipolar world, is gradually losing its way. Getting more popular idea is to replace it as the world reserve currency in the basket of several currencies, special units of account used in the IMF, etc. Is it not movement towards multi-polarity in one of the most important areas of the world order – economic and financial?

But the crisis – only one side of the polyhedron problems and threats that lie ahead, and with whom to fight. And together, since no nation, even the U.S., unable to cope with them alone.

Another confirmation that the process of care from a unipolar world order is running, is the creation and development of new influential international organizations. In mid-June in Yekaterinburg held regular summit of the SCO and BRIC’s first full summit of which have already become major centers of attraction of the emerging multipolar world. In particular, the last summit of “twenty” in Pittsburgh is at the insistence of the BRIC decided on a more equitable distribution of quotas in world financial institutions.

Another example: the Latin America, a pragmatic multi-vectored foreign policy, diversify economic ties. We are interested in the development of multi-format cooperation with these countries – that have repeatedly discussed at meetings of the Council of operational security. In particular, we are pleased to accept the invitation of our country to participate in the upcoming days at ALBA summit (the institutionalization of the so-called “Bolivarian Movement initiative, which includes Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Ecuador and others -” The News “) .

In: Non-proliferation of nuclear weapons – a priority of international security. As in this regard, you assess the situation with the Iranian nuclear program?

about: Subject Iranian nuclear missile program is extremely politicized. In the West, are increasingly heard argument that “the patience of the international community” on it “to the limit.” It is emphasized that if in the next few weeks, Iran would not take steps to meet the requirements of the IAEA and the Six, it is necessary to introduce tough new sanctions. And such attitudes persist after the October meeting of representatives of the Six and Iran in Geneva.

I did not want to see the development of the situation has gone down this path, it is necessary to solve it in a constructive manner. At the same time and the policy of Iran is often reckless nature. Thus, a large spoonful of tar added information about the secret construction of a new uranium enrichment plant near the city of Qom, which is contrary to the repeated demands of the UN Security Council for Tehran to suspend enrichment activities.

However, this problem should not worsen. The declared willingness of Iranians to provide access as soon as the IAEA inspectors on the specified object, may help remove the existing concerns. The results of the Geneva meeting, give us the opportunity to look at the situation with cautious optimism. Important that the arrangements implemented.

It is therefore necessary not to slacken its efforts to create conditions that would enter negotiations on a “package proposal” Six on cooperation, the promotion of formula freeze in exchange for a freeze, “which suggests that Iran has not started any new nuclear activities and “Six” is not taking new steps to the sanctions track. Tehran’s attitude should be encouraged to waive secrecy and confrontation in favor of transparency and cooperation with the international community on its nuclear program. And also to continue negotiations, ensuring adherence to the NPT, strengthening safeguards and inspections by the IAEA. We support Iran’s right to peaceful atom, but opposed the further expansion of the nuclear club.

in: Do not come back if the Americans, referring to the Iranian factor, to the recently revised the idea of deploying elements of the third missile defense position area in Europe?

A: In the context of our national security NMD issue has been and remains one of the most important problems. Based on the inextricable link between strategic offensive and defensive weapons, we welcome any steps aimed at reducing nuclear-missile threat. Therefore, Russia’s president has described Barack Obama’s decision to refuse deployment of missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic as a constructive step in the right direction.

However, we must remember that Americans have not abandoned development of a global missile defense system. It is only an adjustment of plans, advances the timing of its creation with the use of new technological opportunities and that is very troubling, with the expansion of the circle of participants. In particular, the Deputy Secretary of Defense for International Security Vershbow makes extravagant ideas about the possibility of deployment in Ukraine and the states on “premature euphoria in Moscow.

We expect the U.S. to clearly explain its intentions in the field of missile defense. It is necessary to build confidence between our countries and the adoption of adequate solutions in the field of arms control and disarmament.

Q: How realistic projections that Israel is prepared to use against Iran “power option”?

about: I believe that the political-diplomatic settlement of the situation has no alternative.

Forceful actions against Iran would have the most negative consequences for international security, creating and exacerbating existing problems of political, humanitarian and environmental issues.

For example, in Iran, home to almost three times as many ethnic Azeris than directly in Azerbaijan. In the case of any military scenario, they certainly will head into its territory – and the humanitarian catastrophe is inevitable.

Possible use of force against Iran could have the opposite effect. They, of course, rallying Iranians provoke resentment in the Arab world and strengthen the organizations controlled by Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah in Palestine. And it could exacerbate the situation in the Middle East and Central Asia as a whole.

Meanwhile, she and so easy, given the heightened level of terrorist activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Q: Is there at least some positive prospects for the development of the situation in Afghanistan?

A: Unfortunately, they are still scantyAbound and become rampant sabotage and terrorist attacks, hostilities covered not only traditionally volatile south and east of Afghanistan, but also relatively calm north and west before the country.

According to the Americans themselves, in the past year the Taliban have made significant progress in the near future it might happen that “victory over the terrorists will become impossible.” They conclude on the need to increase an existing contingent of a few more tens of thousands of troops and conduct more extensive operations.

In our opinion, this will only lead to further growth of civilian casualties. Already, according to international statistics, one in three dead civilians had been killed by coalition troops, most of them – with air strikes.

On the road to stabilization, it is important to solve two major problems. First, it is necessary to improve not the quantity but the professionalism and effectiveness of international forces, to solve problems with staffing and more active involvement in ensuring the safety of the Afghan national army and police. So far, efforts to form them only with difficulty make up for losses and desertion.

Our own experience in combating terrorists in the North Caucasus shows that the terrorists should be fought “not by the number and skill, extensive use operational methods, special forces and means. Ongoing military operations also should be a point in nature, so as not to cause civilian casualties, that only enhances recruiting base to recruit terrorists.

Secondly, it is important to create the necessary socio-economic conditions. First of all, to give the Afghans a stable legal sources of income instead of their participation in large-scale drug production. While there is the opposite situation: since the beginning of operations of U.S. and NATO in 2001, the production of opiates in Afghanistan multiplied. Over 90% of the world’s opium – of Afghan origin.

Urgency to efforts to combat the further spread of drug aggression, especially in the framework of our initiative to create around Afghanistan anti-drug belt “. The mainstay of this work is carried out under the auspices of the CSTO international operation “Channel”, involving opportunities SCO. Additional impetus to achieve its goal gave the decision of the Special Conference on Afghanistan held in Moscow on March 27.

In these days in Afghanistan, takes stock of a new president. Developments will depend on the joint support of the international community for the efforts of the Afghan government to create conditions for building a future of peaceful life.


Related Previous Posts:

European Missile Defense: Surrender And Betrayal Or Secret Deal?

Related Links:

Fox News: Biden Rejects Russia’s Claim to Sphere of Influence

Izvestiya Interview:  Guests: Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State

Hot Air:  Russia: New sanctions on Iran “counterproductive”

Russia Today:  Launch, Dock and Three Smoking Barrels

Times Online:  President Obama seeks Russia deal to slash nuclear weapons Feb 4, 2009

Breitbart: Top Chinese general to visit US: Pentagon

American Thinker:  Vladimir Putin and the Russian Inferiority Complex

Powerline:  Is Obama A Fool?

The Daily Beast:  Oops, Did She Do It Again?

CBS News:  Hillary Clinton Now Viewed More Favorably Than Barack Obama, Especially Among Republicans

Washington Times:  Obama loosens missile technology controls to China

Defense Link:  Quadrennial Defense Review 2010

Updated Related links – end