No New START For These Paranoids

Daniel Larison writes:

"I cannot in good conscience determine my support for the treaty until the administration assures me our ‘reset policy’ with Russia is a policy that enhances rather than diminishes the national security of our friends and allies throughout Europe." ~Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH)

Voinovich has a reputation as a “moderate,” but this statement is a useful reminder that on national security questions there is incredible, mind-numbing uniformity among virtually all Republicans in Congress. Improved U.S.-Russian relations naturally enhances the security of “friends and allies” by not making them into front-line states against Russia. Polish-Russian relations have gone through a dramatic change between late 2008 and now thanks in part to the administration decision to cancel the missile defense installation planned for Poland. The administration has repeatedly assured critics of the “reset” that this is the case, but they keep coming back with demands for more assurances.

During much of the speech, Voinovich dwelled on the theme of the former “captive nations” and his past support for NATO expansion. He claimed that history always seems to repeat itself, when in reality history never repeats itself. Voinovich is concerned about future Russian expansionism, and he was very alarmed by the idea that the Russians view NATO expansion as a threat to Russian security. Of course, there is no other way for them to view the expansion of a major military alliance right up to their borders, and it is incredible that a leading proponent of NATO expansion believes that Russian expansionism is the most likely source of insecurity and instabilty in the region. He somehow thinks that an arms reduction treaty that could pave the way for future negotiations on Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons could imperil eastern Europe. Voinovich wants to make sure that there are no “side agreements” giving Russia a sphere of influence, when it is the stated policy of the current administration that it does not accept the idea of a Russian sphere of influence anywhere. The man is obsessed with Yalta, which has absolutely nothing to do with what we’re discussing. These are arguably even less serious reasons to oppose the treaty than the bogus reasons treaty critics usually bring up.