Insiders: Major Headway Unlikely From U.S.-Russia Talks

Global Security Newswire Staff
Aug. 9, 2013, 8:02 a.m.

A series of Fri­day top-level ex­changes between Rus­sia and the United States has little chance of yield­ing sig­ni­fic­ant pro­gress on any key point of con­ten­tion between the sides, in­clud­ing an en­trenched dis­pute over Wash­ing­ton’s mis­sile de­fense plans for Europe, U.S. gov­ern­ment per­son­nel told Re­u­ters.

A lack of pro­gress on the an­ti­mis­sile stan­doff fed in­to Pres­id­ent Obama’s de­cision this week to back out of a planned Septem­ber meet­ing with Rus­si­an Pres­id­ent Vladi­mir Putin. Mo­scow has de­man­ded a leg­ally en­force­able guar­an­tee that soph­ist­ic­ated U.S. in­ter­cept­ors slated for de­ploy­ment in Europe would nev­er be aimed at Rus­si­an stra­tegic mis­siles. The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has spurned that re­quest, say­ing it does not have the au­thor­ity to make such a prom­ise.

Still, U.S. De­fense Sec­ret­ary Chuck Hagel and Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry will mount a new ef­fort to clear up Mo­scow’s wor­ries about the an­ti­mis­sile plans when they meet with their Rus­si­an coun­ter­parts on Fri­day, an U.S. gov­ern­ment in­sider said.

The talks were un­der way as of Fri­day morn­ing, the As­so­ci­ated Press re­por­ted. A morn­ing ex­change between Hagel and Rus­si­an De­fense Min­is­ter Sergei Shoigu was to be fol­lowed by a mid-day gath­er­ing of all four of­fi­cials and an af­ter­noon meet­ing between Kerry and Rus­si­an For­eign Min­is­ter Sergei Lav­rov, AP re­por­ted sep­ar­ately on Fri­day.

One of Lav­rov’s depu­ties said “the Amer­ic­an ideas [on mis­sile de­fense] and our con­cerns seem to ex­ist in dif­fer­ent di­men­sions, and we have so far been un­able to find where they in­ter­sect,” In­ter­fax re­por­ted on Wed­nes­day.

“Without an agree­ment on an­ti­mis­sile de­fense which will dis­pel all our con­cerns, any fur­ther steps to­ward nuc­le­ar dis­arm­a­ment are im­possible,” Rus­si­an Deputy For­eign Min­is­ter Sergei Ry­ab­kov ad­ded in re­marks quoted on Wed­nes­day by the Xin­hua News Agency.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
4 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×