Exceptional (25 page)

They stressed the critical importance of the planned missile defense
installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. The system had become “a symbol of America's credibility and commitment to the region.” Despite Russia's objections to the system, they wrote:

The small number of missiles involved cannot be a threat to Russia's strategic capabilities, and the Kremlin knows this. We should decide the future of the program as allies and based on the strategic plusses and minuses of the different technical and political configurations. The Alliance should not allow the issue to be determined by unfounded Russian opposition. Abandoning the program entirely or involving Russia too deeply in it without consulting Poland
or the Czech Republic can undermine the credibility of the United States across the whole region.

President Obama sided with the Russians. On September 17, 2009, he announced he was canceling the installations in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Both the Poles and the Czechs had expended significant political capital to secure parliamentary approval for the systems. They had been assured the project would proceed. “We heard first from the media,” said Witold Waszczykowski, deputy in Poland's national security bureau. Poland's prime minister was so angry about the cancellation that he refused to take President Obama's call, which came at midnight Poland time. Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski spoke for many when he was overheard saying, “The Polish-American alliance is worthless, even harmful, as it gives Poland a
false sense of security.”

The president has been willing to gamble not just the security of our allies, but of the United States as well, by appeasing the Russians with regard to missile defense. On Monday, March 26, 2012, President Obama was caught on an open microphone making what he thought were private comments to Russian president Medvedev: “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it's important for [Putin] to give me space.” Putin had just been elected to return to the Russian presidency. “This is my last election,” Obama continued. “After my election I have
more flexibility.” Medvedev replied, “I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.” In this case, Obama was good for his word. The following year, six weeks after President Obama was sworn in for his second term, the United States announced it was canceling the final stage of the European missile defense program the Russians had
so strenuously opposed.

Three months later, Russian president Vladimir Putin welcomed Edward
Snowden to Moscow, granting asylum to the traitor responsible for one of the greatest thefts of American intelligence in history.
Whether Snowden was a Russian operative at the time he stole the U.S. secrets is the subject of debate, although it is hard to conceive of his landing in Moscow as a coincidence. What is clear is that he is fully Putin's tool now. On April 18, 2014, Snowden participated in one of Putin's government-controlled television shows.
He “called in” to ask Putin, “Does Russia engage in mass surveillance of its population?” Of course not, Putin answered. Those who herald Snowden as a hero fighting for freedom ought to consider the propaganda services he is now providing for a man who, among other things, routinely has journalists and political opponents murdered.

A CENTERPIECE OF PRESIDENT Obama's reset with the Russians and of his efforts to reduce America's strategic nuclear arsenal was the New START Treaty he signed with Russian president Medvedev in Prague in April 2010. The original START Treaty, signed in 1991 by President George H. W. Bush and Soviet premier Gorbachev, had expired in 2009. The Obama administration heralded
New START as a “serious step” toward achieving the president's announced goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

Secretary Hillary Clinton described all the treaty would accomplish in a speech at the U.S. Institute of Peace in October 2009. In those early days of the administration, when promises were made and performance remained to be judged, she laid out lofty goals for this treaty. By reducing our nuclear arsenal, it would “
bolster our national security.” By setting “the stage for even deeper cuts,” New START would make us even safer in the future. We had more nuclear weapons than we needed anyway, she said—“nuclear weapons in excess of our security needs,” as she put it. Staying at those numbers would
only “give other countries the motivation or excuse to pursue their own nuclear weapons.” Reducing them would help us “build trust and avoid surprises.”

It is not clear on what basis Secretary Clinton determined that cutting our arsenal would make us safer or that our nuclear forces were “in excess of our security needs.” There had been no strategic review supporting this conclusion. A few months later, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, General Kevin Chilton, commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, addressed the size of our arsenal:

I do not agree that
[
the number of nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal
]
is more than is needed. I think the arsenal we have is exactly what is needed today to provide the deterrent. And I say this in light of—when we talk about the non-deployed portion of the arsenal—it is sized to be able to allow us to hedge against both technical failures in the current deployed arsenal and any geopolitical concerns that might . . . cause us to need
more weapons deployed.

The assertion about America's “excess” nuclear weapons was crafted to support President Obama's goal of getting to nuclear zero. Cutting America's arsenal through reductions adopted in New START was the easiest place to begin.

The Obama administration claimed that Russian nuclear forces would be reduced by a third as a result of the treaty. Instead, the Russians have used the years since the treaty was signed to increase spending on and modernization of their nuclear forces. As a result of the treaty, Russia now has more strategic warheads deployed
than the United States does. Contrary to Secretary Clinton's promise of verifiable reductions that would build mutual trust, inspections have
been tightly managed by the Russians and are far from go-anywhere-anytime.

While the United States has been reducing its nuclear arsenal, the Russians have also been violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty), signed by President Reagan and Soviet premier Gorbachev in 1987, by testing missiles prohibited by the treaty. Secretary Kerry was reportedly briefed on the
cheating in November 2012 when he was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The United States at first attempted to ignore the violations, then deal with them privately. The Russians, predictably, have denied the cheating and resisted all entreaties, including from President Obama, to stop cheating and comply with their treaty obligations.

ON FEBRUARY 28, 2014, as Russian troops crossed the Ukrainian border, Russian foreign minister Lavrov was on the phone with Secretary of State John Kerry. Lavrov failed to mention the troops on the march. Kerry briefed the press after the phone call, seemingly still unaware of events on the ground in Ukraine. Lavrov, Kerry reported, told him the Russians “do not intend to violate the sovereignty of Ukraine.” Furthermore, they “are prepared to be engaged and involved in helping to deal with the economic transition that
needs to take place.”

A few hours later, when it became clear what was happening, President Obama issued a statement warning that “there will be costs” for any Russian invasion of Ukraine. After watching him fail to enforce the infamous red line in Syria, is it any wonder the Russians ignored this warning?

Since then, Putin has formally annexed Crimea and sent troops farther into Ukraine. In May 2015, Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko warned that Russia had 50,000 troops deployed on Ukraine's
border and more than 40,000 “separatist” proxy troops inside the country. Between the signing of the second cease-fire agreement in Minsk in February, and May 2015, the Ukrainian government reported it had lost twenty-eight towns to the Putin-backed “
separatist fighters.”

The United States and the European Union have imposed several rounds of sanctions but otherwise allowed the invasion to stand. Ukrainian requests for the United States to provide military support were met with blankets and meals ready to eat (MREs). Early in the crisis, President Obama took the military option off the table, explaining in March 2014, “We are not going to be getting into a military excursion in Ukraine.”

Putin likely already knew that or else he wouldn't have risked the invasion in the first place. He is now turning his sights toward other countries in Europe with significant Russian-speaking populations, including the Baltic states, which are members of NATO. Putin's objective is threefold: 1) to return territory to Russia in an effort to reclaim its historic power and standing; 2) to diminish American power and influence in Europe; and 3) to destroy the NATO alliance.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea have also done lasting damage to the international nuclear nonproliferation structure. In 1994, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, as Ukraine signed the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state. In exchange for Kiev's agreement to send its nuclear materials and weapons to Russia, the U.S., U.K., and Russia agreed “to respect the independence and sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine” and to “refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine.” Russia is clearly in violation of its obligation under this agreement. Ambassador Eric S. Edelman, undersecretary of defense for policy under President George W. Bush, has pointed
out that Russia's invasion of Ukraine, “left standing . . . will establish that security assurances offered by nuclear weapons states to states that willingly give up their weapons or weapons programs mean
precisely nothing.”

As the credibility of U.S. security guarantees comes into question, Moscow continues to escalate its nuclear rhetoric and threats. In March 2015, the Russian ambassador to Denmark warned that Russia would aim nuclear missiles at Danish ships if Denmark, a NATO member, joined NATO's missile-defense system. The Russians have deployed nuclear-capable missiles to Kaliningrad, which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania, threatened to deploy nuclear weapons in Crimea, and simulated a nuclear attack on Warsaw during annual military exercises.

Cheating on the INF Treaty, building up and modernizing their strategic nuclear forces, undertaking increasingly hostile military exercises, threatening the use of nuclear force against countries that ally themselves with the West, invading and occupying Crimea, invading Ukraine—these are Russian policies in the aftermath of the reset. Not only did the reset clearly not improve U.S.-Russia relations, it did real damage to America's global strategic interests and standing.

Six years into the Obama administration, the Iranian nuclear weapons program is advancing rapidly, and Iran's power and influence have spread
across the Middle East. The threat to America and our allies is grave and growing. Nuclear proliferation, which President Obama promised to halt, will instead be guaranteed as a result of the Obama nuclear deal allowing Iran to enrich uranium. Russia has invaded Ukraine, threatens the Baltic states and other European nations, is cheating on its obligations under the INF Treaty, is expanding its nuclear capabilities, and is providing advanced antiaircraft missiles to the Iranians. Meanwhile, President Obama reduces our nuclear arsenal, dismantles key elements of our missile defense,
and imposes significant cuts on our conventional forces as he ushers Vladimir Putin back into the Middle East as a global power.

The “outstretched hand” to Iran and the “reset” with Russia have failed. Regimes like the ones in Tehran and Moscow don't “unclench their fists” when America “extends” a hand. They don't feel constrained by the “international system” or the “new world order” in which President Obama puts so much faith.

They arm themselves, mass their forces, capture territory, and seize their chance to dominate as much of the globe as possible with their tyrannical rule.

We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression—to preserve
freedom and peace.

—PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN, MARCH 23, 1983

Our successful defense of freedom was not due to the words we used, but to the strength we stood ready to use on behalf of the principles we stand
ready to defend.

—PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY, REMARKS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY NOVEMBER, 22, 1963

F
or seventy years, the foundation of America's security has been the unmatched might of our armed forces. Our military superiority and our willingness to use our forces when necessary have guaranteed freedom and peace for millions around the world. We have been, in the words of President John F. Kennedy, “by destiny rather than by choice, the watchmen on the walls of
world freedom.”