With all the rhetoric being pushed around however, true analysis tends to get lost in the noise…. which is where Stratfor enters; not only asking pertinent questions and attempting to answer them, but in giving the treaty the full historical context it deserves.

First, what is the START Treaty (whole thing here)?

….The original START was signed July 31, 1991, and reductions were completed in 2001. The treaty put a cap on the number of nuclear warheads that could be deployed. In addition to limiting the number of land- and submarine-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and strategic bombers, it capped the number of warheads that were available to launch at 6,000…. START I lapsed in 2009, and the new treaty is essentially designed to reinstate it….

What Sratfor notes however, is the difference in geopolitical relationships from START I to New START, mainly that the original treaty began in a very different climate in the 1980′s (article con’t):

…The political relationship that existed between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s is not the same as the relationship that exists today. Starting in the 1950s, the United States and Soviet Union were in a state of near-war….

In what was basically a balancing act by the two major global powers at the time, conventional and nuclear weapons, were built and deployed as the United States & Russia tried to gain an advantage (article con’t):

…The differences between them were geopolitically profound. The United States was afraid that the Soviets would seize Western Europe in an attack in order to change the global balance of power. Given that the balance of power ran against the Soviet Union, it was seen as possible that they would try to rectify it by war.

Since the United States had guaranteed Europe’s security with troops and the promise that it would use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union to block the conquest of Europe, it followed that the Soviet Union would initiate war by attempting to neutralize the American nuclear capability. This would require a surprise attack on the United States with Soviet missiles. It also followed that the United States, in order to protect Europe, might launch a pre-emptive strike against the Soviet military capability in order to protect the United States and the balance of power….

This process of seeking global influence, resulted in many things, like the Cuban Missile Crisis, Star-Wars (BMD), a build up in both strategic and tactical nuclear arsenals, and basically a stable, but highly tense situation of mutually assured destruction.

Then in 1991, the need for this policy was diminished for both sides with the implosion of the Soviet Union.   Even at that time one could argue the need for such a treaty was minimal, but when the process started during higher tensions in the 1980s, and given the level of fear around the world, going forward with the pact seemed reasonable.

Which brings us forward to today (article con’t):

Even with a back drop where Russia continues to seek more influence in the Eastern bloc, while the US attempts to minimize it (DA articles here & here), the fear of any war, much less all out nuclear annihilation is miniscule.

What’s the point then? (article con’t)

…An idea emerged in Washington that there needed to be confidence-building measures. One way to build confidence, so the diplomats sometimes think, is to achieve small successes and build on them. The New START was seen as such a small success, taking a non-objectionable treaty of little relevance and effectively renewing it. From here, other successes would follow….

Which is countered by (article con’t) the idea that:

….using an archaic issue as a foundation for building a relationship with Russia allowed both sides to evade the serious issues dividing the two sides: the role of Russia in the former Soviet Union, NATO and EU expansion, Russia’s use of energy to dominate European neighbors, the future of BMD against Iran, Russia’s role in the Middle East and so on….

It’s unlikely to help much as seemingly noble, but unnecessary gestures might change domestic opinion, but they very rarely affect geopolitics.  Ultimately of course, time will tell which side’s argument is more accurate. 

For now – I think you can chalk this up as a minor political victory for President Obama, and truly little else.

…Though details are still sketchy, South Korean news reports indicate that around 2:30 p.m. local time, North Korean artillery shells began landing in the waters around Yeonpyeongdo, one of the South Korean-controlled islands just south of the NLL. North Korea has reportedly fired as many as 200 rounds, some of which struck the island, injuring at least 10 South Korean soldiers, damaging buildings and setting fire to a mountainside. South Korea responded by firing some 80 shells of its own toward North Korea, dispatching F-16 fighter jets to the area and raising the military alert to its highest level….

What’s interesting to note, is that North Korea has murdered South Koreans before, such as the recent sinking of the ChonAn, but as Stratfor puts it (emphasis added):

…While the South Korean reprisals — both artillery fire in response by self-propelled K-9 artillery and the scrambling of aircraft — thus far appear perfectly consistent with South Korean standard operating procedures, the sustained shelling of a populated island by North Korea would mark a deliberate and noteworthy escalation…

Now while the timing seems like a message, but North Korean doesn’t have the best military and with leadership transition taking place, there are other possible scenarios (source: Stratfor):

…The incident comes amid renewed talk of North Korea’s nuclear program, including revelations of an active uranium-enrichment program, and amid rumors of North Korean preparations for another nuclear test.  But North Korea also on Nov. 22 sent a list of delegates to Seoul for Red Cross talks with South Korea, a move reciprocated by the South, ahead of planned talks in South Korea set for Thursday. The timing of the North’s firing at Yeonpyeongdo, then, seems to contradict the other actions currently under way in inter-Korean relations. With the ongoing leadership transition in North Korea, there have been rumors of discontent within the military, and the current actions may reflect miscommunications or worse within the North’s command-and-control structure, or disagreements within the North Korean leadership.

There are also some other reports which indicate more is known than Stratfor is currently reporting (such as the dictator-in-waiting is responsible) as well as open questions regarding China’s  & Russia’s (even if they publicly condemned it) possible responses. 

Irregardless, the facts are pretty easy.  

A soverign and free nation, was just attacked and had its citizens murdered by a bully, a terrorist sponsor, an illegal weapons supplier, a despotic and opressive human rights abuser, all run run by an idiot who propagandizes others in his divinity.

& while there’s still time to think about a possible response from the international community, including countries who have alliances with South Korea, the current response seems woefully incapable of reducing the threat posed by this despotic regime anytime soon.

The UN?  Well, they have the meet to discuss it.  The US (with 25K troops stationed in South Korea)?  Stongly condemns it.

Of course there are likely lots of non-public discussions, not only in South Korea, but many other countries including the US, as to what reactions are feasible, so time will tell what the full reation might be.

If you’re keeping score right now however;  North Korea, through an over act of war, just murdered a soverign nation’s free people, and we’re talking.

For Russia, the last 30 years has been marked by instability.  Russia in the 80′s was in a descent from crumbling Communism which limited real individual freedoms.  They moved from that, to a poorly implemented and corrupt form of cronyism, which also limited real individual freedoms.

Then to stabilize and reassert themselves to the international community, former President Putin worked towards a stronger central government.  In doing so, he too worked towards the removal of individual freedoms.  For example, having the government buy the the main press outlets, using the judicial system to attack  corporate heads who were against Mr. Putin’s reforms, changing election laws to reduce citizen say, and many other things.  All of which seemed a sure march back to Communism and the stage for a new global dynamic with Russia trying to be the main international opposition to the US.

However, in recent months Stratfor and other publications have been noticing changes inside the Russian government.  Many reformers have been pushing the new President and Mr. Putin to begin to make real free market reforms through privatization and it looks like they’ve won some ground (Stratfor Video below):

Since I have a strong belief in the morality and pragmatism of individual freedom, this is a good sign.  Let’s hope it continues.

Odd thing is – those without freedoms or with lesser freedoms around the world have been pushing for market reforms, including Germany, France, China, Russia… while the US is pushing centralized control over banking and health care (to name two things).

Proving once again, that the price of freedom really is eternal vigilance.

The story really first appears as the auto company bail-out was in full swing in the US.  GM had pushed a reorganization plan that cut jobs in all countries.  With German Chancellor Angela Merkel getting pressure due to the global economic crisis and facing a re-election, Opel became more important than first assumed (@BusinessWeek):

….On Tuesday, though, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said Opel was not a “system-critical” corporation. “There are system-critical financial institutions,” she told her conservative party’s parliamentary group, according to the Rheinische Post newspaper. “But there are no system-critical industrial firms.” It was Merkel’s indirect way of saying that Opel is less important to Germany than its crisis-stricken banks. Her statements were intended to counter earlier comments made by the head of the left-leaning Social Democratic Party that Opel was indeed “system relevant.” She added, however, that Opel should be given a chance to survive and that like all companies, it has the “right to apply for state aid.”…

It not only became more important, but Chancellor Merkel started treating it as imperative to re-election (@France24.c0m):

I could be seeing patterns where they don’t exist, but it seems that each time Mr. Biden opens his mouth, the WH either ignores it completely or attempts to restate it.

Remember  the swine flu thing? (at NPR):

“I would tell members of my family — and I have — that I wouldn’t go anywhere in confined places now,” Vice President Joe Biden said today as he made the rounds of the morning TV news shows. “It’s not just going into Mexico. If you’re any place in a confined aircraft and one person sneezes, it goes all the way through the aircraft.”…

Followed shortly thereafter by WH clarification (LA Times):

…”I think the vice president misrepresented what the vice president wanted to say,” said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs….

Later in the day, Gibbs was pressed about the discrepancy between Biden’s original words and the White House’s.

“I understand what he said. I’m telling you what he meant to say,” Gibbs said…

After proving his immense knowledge of swine flu, he went on to call Russia a crumbling system (@ Washington Times):

…Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was forced Sunday to correct publicly Mr. Biden’s characterization of Russia as a crumbling country, a description that infuriated Russian officials and contradicted President Obama’s efforts to “reset” relations with the world power….

Just like that one crazy uncle, he’s the comedic gift that keeps on giving.  This week, as the White House has pushed hard to show how the stimulus has worked, Mr. Biden started using words like “depression” (@ ABC News):

In recent weeks, Vice President Joe Biden has said that the U.S. economy has been in what he calls “a great recession” and has stressed that it is not a depression, echoing the general consensus of the nation’s economists.

But today the vice president took some liberty with the economic terms to illustrate the continuing struggles of the unemployed in the United States.

For the millions of Americans without a job, “it’s a depression,” Biden said….

In fact, not only does Biden seem to misrepresent the curent administration’s positions, he isn’t even internally consistent (ABC News):

…Just two weeks ago, Biden said that he calls the current state of the economy “the great recession” because it’s “the single worst economic circumstance” the United States has been in, “short of a depression.”

On Oct. 2, Biden said that “fears of a depression have been replaced by forecasts of recovery” and on Sept. 3 Biden said that “instead of talking about the beginning of a depression, we’re talking about the end of a recession eight months after taking office.”…

Now it’s true that some statements made by VPs are seemingly stupid only because the VP is being pushed to say things the President can ‘t.  This is especially true during campaigns, but also during any actual administration.

Either way – I’m truly torn.  On the one hand, I honestly hope Mr. Biden starts getting invited to WH briefings in order to reduce his perceived idiocy on the world stage.  On the other hand – almost every time he talks, I get a good laugh.