Dumb, naïve and dangerous

State Department sees no threat in Russian monitoring stations here

  • Follow Editorials

It may be the dumbest thing this country has ever contemplated. Ever. So inane that it’s hard to believe it’s true.

But rest assured, it’s true.

The U.S. State Department actually wants to allow Russia to establish six of its own satellite monitoring stations on U.S. soil.

You read right. Russian. Sat-ellite. Monitoring. Stations. Here.

It seems the Russians have grown tired of American dominance in satellite and GPS capabilities, and the U.S. State Department wants to help prop up our commercial competitors and chief political antagonists.

Why? Simple. Because they want the Russians to like us.

“For the State Department,” writes the New York Times, “permitting Russia to build the stations would help mend the Obama administration’s relationship with the government of President Vladimir V. Putin, now at a nadir because of Moscow’s granting asylum to (Edward) Snowden and its backing of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.”

The Russians “don’t want to be reliant on the American system and believe that their systems, like GPS, will spawn other industries and applications,” a former senior official in the State Department’s Office of Space and Advanced Technology was quoted by the Times. “They feel as though they are losing a technological edge to us in an important market. Look at everything GPS has done on things like your phone and the movement of planes and ships.”

There’s so much wrong with this satellite picture it’s hard to know where to begin.

How about with the plainly obvious security concerns?

That’s probably what came to your mind first, as it did ours, and you’ll be glad to know those concerns are at least shared by the federal intelligence and military communities. As the Times notes, the CIA and Pentagon fear, rightly, that Russian satellite monitoring systems on U.S. soil will only help boost the precision of Russia’s satellite-aided weaponry – which, by the way, U.S. forces or allies could someday face.

The stations could also give Russia a firmer foothold with which to spy on America and Americans. Our own government has abused that power. What makes anyone think the Russians wouldn’t?

But just for argument’s sake, let’s assume the most innocuous use of the stations. Even if the Russians only used the U.S. monitoring stations for purely commercial purposes – to better compete with our GPS technology – why on Earth would the United States want to undermine American technological superiority like that? Why undercut American industry that way? Why go out of our way to give a hand up to one of our fiercest competitors and geopolitical rivals?

Maybe we need to do some monitoring of our own: Does anyone in the State Department, for instance, have the first clue about Vladimir Putin’s world views and moral values? One need only witness the carnage in Syria to get a glimpse of Putin’s aims; it is with his acquiescence, and toward his global ends, that the murderous Assad regime has been allowed to wage conventional and chemical war on his own people these past few bloody years.

These people in the State Department are frighteningly naïve.

It’s also likely the monitoring stations agreement would be wholly unilateral – knowing American negotiators, the stations wouldn’t be reciprocal, with six stations of our own on Russian soil. But even if it were, the deal would still be a monumental folly.

Just as alarming as the thought of officially sanctioned Russian monitoring stations on U.S. soil is the fact that there are officials in the State Department who think this is even remotely a good idea.

We need monitoring stations across the U.S., all right.

To watch our government like a hawk.

Comments (18) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Willow Bailey
20605
Points
Willow Bailey 11/19/13 - 04:53 am
12
1
Could it get any more

Could it get any more obvious? When is this country, Republicans from apathy and Democrats from insanity, going to wake up ?

carcraft
28447
Points
carcraft 11/19/13 - 05:41 am
11
2
President Obama has a very

President Obama has a very naive view of the world. We have seen it in the revolution in Egypt, the way Putin rolled Obama in Syria, the mess that is now Libya (interesting not much in the news as Libya spirals into chaos), Iran (not well reported but France saved the US bacon on Iranian negotiations). Our Foreign policy is a mess. Not only no but NO with a period after it. Unlike Obama's period, this period actually means no conditions follow, no extended terms, no fine print and no unstated binding preconditions on the no statement !

Riverman1
93494
Points
Riverman1 11/19/13 - 06:23 am
10
3
We Could Work Out Something

I say let them do it if we get to put ours in Russia plus have our police officers running radar in Russia on the Moscow to Tambov Hwy with all the fines sent to us. The satellite stations they run in the U.S. have to be “manned” by these http://beauty-around.com/en/tops/item/43-samyue-krasivyie-russian-actress women for safety. Ours in Russia will be manned by those guys from MIT with the Band-Aids between their eyes holding their glasses on. Running the radar on the Russian highway will be Georgia troopers from the Ludowici district who have been temporarily suspended due to weight issues. The Russian women must wear uniforms at all times in the U.S. and they will be designed by the same guy who designed the Hooters girls’ outfits. They must also only wear high heels to prevent fast movements.

justthefacts
24990
Points
justthefacts 11/19/13 - 06:45 am
9
2
Huh?

"mend the Obama administration’s relationship with the government of President Vladimir V. Putin, now at a nadir because of Moscow’s granting asylum to (Edward) Snowden and its backing of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.” Why are we rewarding them for such actions? It doesn't make sense.

ymnbde
10662
Points
ymnbde 11/19/13 - 07:00 am
10
2
"I will transmit this information to Vladimir"

"After my election I have more flexibility"
he did say that, after all, to Russia, did he not?
the enemy is truly within the gates
"...the longer an empire is in existence, the more time the successfully sinister have to find ways to subvert the system and insert themselves into positions of power."

Willow Bailey
20605
Points
Willow Bailey 11/19/13 - 07:43 am
6
1
I have an overwhelming urge

I have an overwhelming urge to comment on the comments. Carcraft. Great period. Jtf,,yes, why, indeed, ymnbde, I thought of that conversation as well. And River, I can still tell its you, before I scroll to the end of your comments..lol.

Riverman1
93494
Points
Riverman1 11/19/13 - 07:53 am
5
2
Willow, you've been up all

Willow, you've been up all night commenting. But thanks, I think. What the heck, I gave you a thumbs up anyway.

Little Lamb
48968
Points
Little Lamb 11/19/13 - 07:58 am
6
2
Flexibility

Yes, ymnbde, I was going remind folks of Obama's "flexibility" statement to Putin, when the thought the microphone was dead.

It is possible to turn from error unto truth. The high-level Marxist, Whitaker Chambers, did it and became a great patriot to the U.S.

But Obama will not turn. He is too ideologically entrenched into his belief in Marxism. He is now also being revealed as friendly to Leninism.

Little Lamb
48968
Points
Little Lamb 11/19/13 - 08:32 am
7
2
Deal

In these flexible dealings, what is the bottom line? Will the Russians be making lease payments to the U.S., or will the U.S. be paying the Russians for the privilege of their company on our soil?

Young Fred
20919
Points
Young Fred 11/19/13 - 09:05 am
7
2
carcraft @ 5:41 Naive or

carcraft @ 5:41

Naive or purposeful?

Many claim it's purposeful, with pretty damning evidence. While others are highly skeptical of such a pessimistic view of our leaders.

What say you, Obama supporters?
A masterful move?
A rookie mistake?
A calculated, hurtful, move?

dichotomy
37418
Points
dichotomy 11/19/13 - 09:47 am
7
2
Obama and Putin. A communist

Obama and Putin. A communist dictator and a wannabe communist dictator. I think Obama actually admires Putin and would do anything to get Putin to pat him on the head and say "good little communist".

deestafford
31781
Points
deestafford 11/19/13 - 10:15 am
8
2
The more I see of Obama's actions the more I believe he sufffers

from abandonment syndrome. When someone is abandoned as a child they develop a deep desire to be liked by everyone. Obama has this as does Bill Clinton, but Clinton's seems to manifest itself in a different way.

Obama was abandoned in his early years by his mother and then his grandparents put him with the Communist Frank Marshall Davis for much of his youth's mentoring.

Obama has shown this desire for other countries to like him thinking his personality can bring this about since it has carried him all his life. Unfortunately for America, countries don't fawn over him as people have done all his life. The relations of America with other countries of the world are at their lowest point during my lifetime. Our friends don't trust us. Our enemies don't respect or fear us because they know Obama is weak and can be ran over.

As Daniel Pipes has said, "The Obama administration is firmly resolved to: snub friends, coddle opponents, devalue American interests, seek consensus, and act unpredictably".

His foreign "policy" has brought no successes at all. Our allies in the East see China becoming the dominant power there and they are backing away from us. The allies in the Middle East are petrified of Iran becoming a nuclear power (One who will not be afraid to use the weapons first)...Saudi Arabia is seeking to buy nukes from Pakistan, and Israel is scared they are abandoned by Obama and must act on their on to survive. Russia is now the dominate power in many parts of the world.

Obama's foreign policy is adrift with no anchor to hold it in place...only his personality to be liked as its propulsion.

Little Lamb
48968
Points
Little Lamb 11/19/13 - 12:18 pm
5
0
Unpredictable

Excellent analysis, Dee.

teaparty
11313
Points
teaparty 11/19/13 - 01:11 pm
3
0
'Excellent analysis, Dee.' I
Unpublished

'Excellent analysis, Dee.'
I agree

KSL
143582
Points
KSL 11/19/13 - 02:52 pm
4
1
Apathy

Thanks for the good comments. I'm glad not everybody is apathetic about what is happening to our country.

Young Fred
20919
Points
Young Fred 11/19/13 - 03:28 pm
4
0
I swear!... Some say that

I swear!...

Some say that life imitates art instead of visa-versa. If this is true, and “art” being very subjective, I do believe we are living in Cartoony Land!

And that cartoon which we find ourselves trapped in is Bevis and Butthead. The populace of this country seems to be tripping through life with nary a clue as to what is really happening around them. So self-absorbed that reality is a nuisance.

Looking back through history, it seems most great civilizations hit their apex at least a few centuries into existence.

We seem to have hit ours at about 170 years. Looking at the record of various civilizations, it appears “minute men” is an apt description of our country.

harley_52
25826
Points
harley_52 11/19/13 - 08:55 pm
1
0
"Obama's foreign policy is adrift...

....with no anchor to hold it in place...only his personality to be liked as its propulsion."

I don't think it's that simple.

I admit I'm not smart enough to psychoanalyze his personality, so I can't determine the extent to which his childhood (or at least what we've heard about his childhood) influences his behavior as President. What's more, I don't care. What I care about is results, not causes. From a results perspective, his Presidency has been a failure in EVERY regard.

I don't think his policy is "adrift" at all. I think it is purposeful and planned. I think his goal is to diminish the United States. I think he believes the USA is (or maybe more correctly WAS) too powerful. He believes we gained that power by stealing it from the third world. He thinks we are responsible for their misery and their lack of development. He wants us to buy their way into prosperity by paying the cost of their development into the twenty-first century.

Personally, I think it's a BIG mistake to believe that his foreign (or for that matter domestic) policies are the result of being "dumb," or "naive," or "adrift." I believe he planned to "fundamentally transform" the United States and that meant putting into action those policies and strategies discussed by Professors Cloward and Piven, and enhanced by the philosophies of people like Saul Alinsky, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and professor William Ayers.

We should be paying less attention to individual occurrences and/or isolated instances of what seem to be his "errors," and more attention to his stated goal and the philosophies and strategies to which we KNOW he subscribes.

Willow Bailey
20605
Points
Willow Bailey 11/19/13 - 09:20 pm
0
0
River, it's all good...you're

River, it's all good...you're a great sport...so much fun messing with ya!

Young Fred
20919
Points
Young Fred 11/20/13 - 12:08 am
2
0
I think harley hit it. It's

I think harley hit it. It's an interesting exercise, trying to get inside the president head, but a worthless exercise. After all, we're talking about trying to fix the country, not that half the country believes it needs fixing.

Did that make sense? Of course it didn't, because fully half our population is nonsensical.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Historic building on Laney campus demolished

The demolition of the 89-year-old Cauley-Wheeler building on the Lucy C. Laney High School campus is over, but the plan for a building that will act as a link to the former site and its story has ...
Search Augusta jobs