The problem, I think, is that there are three types of well informed, well backed by citations international relations observers: The pundits, we all know what those do. The Speechists, that read speeches and decided that they know about IR. And the Geopoliticians, that read the speeches only to know from where the Speechists got their crazy ideas.
Ah, yes, Ye Olde Partnership for Peace, the politically correct slogan for encirclement of Russia.
NATO is and was an anti-Russian alliance, not the plush toy of partnership.
NATO is and always was totally defensive and mostly toothless.
Bush has been doing exactly what we would expect: He's been talking to the Russians at every level and engaging them in a host of multilateral activity.
What we do NOT expect him to do is sacrifice U.S. or allied interest for the sake of appeasing Russian hardliners.
After Putin offered a radar site in Azerbaijan if Bush would give up plans for such sites with Poland and the Czech Republic his strategy became clear.
Putin has nothing to fear from a defensive system except the inability to continue Russia's historical policy of intimidating, threatening, invading and occupying it's neighbors.
It's not like the Poles or Czechs are going to invade Russia any time soon.
Actually, strategically Russia is not interested in world conquest but in control of its immediate buffer, such as the US is and does.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
