Obama’s foreign policy triumph: A comment

In the New York Post this week Arthur Herman condemned the pending Russian return to Afghanistan that is to be worked out with the assistance of the Obama administration. It is a “foreign policy triumph” that looks like a confession of failure.
Reader Jim Lanave raises similar qualms about Obama’s “foreign policy triumph” with missile defense:

[L]et me get this straight; Russia is mad that we developed a defense to a nuclear war… Because our defense would nullify their defense, which is really offensive — yes, literally, either way you want to read that works.
Now, in our part of this bargain we get to protect Russia from a rogue country that RUSSIA sold nuclear technology to….In addition, we’re going to make Russia a “partner” in the deployment of defensive technology in their country — defensive technology that they can’t figure out how to implement OR get their missiles through. And to boot, Russia will be mad if they’re treated like the red headed stepchild in the deal… A deal that had already been inked once but suspended because Russia invaded another country.
Gee, what’s not to like there? I’m certain, given that our President potentially just dropped our collective “trou” (again), the words “trust but verify” are in there somewhere for the Russian part, which is…? NATO gets to fly over Russian airspace to get to Afghanistan as long as the stuff they’re shipping is non-lethal?
That’s it!? RUFKM? And Medviedev is dictating that they’ll be a full partner or else? God, I miss Reagan.
I hope the President didn’t stay up too late working on that one. Let’s see how the press interprets this….Raving success, or We just got [screwed]. My bet is the former because the reality is the latter. It is kind of ironic though, that we’re giving Israel such a hard time, eh? Kind of puts that in context.

RUFKM is the short version of Arthur Herman’s New York Post column as well. As Mr. Lanave’s conclusion suggests, RUFKM actually covers a wide swath of Obama administration foreign policy.
UPDATE: DEBKAfile raises a question regarding the terms of the putative Russian agreement with NATO on missile defense. The Washington Post story on the agreement is, shall we say, vague on the terms.
Via reader Monica Booth.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.