President Obama doubled down Thursday on the need to ratify the New START nuclear reductions treaty with Russia during the post-election lame duck session of Congress, echoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's call on Sept. 30. But one Republican senator who voted for the treaty is convinced it's better to push the vote back until next year.

"This is not a traditionally Democratic or Republican issue, but rather an issue of American national security," Obama said. "And I am hopeful that we can get that done before we leave (at the end of the year) and send a strong signal to Russia that we are serious about reducing nuclear arsenals, but also send a signal to the world that we're serious about nonproliferation."

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), one of three Republicans to vote for the treaty on Sept. 16 in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, hasn't yet committed to voting for the treaty on the floor. He now says that he doesn't think there's enough time in the post-election congressional session to properly debate and vote on the pact.

"Senator Corker believes it is far more appropriate to deal with major pieces of legislation like this in settings other than a lame duck session," Todd Womack, his chief of staff, told The Cable.

The ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Richard Lugar (R-IN), who supports the treaty, has been calling for the Senate to act faster and would have preferred to deal with the issue before the midterm elections. But Lugar did acknowledge in Oct. 27 remarks at the Council on Foreign Relations that big gains by the GOP in the election would make completing the Senate's work on New START more difficult.

"Some, I suspect, will argue that the lame-duck session is not a good time to do that," Lugar said. "I have no idea what the results will be of the election, but in the event that there are very substantial changes, and many of them on the Republican side, some will say this is something we really haven't had a chance to get into, to study, and we want more time."

Lugar turned out to be right. Senate Foreign Relations committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA), who is leading the ratification effort in the Senate, has said he only needs two or three days of floor time to give everybody a chance to air their views and consider "reservations" that senators may want to bring up and vote on.

Of course, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) can keep the Senate in session as long as he wants. It's a time-honored tactic in Congress to force senators to stay in town as the winter vacation approaches, thus making them choose between a principled stand on an issue and their desire to go home for the holidays.

And there is plenty of precedent for passing major legislation during lame duck sessions. Congress passed the Clean Air Act in the post-election period in 1970. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, a piece of legislation that served as the foundation on which the World Trade Organization was created was passed during the lame duck session in 1994, just after the last GOP wave election. In 2002, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security during the lame duck session.

There's also precedent for Congress passing treaties with bipartisan support after a changeover of control. The Senate provided advice and consent on the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty Flank Agreement after the Democrats lost control in 1994.

But that was then and this is now. And if Corker and Lugar are skeptical that the START treaty can be completed this year, the Russian Duma apparently agrees with them. The Duma repealed its recommendation for Russian ratification of New START immediately after the U.S. election results came in.

"If the 'lame duck' senators from the old make-up cannot do this in the next weeks then the chances of ratification in the new Senate will be radically lower than they were until now," Konstantin Kosachev, the head of the Duma's International Affairs Committee, told the Interfax news agency.

If the treaty is pushed to next year, the more conservative Senate might not ratify it, Kosachev said.

"Many will be in principle against agreeing on anything with Russia. In that case we will have to start from scratch. That is the worst-case scenario -- completely awful. For now, I do not want to believe in it."

John Podesta, the president of the Center for American Progress, said Thursday on MSNBC that the GOP positioning on the START treaty will be an indicator of how the GOP plans to deal with Obama going forward. "Will Senator McConnell... get [START] done and go along with [the President]. ... If he says no we are just going to be into obstructionism and the just-say-no-party," Podesta said. "We'll at least know where the Republican leadership stands."

Meanwhile, the Heritage Foundation's lobbying arm Heritage Action for American started sending out mailers to 10 states on Thursday, targeting GOP supporters on the treaty, GOP senators who are on the fence, and Democratic senators in red states. The mailer states that the treaty will "lead to more nuclear weapons in the hands of rogue countries like North Korea and Iran."

The administration is reportedly preparing a final package of promises on issues like nuclear modernization to try to garner the support of Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), the key GOP vote, while simultaneously noting that, after holding dozens of hearings and answering hundreds of questions from the Hill, senators should have enough information to make their decision and move on the treaty now.

"There's no sense in putting off what we need now to the next Congress," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Thursday.

"The Senate has a responsibility to do its job and not waste time," said treaty supporter Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "Further delaying a vote on New START hurts U.S. national security."

The Obama administration has been touting its progress in negotiations with Russia over Moscow's bid to join the World Trade Organization, but the White House has no intention of helping Russia overcome the biggest remaining obstacle: Georgia.

National Economic Council Chairman Larry Summers was in Moscow last week, where he announced that "the end is in sight" for U.S. -Russian agreement on outstanding bilateral issues, such as Russia's actions related to intellectual property rights. Summers also explained why Russia's WTO membership is in America's interest.

"The potential of this market for American business is very great... and it's important for the goal President Obama has set for doubling exports over the next five years," he said.

But after Russia has satisfied Washington's concerns on intellectual property protection, poultry issues, etc., it will have to choose whether or not to make concessions to Georgia. The two nations fought a limited war in 2008 and Russia still has troops deployed on Georgian soil to this day.

The Georgians may have been waiting for the Obama administration to approach them with an offer that would entice them to consent to Russia's WTO membership. Any one WTO country can veto Russian accession and Georgia is the leading candidate to do so. Russia may have been waiting for Washington to pressure Georgia to drop their objections. A senior administration official told The Cable that both sides can stop waiting because Washington is not going to get involved.

"This is a bilateral issue between Russia and Georgia, this is not a trilateral issue that we are supposed to solve somehow," the senior administration official said, explaining that the Obama administration has no intention of trying to exert influence on Georgia on this issue and will not offer any carrots or sticks to Tbilisi.

"People somehow think we are going to mediate this between the Russians and the Georgians. That's not our job," the official said.

The Obama administration's position is that Russia should make the first move. It is unlikely that there will be membership for Russia if basic borders and customs issues are not resolved with Georgia, the official said.

"That has to be done before Russia joins the WTO," the official said. "And as it is Russia who is seeking to join the WTO, we would see it as up to them to come up with a way to start negotiations."

So what does Georgia want from Russia? Georgian Prime Minister Nika Gilauri spelled it out in an exclusive interview with The Cable.

"Georgia's support to Russia's WTO membership is conditional. The precondition is fulfillment of obligation taken by Russia in our bilateral accession protocol in 2004 and solving issues of customs administration on the Georgian-Russian border," he said. "Unregulated illegal trade as it takes place now is counter WTO rules. Russia should become member of this rules-based organization but only if it respects trade rules."

Of course, one huge problem is how to define the "Georgian-Russian border." If you are Georgia, that includes the borders between Russia and what the Obama administration calls the "occupied" Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Some experts believe there's a compromise that could square that circle. Damon Wilson, director of the International Security Program at the Atlantic Council, said there could be some international presence on the Russia-Abkhazia and Russia-South Ossetia border, similar to the arrangement in Transnistria, a disputed territory on the border of Moldova and the Ukraine.

But he agreed with the Obama administration official that the burden to begin resolving Russia-Georgia issues that lie in the way of WTO membership is on Russia, not Georgia.

"Too many people frame this as ‘are the Georgians going to be the spoiler.' That already puts the Georgians in a box," Wilson said. "The issue is, do the Russians want in the WTO or not and if so, what are they going to do?"

The Georgians are taking a reasonable position and are not trying to make a stink out of this, recognizing that their leverage is ultimately limited, he said. But their concerns are valid and represent a real trade concern that needs to be addressed.

"If Russia is going to be a part of this, it can't enter on day one with some sort of exception. The first sign is that the Russians need to come to the table and talk to the Georgians."

Wilson's views represent those of many in the Russia watching community in Washington who wonder if the Obama administration wants Russia to join the WTO more than Russia itself wants to join. After all, in addition to the economic benefits for the United States outlined by Summers, WTO membership for Russia is one deliverable Obama would like to point to as part of his "reset" policy.

"Russians have to want this," said David Kramer, former assistant secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. "Russians have to choose whether they work with the Georgians to solve the problem or whether it's more important for them to hold Georgia up as the obstacle."

Kramer, a frequent critic of the Obama reset policy, said the administration has taken exactly the right approach on this issue by putting the onus back on Russia and Georgia to work it out without U.S. mediation.

"Sure, [the administration] is looking to get some wins on the board for Russia reset, but the Bush administration was doing the same thing. If Bush was in office today, we'd be doing the START treaty and we'd be pushing WTO," Kramer said.

Meanwhile, there's a growing murmur on Capitol Hill that the path toward U.S. support for Russian WTO membership in Congress might not be as assured as the administration might hope. Congress must repeal the 35-year-old Jackson-Vanick law, which was meant to support then Soviet emigrants. The law as currently written prevents the U.S. from granting Russian Permanent Normal Trade Relations status.

"Russia would be under no obligation to comply with its commitments to the US made in bilateral accession negotiations and the US would have no recourse to WTO dispute-resolution mechanisms. Essentially, we would get none of the benefits of having Russia inside the rules-based system if Jackson-Vanik isn't repealed," said Samuel Charap, fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Although the Soviet emigrant issue no longer exists, a Republican-controlled Congress could resist that move due to concerns about Russia on any number of issues.

"When you look at the makeup of what the Congress is likely to look like next week, that's not the most auspicious setting for the administration's argument, so there would have be a serious push by the administration and supporters on the Hill to get this done," a senior GOP Congressional aide said.

The Obama administration is ignoring, and thereby enabling, the Russian government's gross abuse of human rights and its gutting of the country's  democracy, according to Russia's former Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov.

"We have no democracy at all. We don't have any future of a democratic state. Everything has been lost, everything has been taken from the people by the authorities," Kasyanov said in a wide ranging interview with Foreign Policy. "The power has replaced all institutions ... like Parliament, like independent judiciary, like free media, etc. That's already obvious for everyone."

The former Russian head of government, who was ousted by current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in 2004, is on a mission this week to send a two-fold message to U.S.-based Russia watchers: that the upcoming elections next year in Russia will not be free and fair, and that the "reset" policy of the Obama administration has wrongly caused the United States to abandon its role as a vocal critic of Russian democratic and human rights abuses.

"We would like our friends in the West, in Europe and the United States, those who are interested in a democratic Russia... we would like these friends just to open their mouths," Kasyanov said, explaining that he will meet with academics and experts at the German Marshall Fund, the Council on Foreign Relations, Columbia University, and other places. He neither sought nor was granted any meetings with U.S. government officials.

Kasyanov said that he supports the substantive aspects of President Obama's reset policy, such as cooperation on non-proliferation, but that a parallel track should be established to simultaneously exert pressure on Russian leadership to adhere to basic standards when it comes to human rights and freedom of expression.

"I would wish the reset process would become a little bit more principled, rather than closing its eyes to everything that's going on Russia in the sphere of public life and in the sphere of civil society," he said. "You shouldn't just change your principles, the values your government is standing on."

He said that U.S. diplomats at various levels of the Obama administration are ignoring negative trends in Russia in the hope of avoiding even minor confrontations with the Kremlin that might upset the warming of bilateral ties.

"They just don't criticize anything, they don't produce any reports on any unacceptable developments... It's not principled, now it looks like the administration closes it eyes on anything that's going on in Russia," he said.

Right now, independent organizations are not allowed to participate in elections and virtually no new political group has been allowed to register itself as a recognized entity since 2004, according to Kasyanov. There is undue pressure on Russian non-governmental groups, such the arrest and trial of organizers who displayed a controversial art exhibit at the Moscow's Andrei Sakharov Community Center, a case that is now being referred to the European Court of Human Rights.

France and Germany are meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on such issues, but they are operating under the illusion that there could be some significant break between him and Putin on such issues, according to Kasyanov.

"What we need is just general support from the West... We need moral support," he said. "Right now, [Russian citizens] feel that Americans have just given up on Russia, that they are not interested at all."

Kasyanov dismissed the working group on human rights being led by the NSC's Mike McFaul and the Kremlin's Vladislav Surkov. McFaul explained the Obama administration's approach to Russian human rights in October 2009, saying, "We came to a conclusion that we need a reset in this respect too and we should give up the old approach that had been troubling Russian-American partnership."

"This Commission blah blah blah discussing human rights, that's imitation, that is not useful operation. That shows to Russians that the U.S. government has chosen a different path, not human rights and democracy. It's absolutely the wrong thing to do," Kasyanov said.

As for his take on the relationship between Medvedev and Putin, who some see as increasingly divergent on key issues, he explained, "Their relations are very simple, boss and senior assistant who temporarily occupies the position of president of the country."

When asked if he thinks Putin will run for President in 2012, he said, "I wouldn't say ‘run,' just step in."

UPDATE: A State Department officials confirms that Kasyanov was offered a meeting with Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Dan Russel, but that the meeting didn't happen due to scheduling issues.

The Senate Foreign Relations committee approved a resolution to ratify the New START nuclear reductions treaty with Russia on Thursday, overcoming objections by Sen. James Risch about new top secret intelligence and after reaching a compromise over strategic posture with Sen. Jim DeMint.

The vote was 14-4, with all Democrats voting to approve the resolution along with Republican Sens. Richard Lugar (R-IN), Bob Corker (R-TN), and Johnny Isakson (R-GA). Sens. James Inhofe (R-OK), John Barrasso (R-WY), Roger Wicker (R-MS), and Risch voted no.

South Carolina's DeMint, whose attempt to add language on missile defense to the resolution was the focus of intense backroom negotiations, did not return from a break to attend the final vote. Since he did not tell ranking Republican Lugar which way he wanted to vote, his expected no vote was never entered.

Lugar and Chairman John Kerry (D-MA) praised the committee's approval of the resolution and Kerry said he would not rule out holding a Senate floor debate and vote before the November elections.

But a Senate leadership aide ruled it out, telling The Cable, "There's no way we can do it this month, they don't have the 67 votes yet (needed for full Senate ratification)."

All morning, the committee room was abuzz regarding Risch's disclosure that he had received late-breaking intelligence information that he argued should prevent the Senate from moving forward on the New START treaty.

In a brief interview on the miniature subway between the Dirksen building and the Capitol, Risch confirmed to The Cable that the information was contained in a top secret intelligence community document sent to the Intelligence Committee this week and a follow-up letter sent to foreign relations committee members by ranking Republican Kit Bond (R-MO).

Risch confirmed that the information concerned Russian cheating on arms control agreements and said it was only the latest in a stream of documents and information that led him to have grave concerns that the New START treaty could move forward in a credible way.

The Cable pointed out to Risch that allegations of Russian cheating, especially regarding the first START treaty, have been well reported and subsequently addressed by the administration (via The Cable). But Risch responded that the problem was worse than what's publicly known.

"You haven't seen the stuff that I've seen," he said.

Bond's office confirmed the existence of the letter but declined to discuss because it was classified. Kerry convened a Wednesday briefing on the issue for SFRC members and consulted Vice President Joseph Biden on the issue before deciding that he believed the ratification process could proceed.

Before disappearing, DeMint's proposed amendment to "commit" the United States to build a multi-layered missile defense system to defend the American people and deployed U.S. forces from missiles of all ranges became the most controversial amendment brought forth at the committee's business meeting, where the debate and vote on New START was occurring.

Kerry was adamantly opposed to the DeMint amendment, saying it could imperil the treaty altogether. But after Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) said he would support DeMint's amendment, meaning that it could actually pass, Kerry huddled behind closed doors with DeMint, Corker, Isaacson, and Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemeoller (who was hanging out nearby) to iron out a compromise.

The Cable obtained copies of both DeMint's original amendment as well as the compromise that Kerry eventually endorsed and that was added to the resolution of ratification by unanimous consent voice vote.

The compromise version changes DeMint's amendment from an "understanding" to a "declaration," which makes it non-binding. The compromise version also no longer says the U.S. is "committed" to building an expansive all-encompassing missile defense system; the new language says the U.S. is "free to reduce the vulnerability to attack by constructing a layered missile defense system capable of countering missiles of all ranges." The compromise also removes language that makes it seem that missile defense should be aimed at Russia.

In a concession to DeMint, Kerry agreed to language that now says "policies based on mutually assured destruction can be contrary to the safety and security of both countries and the United States and the Russian Federation share a common interest in moving cooperatively as soon as possible from a strategic relationship based on mutually assured destruction."

Next week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is slated to finally vote on a resolution to ratify the new START nuclear reductions treaty with Russia, amid growing concern that time is running out for the full Senate to consider the treaty this year.

Top Obama administration officials are working hard behind the scenes to convince GOP senators to get off the fence and announce their support for new START. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is going to be hard pressed to find precious floor time for the treaty before the Senate goes home for its recess before the midterm elections. What might happen after the elections is anyone's guess. The treaty could be considered during the lame-duck session or be postponed until next year, but a more GOP-heavy Senate could change the calculus for getting to the 67 vote threshold needed for ratification.

Supporters of the treaty have been increasingly frustrated about the persistent delays. They blame Senate Republicans, who have been discussing a whole host of concerns they have over the treaty and withholding any commitment to support the pact. The GOP blames the Obama administration for what it sees as the shortcomings of the agreement and its refusal to share the full negotiating record with the Senate.

Regardless, top administration officials involved in the treaty said Friday that the administration had done pretty much all it can to appease Senate Republicans.

"This administration has provided the Senate with more information than is even necessary to make an informed decision," said Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher. "There's been very robust outreach, every question has been answered, and it's time to take the vote."

Tauscher alluded to the growing fear among New START supporters that the GOP reluctance to support the treaty is based in their reluctance to give Obama a foreign policy victory before the election.

"As an American citizen I will say that the American people are clearly frustrated and frankly fed up with the kind of partisanship they see on many issues, and they certainly become disheartened and frightened when they see it on national security, where for decades we've had an agreement that these were issues that were too important and had too much to do with the safety and security of the American people to be caught up in a partisan debate," she said.

Tauscher did not shed any light on the administration's understanding of the treaty's schedule following the committee's planned  Sept. 16 vote. Earlier this week, The Cable reported that chairman John Kerry's draft resolution on ratification was facing internal criticism and had failed to win the support of ranking Republican Richard Lugar (R-IN). Lugar is expected to circulate his own version on Monday.

Tauscher referred indirectly to this development, saying that it was not unusual to have two different resolutions brought to a committee vote. However, State Department officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that  it's at least somewhat unusual and definitely less desirable, from the perspective of the administration, than having only one resolution on which to vote.

Since the old START treaty expired last December, there has been no verification of Russian nuclear activities and no process to work with Russia on areas of mutual concern - a fact that Tauscher focused on in making her case for the necessity of ratifying the new treaty quickly.

"The urgency to verify the treaty is because we currently lack verification measures with Russia," she said. "The longer that goes on, the more opportunity there is for misunderstanding and mistrust."

She also said that the administration's proposal for huge increases in the budget for the nuclear complex and modernization of the nuclear stockpile, which was put forth in the fiscal 2011 budget request, is its final offer -- even though some Senate Republicans have called for larger increases.

"We've shown our hand, we've proposed our budget, it's a 13 percent increase," she said. "Any question about the commitment to modernization is just not a question."

She also took a gentle shot at those pushing for more money for the nuclear weapons complex, pointing out that their insistence for more funding for the National Nuclear Security Administration wasn't evident before they decided to raise concerns about the START treaty. This feeds into the increasingly public sentiment among administration officials that senators are using the nuclear funding issue as just one more reason to delay a vote on new START.

"I was pretty lonely fighting for money for the NNSA and for the weapons complex before I left Congress for the administration," she said.

With the Senate Foreign Relations Committee having delayed its vote on President Obama's nuclear treaty with Russia until September, the committee's top Republican is warning that time is of the essence.

Committee chairman John Kerry, D-MA, told committee members at Tuesday's business meeting that even though the committee could have approved the treaty, allowing it to go to the full Senate, he felt it better to take the time to build more consensus before requiring senators to stake out their positions.

But ranking member Richard Lugar, R-IN, warned that if the treaty stalls, it might be hard to build up momentum again. He also said he had argued internally for holding the committee vote this week to allow Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, to go ahead and reserve precious Senate floor time for treaty consideration in September.

If the committee doesn't vote until September, it's "problematic" to try to get floor time before the next break, Lugar said, meaning that the December "lame duck" post-election session would be where the treaty would get a full Senate debate.

"If not [before the election], then whether it works out in December or not is no longer a matter of parliamentary debate, it's a matter of national security," he said, citing the fact that U.S. inspectors have not been able to verify Russian behavior regarding nuclear weapons deployment since the original START agreement expired late last year. "We ought to vote now and let the chips fall where they may. It's that important."

"The problem of the breakdown of our verification, which lapsed December 5, is very serious and impacts our national security," Lugar said. Members may want to take extra time to consider the treaty, but if they are really concerned about Russian activity, ratifying the treaty is the way to address that, he added.

Kerry implored committee members to take the time over recess to think it over and come back to town ready to vote.

"We currently have no verifiability, no regime in place with Russia," he said. "My hope is that we can do this expeditiously when we come back ... Every senator should be prepared to mark up this resolution of advice and consent on September 15 or 16."

A draft of the resolution will be circulated well before then, Kerry added.

Meanwhile, more fence-sitting senators seem to be signaling that they are getting ready to support New START.

The Cable has been asking every single GOP senator repeatedly to state his or her position on the treaty. Before today, only Lugar and Bob Bennett, R-UT, had indicated support and only James Inhofe, R-OK, and Jim DeMint, R-SC, had said they would oppose it.

Today, The Cable caught up with Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-CT, who had previously said he had not come to a conclusion. He now says he is taking steps to prepare for a yes vote.

"I'm waiting for further action on the modernization of the nuclear weapons program," he said, referring to Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl's ongoing negotiations with the administration over how much money will be made available for nuclear labs and other items.

Lieberman also said when the treaty does come up, he will put forth side documents called "reservations," which can be attached to the treaty to express congressional concerns while still allowing the treaty to go into effect without any changes.

"I may want to submit some reservations or understandings, which will enable me to vote for the treaty," he said.

The Cable also caught up with Senate Armed Services Committee member Jeff Sessions, R-AL, who wouldn't commit but seemed to be leaning toward a no vote.

Sessions said the treaty is not really important, gives too much to the Russians without getting enough in return, and compromises U.S. missile defense.

"It was pretty obvious to me that the administration team was all obsessed with getting it done and signing this treaty as some sort of psychological political statement to the world, and the Russians played us like a Stradivarius," he said. "I'm not buying the argument that this is necessary."

Sessions is most upset that President Obama laid out a goal of moving to a world without nuclear weapons in the first place. "This is such an unwise and incomprehensible policy that it makes everyone uneasy," Sessions said.

Still, Sessions won't say for sure which way he will go. When asked if he agreed with Lugar that time was running out, he said he doesn't have to state his position until a vote comes up.

"The vote's not today," he pointed out.

As the Senate Foreign Relations Committee gets ready to vote on President Obama's nuclear arms reductions treaty, several Republican senators are now hinting that they will support the agreement and are working toward bipartisan ratification.

The key senator to watch is Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona, the Republican point man on the treaty. Kyl, who is in talks with the office of Vice President Joseph Biden, isn't saying which way he's leaning -- but his friends say Kyl is getting closer to supporting ratification.

Utah Sen. Bob Bennett told The Cable in an exclusive interview Tuesday that he wants to vote for the treaty, but is holding off until he gets the nod from his leadership.

"I'm waiting for Senator Kyl to finish his analysis, but he's leaning yes and I'm leaning yes," Bennett said.

Contrary to some Republicans who don't believe that reducing nuclear stockpiles is a good idea at all, such as Jim DeMint, R-SC, James Inhofe, R-OK, and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Bennett said the treaty is a good idea and even characterized it as a constructive part of President Obama's reset policy with Russia.

"I think it's a step in the right direction and a continuation of the thawing of the relationship between the United States and Russia that goes all the way back to the Ronald Reagan. We're now at the point where this is probably a good idea."

Bennett had a "friendly conversation" with Biden last week. Biden's office has been taking the lead on the issue, using his deputy national security advisor Brian McKeon to coordinate ratification strategy, administration sources said. Kyl had denied to The Cable that he was negotiating with Biden, but a spokesman confirmed that Kyl did meet with Biden but just didn't want to characterize it as "negotiating."

The White House has taken the lead role in Congress although State Department officials did the heavy lifting in negotiating the deal with Russia over the last year. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is still involved -- she met with another potential GOP vote, Tennessee Sen. Bob Corker, on the issue this month -- but the strategy is being driven in the Old Executive Office.

"It's a White House priority, so that's the way it is," one administration source relates.

Meanwhile, back on Capitol Hill, other senior Republican senators are signaling they are getting ready to support ratification.

"Hopefully we can create an environment, after general study, that would permit the Senate to ratify the treaty in a bipartisan way," Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-TN, the third-ranking senator in the Republican caucus, told The Cable. "But we're not there yet."

"It will depend primarily on whether we can have an adequate nuclear modernization program going forward," he said. "I'm working very closely with Senator Kyl to make that happen."

Other GOP senators aren't yet showing their cards, and are withholding their support until their particular concerns are addressed.

Sen. John Thune, R-SD, told The Cable that he is waiting for a response to his request for a briefing from the Defense Department about the Pentagon's intentions regarding delivery systems for nuclear weapons. In Thune's eyes, the new treaty doesn't have enough clarity on the mix of bombers, missiles, and submarines that will be used going forward.

Ellsworth Air Force Base in Thune's state would stand to benefit greatly if a new bomber was built.

Thune also expressed the lingering feeling among many Republicans that New START isn't a great deal for the United States.

"I don't disagree with the idea that we ought to try to have some equilibrium between their capabilities and ours, but it seems to me right now that we have made reductions without any sort of comparable type of reductions from the Russians," he said.

The treaty text requires each side to cap its arsenal to 1,500 deployed warheads and 700 deployed delivery vehicles. Thune's contention is that the Russians were already planning to reduce to those levels.

With Senate Foreign Relations ranking Republican Richard Lugar, R-IN, as a firm yes vote, the committee can approve the treaty whenever it chooses. But Lugar and his chairman, John Kerry, D-MA, don't want to force GOP fence sitters to make a call before they are ready. And Kyl has made clear he won't let the treaty come to the Senate floor until his concerns are addressed.

But time is of the essence for treaty supporters. The Senate leaves for recess next after next week and ratification would have to be fit into a hectic, politically charged session beginning after Labor Day and leading up to the midterm elections. "Senator Kerry is working with his colleagues and the administration to hear views and address questions raised by senators about the new START treaty and related issues as quickly as possible," said committee spokesman Fred Jones.

There's no decisions yet on when to bring up the agreement. "Ultimately, the goal is to build consensus for the timely ratification of this vital treaty," he said.

With all of the Senate hearings on President Obama's new nuclear reductions treaty with Russia now completed, the push toward a vote is underway, much to the chagrin of some Republicans. In their effort to delay a vote on the New START treaty, senior GOP senators are now pointing to a House appropriations bill still being formed as the latest reason they can't yet support the treaty.

The House Appropriations Energy and Water subcommittee approved a bill for fiscal 2011 funding that would give $525 million to the nuclear weapons complex for the first year of an ambitious nuclear weapons modernization program, $99 million less than the administration had requested. For overall funding for the nuclear weapons complex, the House panel recommended $6.9 billion, which is 8 percent above what was given for the same activities in fiscal 2010.

That's the largest increase in the history of that account, but regardless, the subcommittee's proposed reductions for the modernization program were enough to provoke major objections from the same Republicans who are seen as key swing votes on New START.

Sen. John McCain, R-AZ, opened up today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing by referring to the House's energy bill directly and asking the witnesses if they would recommend that Obama veto the bill if the subcommittee's proposed funding levels carry the day.

"There are already concerns about the adequacy of the president's plan for meeting our full recapitalization and modernization needs, and this lack of commitment by House Democrats to at least meet the president's request is troubling," he said.

The energy bill markup is by no means final. In fact, there's little chance Congress will pass any energy appropriations bill -- it's more likely they will fold it into a larger bill to keep the government running after the fiscal year expires on Sept. 30.

So, is this energy bill funding level issue really a big deal?

"It's a huge deal," Sen. Jon Kyl, R-AZ, the unofficial GOP point man on New START, told The Cable in an interview Tuesday. "The modernization program will cost a fair amount of money ... So how are we going to get that money back so the modernization program is not deficient?"

In an interview, Senate Foreign Relations Committee head John Kerry, D-MA, assured The Cable that the modernization account would be fully funded to match the president's request.

"We're working on that now. The president is committed to the full $624 million and that commitment stands," he said.

Regardless, the new dispute is fueling concern inside the administration that Kyl may not really have any intention of supporting the treaty, even if he's given as much as can be given on the modernization front.

Kyl flatly denied he is in negotiations with Vice President Joe Biden or any other administration officials over New START. When asked whether he would vote for the treaty if all his concerns or addressed or if he even supports the overall idea of nuclear reductions, he declined to give a straight answer.

"I don't have to respond to that," he said. "Let me just put it this way, I think the administration will have a lot easier job of getting the START treaty approved if they make sure all the things that members have asked for are provided."

Kyl is still demanding access to the entire negotiating record for the treaty, which the administration has no intention of providing. He's also asking for more time for members to pour over the treaty.

Meanwhile, the administration is pursuing a two-track strategy, working with Kyl in the hopes of convincing him and his cohorts to come along, while also trying to find eight to 10 GOP moderate votes they could get if Kyl ultimately balks.

Those GOP moderates are going to be hard to find. The Cable tracked down GOP Sens. Susan Collins, R-ME, Olympia Snowe, R-ME, Judd Gregg, R-NH, and Scott Brown, R-MA, all of whom said they were not ready to give any indication or significant comment on whether they would vote in favor of New START.

Nor is Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-CT, a safe yes vote. In an interview with The Cable, Lieberman said, "I'd like to be in a position to support it." He referred to the verification measures in the treaty, which he and other senators want more clarification on.

As for McCain, he told The Cable on Tuesday that he supported the overall idea of reducing nuclear stockpiles and promised to keep an open mind on the treaty, "as long as we can do it and ensure our safety and security."

"In all of these treaties, the devil in the details and that's what we've got work out," he said.

During the Cold War, the Soviet Union had sleeper agents stationed in Washington, charged with disabling the city's electric grid and poison the public drinking water in the event of a superpower crisis, according to a former KGB general.

Although Russian spooks in 2010 seemed to be aiming for gigs at think tanks like the New America Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment, back in the 1960s, there were only a few undercover Russian spies -- "illegals" -- in the U.S. and they had a much more specific and violent mission.

"Illegals in my time were only a couple in the United States," said former major general Oleg Kalugin, who handled Soviet agents during several stints in Washington. "One had a very special mission ... his job was to act in case the United States and the USSR were close to military conflict. Then, this illegal would blow up the power line grids in the Washington area, so there would be no power, and second to poison water supplies in the Washington area, not to kill people, to make them sick. Can you imagine that?"

The Washington Post's Jeff Stein followed up with Kalugin and found out that the ex-spy chief had not revealed the missions in either of his books about his time as a leading KGB officer.

As for the 10 illegals that were rolled up and swapped back to Russia last week, Kalugin said, "I thought, what a waste of money, time and resources."

Kalugin joined the KGB at age 18, following in the footsteps of his father, a KGB captain. Throughout his career, he had cover as a Fulbright scholar, a journalist, and later as a diplomat. He supervised the handling of John Walker, the Navy analyst who passed classified material to the Soviets for 17 years before being caught in 1985.

Now, after having a very public fallout with the KGB at the end of the Cold War, Kalugin lives in the U.S., has taken American citizenship, and makes a nice living as a consultant, author, and speaker; he even sits on the board of Washington's International Spy Museum.

The KGB during his time "was a brutal, bloody organization," Kalugin said, but he alleged that its successor organization, the FSB, is still up to many of the old tricks.

"Some of the critics of the current Russian regime just were killed, poisoned, assassinated, just because they were critical of some specific personal traits of the Russian leadership or because they knew too much or talked too much," he said.

Kalugin was speaking at a roundtable for the press held after the Washington screening of the movie SALT, in which Angelina Jolie plays a CIA agent accused of spying for the Russians. He was a consultant for the film.

But Kalugin also gave his audience new and fascinating insight into another spy movie recently released, the French film Farewell, which tells a dramatized version of a true story about French intelligence exposing a Soviet spy operation during the height of the Cold War.

"I myself years ago was involved in the initial investigation of Farewell. He was in Canada at some point and we had a source in the Canadian Royal Mounted Police," Kalugin said. The agent codenamed Farewell was recalled from Canada but not removed from the Soviet intelligence service. Rather, he was given a desk job in the research division as well as a young female assistant, who was tasked to report on his activities back to KGB headquarters.

"We planted a young lady in his office to watch that guy, Farewell, but it so happens she fell in love with him," Kalugin said.

In a crazy twist, Farewell and his mistress were quarrelling while driving down the road and he struck her, threw her from the car, and drove off, believing she was dead. But she survived and told the story. He was sentenced to 50 years in jail and then executed while in prison, Kalugin said. "That's the true Farewell story."

Conservative opposition to the new nuclear reductions treaty between the United States and Russia has entered a new phase, with detractors expanding their aim outside of Washington in the hope of building grassroots support for their drive to thwart Senate ratification and make the treaty the centerpiece of their criticism of President Obama's foreign-policy agenda.

Mitt Romney, the once and future Republican presidential candidate, unofficially announced the GOP's change in tone with a Washington Post op-ed entitled "Obama's Worst Foreign Policy Mistake."

In the article, Romney repeats all the longstanding criticisms of the treaty put forth by some Republican senators: that it constrains U.S. missile defense expansion, allows for Russia to opt out at any time, ignores Russia's advantage in tactical nuclear weapons, and generally gives more to the Russians than they are giving back.

Defense writers such as Fred Kaplan have pointed out factual errors in Romney's piece, and even Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry, D-MA, felt the need Wednesday to respond directly with his own Post op-ed, where he took on Romney's arguments point by point and also accused the former Massachusetts governor of demagogueing the issue to score political points with conservative voters.

"Even in these polarized times, anyone seeking the presidency should know that the security of the United States is too important to be treated as fodder for political posturing," Kerry wrote.

But the expansion of the New START debate into the national political arena is not an accident. The anti-ratification crowd is mobilizing supporters all over the country with the express aim of making START a pillar of conservative opposition to President Obama's foreign policy.

One of the main activities signaling this shift is a nationwide lobbying effort recently begun by the group Heritage Action for America, a new organization closely tied to the Heritage Foundation, the well-known conservative think tank. Heritage Action for America was established as 501c4 organization, which means it can do direct lobbying on the Hill and broad grassroots lobbying around the country.

Killing START is one of the group's two keystone efforts, along with a drive to push a repeal of the new health-care bill in the House. The organization is now circulating a petition to its 671,000 dues-paying members featuring a video of Romney criticizing the treaty.

"To date, discussion of New START has been an inside-the-beltway issue with little input from the American people," Heritage Action's CEO Michael A. Needham told The Cable. "Given the potential impact of the treaty on American security, Heritage Action is committed to giving Americans a conservative voice in Washington. Our petition drive will empower Americans who oppose the treaty and ensure their senator will take note. It is the first step towards stopping New START."

And Heritage Action is not stopping there. The group has a detailed plan to target lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and persuading wavering senators to oppose the treaty. Votes up for grabs include moderate Republicans like Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, but also conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson, D-NE, and Evan Bayh, D-IN.

The group also intends to put people on the ground in key districts while pressing their supporters to make their opposition to START known to their senators.

The new movement is timed to have an impact just as the drive to ratify New START heats up in the Senate. But the full-throated opposition to START as espoused by Heritage Action and Romney goes beyond the current position of many Senate Republicans who now are at the center of the START ratification debate.

This June 30 letter to Kerry from all the committee Republicans except for ranking member Richard Lugar, R-IN, argues that the Senate needs more time and information to examine the treaty but doesn't argue that the treaty is unacceptable on its face. Even the new agreement's leading Senate critic, Minority Whip Jon Kyl, R-AZ, hasn't come out to say he opposes the treaty -- at least not yet.

Kerry's July 1 response letter points out that reams of documents on the new treaty have been given to Congress and more are on the way. Congress has already received reports on Russian compliance with the old START treaty up to when it expired last December and a highly classified National Intelligence Estimate on the new agreement, as required by law.

The compliance reports are important because the last report in 2005 revealed Russian cheating. There is also a "verifiability assessment" that State Department sources said will reach the Hill July 12. As for the NIE, sources familiar with the document say it hedges enough that either side could interpret it to fit their own frame. For example, the various levels of "confidence" the intelligence community gave to its assessments don't really help either side because they are so noncommittal.

That leaves only one document for Kyl and other senators to really fight about: their longstanding request for the full negotiating record for the new START treaty, which they suspect would reveal secret deals the administration is accused of making with the Russians regarding missile defense -- something the administration has flatly denied.

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have resisted handing over such records, and past administrations have reluctantly agreed to hand them over while warning about the damaging effect such disclosures can have on the executive's ability to conduct negotiations.

Regardless, some GOP offices are prepared to make a big issue out of it. "By continuing to insist, contrary to history and precedent, that it will not share the negotiating record of the treaty, at least as it pertains to tactical nuclear weapons, missile defense and prompt global strike, the administration is simply showing that it isn't serious about getting the treaty ratified," said one senior GOP aide close to the issue.

One administration official said he believes the fight over the record is all about politics. Supporters of the treaty argue that Republicans want to deny Obama a foreign-policy success before the mid-term elections. 

"The Republican demand for the negotiating record is akin to throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks ... Because the arguments against the treaty and the nomination are not working, they are just resorting to desperation tactics to create talking points," said John Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World.

Will it work? It's still too early to tell. Nobody seems to know how many votes can be relied upon for ratification, making the next three weeks leading up the August recess, when Kerry intends to move the treaty out of committee, crucial.

Pro-treaty forces already have their own grassroots effort underway, with participation by the Council for a Livable World, Physicians for Social Responsibility, the Ploughshares Fund, the Arms Control Association, and Global Zero, a group that has its own movie and petition to support the drive to reduce and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons.

"The START treaty now figures prominently into what Global Zero is doing," said Ploughshares President Joe Cirincione, who noted that Global Zero has already given out dozens of grants around the country. "This effort alone might dwarf what the Heritage Foundation is doing on a community and grassroots level."

He also pointed to bipartisan groups that are supporting New START, including the Partnership for a Secure America, which rounded up dozens of former officials from both parties to come out and support the agreement.

"There's an ongoing and increasing drive both at the grassroots and elite levels, aimed both at Republicans and Democrats, whereas the Heritage Action effort is only aimed at Republicans, and far right Republicans at that," Cirincione said.

With Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visiting Washington Thursday, the issue of Russia's occupation of Georgia is now on the agenda. The White House doesn't have any specific plans to advance its stated goal of getting Russian troops out of what Georgia claims as its own territory, but claims that the reset itself is already making the situation better.

"I guess the question is: Is Georgia and is the rest of Europe more secure today than they were -- than Europe was when we first got here? And I think our answer is yes," said Michael McFaul, senior director for Russia at the National Security Council, in a conference call Tuesday.

Russian troops have been entrenching their presence in the disputed territories of Abkhasia and South Ossetia since the end of the 2008 Russia-Georgia war, in direct violation of the ceasefire agreement they signed to end the conflict. Russia is also among the only countries to recognize the regions as independent states.

"We consider their occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to be illegitimate. And this is a position shared widely by the international community," McFaul said.

Basically, the administration's plan for Georgia is to continue to make its position clear to the Russians, continue to send economic aid to the Georgians, and wait patiently for those two things to produce some result.

"In addition to having a discussion and an argument, I would say, a disagreement about this occupation of these territories, we also have an interest in stability in the region, reducing tensions, expanding monitors, expanding transparency about what Russia is doing in these territories," McFaul said. "And we're perfectly happy to expand their understanding of what we are doing in terms of our cooperation with the Georgian government."

McFaul also pointed to the recent Pew Global Attitudes Project survey, which said that approval of NATO among ordinary Russians has gone up from 24 percent in 2009 to 40 percent this year.

"We think that that's evidence that if you have a substantive dialogue with Russia about security issues, even difficult ones ... that can improve the security for the United States, for Russia, and our allies in Europe and partners in Europe," he said.

The U.S. administration has made great efforts to de-link Georgia from other aspects of the U.S.-Russia relationship, arguing that that there is no reason not to make progress on issues where the U.S. and Russia share interests, such as arms control, nonproliferation, and economic cooperation.

"Even as we have differences, we can cooperate on areas of mutual concern, and of course the flip side of that is even where we cooperate on areas of mutual concern, we don't paper over our differences either," Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes said on the conference call.

But Rhodes also suggested that better interactions with Moscow improve the chances that the Georgia situation can progress.

"We think that having the dialogue is in the ultimate interest of resolving these disagreements," he said.

Even Russia experts who favor the "reset" approach, however, are calling on the administration to change its tone on Georgia.

"We have a two-pronged policy: One is banging on the table and getting the equivalent of ‘shove it' from the Russians," said Samuel Charap, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "On other the other hand we have this traditional method of assistance to Georgia. I don't think any of this is getting at the real problem or getting us any closer to ending the Russian occupation of Georgia."

The U.S. administration should reframe the Georgia debate around common interests with Russia, Charap argues, based on the shared desire to prevent a new outbreak of violence there.

The White House should also take advantage of the fact that the Russians aren't happy with the status quo either, he said. Russian officials sometime refer to the disputed territories as a "suitcase with no handle," difficult to hold but too valuable to put down.

"At the end of the day, we don't actually have any leverage over the Russians on this," Charap said. "That doesn't mean we shouldn't stop trying to change what's going on there."

The Obama administration is involved right now in missile defense cooperation talks with Russia, but they are not about setting "limits" on U.S. missile defense deployments, multiple administration officials told The Cable.

The Washington Times' Bill Gertz reported today that "The Obama administration is secretly working with Russia to conclude an agreement that many officials fear will limit U.S. missile defenses," and said "the administration last month presented a draft agreement on missile defenses to the Russians as part of talks between Ellen Tauscher, undersecretary of state for international security and arms control, and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov."

U.S. officials and lawmakers have been calling for formal U.S.-Russia missile defense cooperation for decades. When Ronald Reagan unveiled the original plans for missile defense in the 1980's, he repeatedly talked about sharing missile defense technology with Russia as a means toward eventually eliminating offensive strategic ballistic missiles.

Formal talks on cooperation date back to 1992. The most visible sign was the 1997 agreement to start the Russian American Observation Satellite (RAMOS) program.

An administration official explained to The Cable exactly what is going right now. "There is nothing secret about our intentions here," the official said, "Cooperation, not restrictions, on missile defense is the subject of conversations between the United States and Russia leading up to next week's presidential summit."

A "framework" or "draft agreement" is being considered, but it only covers future cooperation, not current deployment plans. The draft also includes data sharing, joint radar systems, and the like, but the U.S. side has been clear that limits on either the quantity or quality of missile defense deployments that fall outside the framework are not on the table. The Obama administration has requested $9.9 billion for missile defense in fiscal year 2011.

The Gertz story became a focus of the Senate Armed Services committee hearing Thursday with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, and Joint Chiefs chairman Michael Mullen.

"We are discussing missile defense cooperation with Russia, which we believe is in the interests of both nations," Gates testified, "but such talks have nothing to do with imposing any limitations on our programs or deployment plans."

Clinton addressed the Gertz story directly.

"Number one, there is no secret deal. Number two, there is no plan to limit U.S. missile defenses, either in this treaty or in any other way. And number three, on that score, the story is dead wrong," she said.

Supporters of the administration's decision last year to alter missile defense plans in Eastern Europe, have argued that the changes could pave the way for U.S.-Russia missile defense cooperation.

"The President's decision also opens the door to missile defense cooperation with Russia, which would send a powerful signal to Iran," Senate Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin, D-MI said, adding that the administration's plan "will not threaten Russia, and it offers an opportunity for missile defense to serve as a uniting issue, rather than a dividing one."

The Russians don't see it that way, yet, but are engaging in the cooperation talks nonetheless.

The debate over missile defense limits is strongly tied to the ongoing drive to seek ratification of the new START nuclear reduction treaty, as today's hearing with Clinton and Gates demonstrated.

Conservative critics of the new START treaty have two missile defense-related gripes, however. They believe that a provision preventing interceptors being mounted on ICBMs is constraining, although the administration has said that is not part of the plan anyway.

They also point to Moscow's unilateral statement reserving their right to withdraw from the treaty if it concludes that U.S. missile defense deployments upset strategic stability. But the administration often points out that either side has the right to withdraw at any time, for any reason.

"It's the equivalent of a press release, and we are not in any way bound by it," Clinton testified.

The preamble to the START treaty acknowledges there is a relationship generally between between offensive and defense forces. "That's simply a statement of fact," Clinton said.

President Obama took some time Monday out of his busy schedule to shoot some hoops with 22 Russian kids who are in town to fulfill the cultural part of his "reset" in U.S.-Russia relations.

The Russian youth spending 11 days in Washington as part of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission's Education, Culture, Sports, and Media Working Group, one of the many such working groups set up by the two sides last year.

"The group will visit American students, take part in disability sports, team building activities, and see the Washington Mystics play to demonstrate how Americans participate in athletics in order to develop life skills," said National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer. "The exchange aims to establish a lasting dialogue between Russian and American youth."

The trip is being run by the Sports Visitor program, one of the two main programs run by the State Department's SportsUnited outfit. The Sports Envoy program, which sends American athletes and coaches abroad, is also highly active.

This summer, the State Department will send NBA and WNBA players to four regions of the world, with the aim of reaching youth in Cape Verde, Indonesia, Malawi, Serbia, and Tunisia.

The sports envoys aren't going to those countries to send a specific message. The State Department is extremely unhappy with the government of Malawi for sentencing a gay couple to 14 years in prison, for instance, but is moving ahead with plans to send b-ballers to the impoverished African state.

Nor will the envoys necessarily be household names (though Lakers point guard Kobe Bryant appears in a video promoting the USA Pavilion at the Shanghai World Expo). Recent envoys have included WNBA President Donna Orender, current Miami Heat head coach Erik Spoelstra, and WNBA star Cynthia Cooper. Right now, retired NBA journeyman Sam Perkins and WBNA star Sue Wicks are in Indonesia. Former LA Laker Mark Madsen is in Tunisia with former WNBA standout Monique Ambers.

Next month, State will send sports stars to teach soccer in Azerbaijan,bring 12 Venezuelan girls to play soccer in the United States, send basketball stars to Serbia, and bring 20 Russian kids to learn swimming in the U.S. Later this summer, State will bring 20 Panamanian kids here to learn soccer and send 20 American kids to Russia to play beach volleyball near the Black Sea.

Missile defense is as much of a diplomatic initiative as a military one. For the Poles, they see missile defense cooperation with the United States as a great way to build defense ties, bolster their credentials within NATO, and maybe even hedge against their traditional eastern foe, Russia.

What Poland doesn't see is itself as a target of the missile threat from Iran, the country the nascent U.S. missile shield is supposedly designed to thwart.

"If the mullahs have a target list we believe we are quite low on it," Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said in an interview with Foreign Policy during his trip to Washington Thursday.

Sikorski is in town to meet with a host of officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and National Security Advisor James L. Jones. He also attended the Atlantic Council gala Wednesday night featuring Bono.

When George W. Bush's administration announced its plans to deploy missile defense interceptors in Poland, the system was advertised as needed to counter Iranian missiles headed toward the United States or Europe. The problem was, Bush's plan was designed to counter long-range missiles and actually had little chance of hitting a missile headed from Iran to Europe.

The Obama administration came in and changed the plan, replacing the interceptors with a "phased adaptive approach" that will use smaller, more mobile systems to counter short and medium-range missiles. They advertised that as better suited to protect Europe.

But Sikorski admitted that Poland's real interest in the system is to be an active player in the new emerging security infrastructure in Europe, which includes NATO's endorsement of missile defense.

"Our part of Europe has so far very few NATO installations," he said. "This is the game that seems to be the next project, so we decided to get involved."

Sikorski also commented on the botched rollout of the new missile defense plan by the Obama administration. Back in September, senior U.S. officials scrambled to brief allies after news of the plan was leaked from the European side ahead of the White House's schedule. The unfortunate result was that the plan was announced on the day of the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland.

Poland didn't intend to antagonize Russia by upgrading its ties to NATO and the United States.

"We were willing to give the U.S. a chunk of our territory for this facility, but we weren't particularly looking forward to paying the price with worse relations with Russia," Sikorski said. "The Bush administration had told us, ‘We will fix it with the Russians, we will persuade them that this is no threat to them, don't worry.' And the problem appeared when the Russians appeared to be unpersuaded."

Overall, Poland is satisfied by the level of attention it receives from the Obama administration, despite the perception in some foreign capitals that the White House spends its limited foreign-policy attention span dealing more with problem countries, like Iran, than it does with allies.

"We are not in the business of vying for attention," he said. "We recognize that the U.S. has some serious problems: financial, domestic, and we feel to be fortunate not to be one of those problem areas around the world that need urgent attention."

For Sikorski's thoughts on Poland's recent tragedy and the Gordon Brown immigration controversy, read Joshua Keating's post on FP's Passport blog here.