Looks like some planning challenges for the Navy with our limited access to the Black Sea.

Aegis missile (excuse me, anti-missile) platforms in the Black Sea have zero chance of seeing action, unless they become a target. If we were to pre-emptively engage Iran without consultation, both Turkey and Russia would retaliate by denying future access. (Consultation taken would be action denied)

We already have nuclear fleets off the Gulf and Indian Ocean coasts of Iran, so it's hard to see how this increases pressure, if we're just bluffing.

Any Black Sea pressure on Russia, the purpose of the old Czech-Pole scheme, is likely to result in a further squeeze on Georgia and Ukraine, not less. With General Winter on Gazprom's side, the little KGB guy doesn't have to bluff, to influence the Baltic, FSR's, NATO and Central Europe.

The US is horribly over-extended, re-organizing two Asian occupations with aging air assets. No respite to reset or re-tool the force, still requiring major Asian financing, to bid up the cost of expeditionary fuel from the Arabs. Talk about FUBAR.

As Shinseki was shown the door, he warned, 'beware a 12 division strategy with a 10 division force.' We are 'hoist on our own petard', struggling over an air-bridge for a draw in Pashtunistan, while Iran does a brisk business in surge-stabilized Iraq. Russia is applying simmer heat to the Iran situation in the same way IRP'stan is doing us in Pashtunland.

In chess terms, we're forked.

one American soldier and he(she) will be killed in the first incident.

Paraphrase for the ally who receives the not quite ready missile site.

Real intent of the former strategist who place the bases there...they just didn't tell Kansas or McCain about endangering American lives.

That is the only thing that Russia/Putin will take from this victory. Don't get me wrong, the whole missles in Poland logic was always a stretch. But the thought that Russia is buying in to this kinder, gentler approach complete with an idiotic reset button is just nonsense.

Putin will see this simply as Obama backing down. He will give nothing in return - no help on Iran, no slowing of military/economic ties with Venezuela, no improving relations with Ukraine. Nothing.

No, this is a reverse plain and simple. We give up the only real card we had with no quid pro quo.

And is it just me, or has Secretary Clinton been strangely absent during this announcement?

What did the Obama administration get from Russia for doing this?

Look, I basically agree with what Cirincione has to say about the missile defense program (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/17/the_new_defense_realism) on the FP site. Even by the standards of American defense procurement, a quarter century is a long time. That's about how long the Pentagon, its defense contractors, and their supporters (clients, whatever) in Congress and the Washington think tanks have been talking and spending money -- lots and lots of money -- on missile defense. We still don't have a system that will work against long-range missiles, and the best estimates as to when we will always come off as so many wishes and guesses. Long story short, long-range missile defense is a giant fiscal rathole.

That, however, is not what the Russians think it is, and it isn't what the Czech, Polish and Hungarian governments think it is. So....what did we trade it for? There is no evidence -- as in zero, none, nothing -- that unilateral gestures of goodwill ever prompt substantive concessions from Russian governments, and our Eastern European friends went to considerable trouble and some political risk to support the former American position on this subject. I'd never claim to be a foreign policy expert, but I venture to say that if the Obama administration's decision gets nothing from Russia while pulling the rug out from under our Eastern European allies, well, that would be bad.

This isn't a criticism; it can't be, based on what I know. I really hope the administration is thinking in terms of letting difficult foreign interlocutors have what they want when they agree to give us something we want. I'm asking the question, hoping that Tom Ricks or one of his associates will be able to find out the answer.

The Russians have always considered the Black Sea to be their personal playground. They would probably consider an American fleet in the Black Sea to be the same thing as missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic. The only difference being we're backing up Georgia and Ukraine instead of Poland and Czech. I really do not see this happening.

What about the Montreux Convention which limits both the size and duration of stay in the Black Sea of non-Black Sea powers? If, and that is a big if, a U.S. Aegis ship could get into the Black Sea (due to size constrictions), it would not be able to stay longer than 30 days. That is not a viable way to conduct a deterrent strategy.

The Montreux Convention has blocked U.S. plans to send naval ships to the Black Sea in the past- as well as Soviet plans to send Soviet naval ships to the Med. The most recent such situation occured during last year's Georgian-Russian incident when the United States requested to use straits to send two hospital ships carrying aid to Georgia. Turkey, as guarantor of the Convention, did not allow the passage of another two United States naval vessels, which exceeded the weight limit defined in the convention, instead allowing three lighter warships to pass through the straits. The Montreux Convention also denied the Germans the ability to send the Kriegsmarine into the Black Sea to fight the Soviets during WWII. It is a potential game-stopper.