Back in the Bush II heydays, I always thought of Russia’s Ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, as a tongue-in-cheek answer to the appointment of John Bolton to the United Nations (minus, of course, the overt racism of the former).  Among others, Paul Goble recently told me in an interview that more attention should be paid to the choices the Kremlin makes in its key diplomatic appointments – and that Rogozin is far from a constructive presence.  Russia’s NATO ambassador has certainly won the longevity contest compared to Bolton (though this is due to, ya know, America’s habit of democratic transfers of power), and currently spends his days giving interviews about Georgia and spearheading the disaggregation strategy of Europe – even proposing that NATO itself is plotting against the reset diplomacy of the Obama Administration.  Removed from officialdom, Bolton spends more time these days enjoying an AEI fellowship and producing regular opinion articles to push a new book.  Below is an excerpt from his latest one in The New York Times, which tries out the new catchphrase “dangerously low warhead levels“:

First, the administration’s bilateral objectives with Russia play almost entirely to Moscow’s advantage, as in arms-control days of yore. Hurrying to negotiate a successor to the second Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty by year’s end, which Secretary Clinton has committed to, reflects a “zeal for the deal” approach that benefits only Russia.

We need not be rushed, since simply extending the existing treaty’s verification provisions would preserve the status quo. Fortunately, Russia seems likely to save us from the dangerously low warhead levels proposed by Senator John Kerry and others, but the risks of foolish, unnecessary concessions remain high.