The sun rises in the east, and Charles Krauthammer accuses someone of appeasement:

Three years in, how is that reset working out? The Russians are back on the warpath about missile defense. They’re denouncing the watered-down Obama substitute. They threaten not only to target any Europe-based U.S. missile defenses but also to install offensive missiles in Kaliningrad. They threaten additionally to withdraw from START, which the administration had touted as a great foreign policy achievement.

Note that Krauthammer’s criticism contradicts itself at several points. If New START was such a concession to the Russians, what are the odds that they are really going to withdraw from it over the new missile defense plan? If the current plan is such a “watered-down” substitute, why is Moscow equally annoyed by it? If Russia has a veto over Poland’s hosting of a missile defense installation, how is it that Poland is participating in the new plan?

In fact, the arms reduction treaty was very much in the U.S. interest (hence the overwhelming support for it from arms control experts, the military and relevant agencies). The cancellation of the earlier missile defense plan removed an unnecessary irritant from the relationship. The problem with how the cancellation was handled wasn’t that it gave the Russians a veto but that it was done without sufficient consultation with the allied governments.

As ever, what annoys Krauthammer is not that the “reset” has failed, but that it has been a successful policy that isn’t likely to be abandoned unless there is a change of party in our government. Despite some recent difficulties, there are a few pieces of good news this week for continued improved U.S.-Russian relations. One of the architects of the “reset” policy, Michael McFaul, has been the nominee to be the next ambassador to Russia. His nomination had been held up by Sen. Kirk for months, but Kirk lifted his hold, and McFaul should be confirmed without much more delay. McFaul was closely involved in pushing for Russian accession into the WTO, which has now been formally approved. The U.S. was an important supporter of Russian membership, and improved U.S.-Russian ties helped to facilitate this outcome. The U.S. cannot fully benefit from this until Congress gets rid of the antiquated restrictions on trade with Russia, as former U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab explained earlier this week:

Russia will become a member of the WTO, whether the US grants permanent normal trade relations to Moscow, by lifting cold war-era restrictions, or not. If Congress fails to act, or if the Obama administration fails to really push for the legislation, the only losers will be American workers, farmers and businesses.

If the U.S. is to benefit fully from the WTO membership for Russia that our government helped to realize, there will need to be new effort to normalize trade relations between our countries. That will be difficult, as there is no doubt that the “reset” remains politically vulnerable here in the U.S. However, scrapping the “reset,” as Krauthammer and many others in the GOP would like to do, is the wrong move. Nikolas Gvosdev and Matthew Rojansky made the case yesterday for why both Russia and the U.S. should keep the “reset” on track:

Instead of permitting this slow motion disaster to occur, Moscow and Washington must now make a concerted effort to consolidate the gains of the past three years and build fuller ties between citizens, political parties and bureaucracies. Old habits may die hard, but with less fear and more trust in the air they will soon breathe their last.