Smart power.

An official of the lower house of the Duma says that as it ratifies the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, START, the Russian parliament will reaffirm that the treaty limits U.S. plans for missile defense, contrary to the stated position of U.S. officials.

Asked for comment, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor tells ABC News, “The President sent a letter to the Senate on December 18th that said: ‘The New Start Treaty places no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile defense programs.’ That remains the case.”

It’s nice how Russia and the United States can’t even agree what the treaty means. Good thing we ratified this chunk of crap, huh?

In April, Sergei Prikhodko –- Russia President Dmitri Medvedev’s senior foreign policy adviser stated that Russian “negotiators had to insert the inextricable connection between strategic offensive and strategic defensive armaments (i.e. missile defense) into the treaty. This was successfully fulfilled and the importance of this connection when reducing strategic offensive armaments will be included in the treaty and be legally binding…” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had also stated that “linkage to missile defense is clearly spelled out in the accord and is legally binding.”

Are they wrong? ABC News asked a senior Obama administration official at the time.

“Yes,” was the reply.

Who’s right? Russia, actually. The treaty does link strategic offensive and defensive armaments. Obama may have sent a letter to the United States Senate, but it’s the actual text of the treaty which is legal binding — not some letter. And here’s the treaty’s actual text:

Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the Parties,

Ed Morrissey:

In other words, the Russians accepted current missile defense systems, but no further innovation will be acceptable. They see missile defense advances as a threat to their own nuclear deterrent, especially since they cannot afford to develop their own strategic missile defense. Nor do they want to start spending tons of money on catching up to us in that area; the Russian economy is weak enough without running up even more government debt. This is a key point for them, and apparently a deal-killer, which is presumably why the Obama administration allowed the language into the treaty. They wanted the START treaty so badly that they were willing to give up development of missile defense for it.

Which isn’t surprising, seeing as how Obama has long opposed missile defense. You’ll recall that it took him no time at all to give up on the European missile defense shield. Contrary to all available evidence, Obama doesn’t think missile defense is a necessary aspect of 21st century defense. Or he just doesn’t care.

There is a bear in the woods. And Barack Obama is feeding it.