Preparing for next weekend's meeting between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russian officials are making a familiar demand: scrap missile defense.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reaffirmed Moscow's position today, in a conversation with reporters. While admitting that Russia is studying recent proposals on missile defense--offered by American officials earlier this month--Lavrov said the best solution would be for the U.S. to cancel its program.
We are convinced that the best way to assuage Russia's concerns ... will be to abandon such plans and turn to a truly collective project," Lavrov told reporters.
Earlier this month, the U.S. secretaries of state and defense visited Moscow with new proposals that would allow Russia to closely monitor the prospective missile defense sites.
Lavrov previously has said the proposals reflect the U.S. recognition of Russia's concerns but that Moscow needs to study them in details before replying.
Mr. Bush will likely hear similar complaints--and arguments--in his meeting with Mr. Putin. The out-going Russian president has long opposed U.S. missile defense programs, claiming that they are "destabilizing" and jeopardize Moscow's strategic nuclear deterrent.
In a rare concession last summer, Putin suggested that the U.S. use a radar station in Azerbaijan to track incoming missiles. Washington has promised to consider the offer, but has stated it cannot replace planned facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic.
We're not sure what counter-counter offers--if any--will be offered by Mr. Bush during meetings with his Russian counterparts. But, as a negotiating ploy, he could throw down the gauntlet to his hosts, and link any decrease in U.S. defenses to similar cuts in Russia's missile defense ring around Moscow. The answer he receives could be quite revealing.
The Russians don't exactly advertise it, but they've long had a limited ballistic missile defense system. Work on the defensive shield, which is deployed around Moscow, began in the early 1960s. Permissible under the ABM treaty (which allowed one defensive site per country) the Russian system became operational in 1971, and has remained in service ever since. It was upgraded in the mid-1990s and provides a limited defense against strategic attack, or a strike by a rogue nation. The United States mothballed its only ABM site (in North Dakota) during the mid-1970s.
Operating the system for almost 40 years has been a rather expensive proposition, but successive generations of Russian leaders considered it a worthwhile investment. They spent even more money on upgrading a system after the Cold War--a time both Moscow and Washington were reducing their strategic arsenals.
As we've observed before, Russia prefers to have it both ways when it comes to missile defense. Mr. Putin and his successor are quite happy to have a limited ABM system around their capital, in the event it might be needed. But, when it comes to missile defenses in eastern Europe--systems that might (someday) threaten Moscow's nuclear missiles--well, that's a different story.
With the global missile threat growing--and BMD systems now reaching maturity--it's doubtful that Mr. Bush will offer new concessions in his talks with the Russians. And that strikes us as the right position. Left unchecked, rogue nations that now possess medium-range missiles could have ICBMs within a decade, giving them the capability to strike the United States (and before that) our allies in Europe.
In that threat environment, a limited BMD deployment in eastern Europe makes eminent sense. Additionally, the U.S. has expressed its willingness to let the Russians join the venture, an offer Moscow has, so far, rejected. Full cooperation on a defensive measure doesn't exactly fit in Moscow's plans, particularly when Russia needs a nuclear "deterrent" for leverage with its neighbors--and it's already a member of the missile defense club.
Showing posts with label Putin; Russia Nuclear Arsenal; BMD. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Putin; Russia Nuclear Arsenal; BMD. Show all posts
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Putin's Threat
In his latest tirade against a U.S. missile defense deployment in Eastern Europe, Russian President Vladimir Putin has threatened to again target the continent with his country's strategic arsenal.
On the eve of the G-8 Summit Meeting, Mr. Putin held a carefully staged dinner with journalists at his country estate outside Moscow. Eight journalists were invited to the dinner, one from each country that will participate in the summit.
The Canadian "representative" was Doug Saunders, European columnist for the Globe and Mail. He was quite willing to print Putin's vow to re-target Europe with "missiles, including potentially nuclear weapons." Mr. Saunders describes it as a dramatic escalation of his Cold War-style showdown with the United States.
To underscore his talking points, Putin offered a few dramatic quotes, designed to promote fear (and anti-American sentiment) in various European capitals--and undercut potential support for the BMD deployment.
"It is obvious that if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States is located in Europe, and according to our military experts will be threatening us, we will have to respond," he said.
"What kind of steps are we going to take in response? Of course, we are going to get new targets in Europe."
But there's only one problem with Putin's claim about "re-targeting" the continent.
It's essentially a bald-faced lie.
Truth is, Russia never stopped targeting Europe (or the United States) with its ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. Despite the end of the Cold War--and a decrease in the strategic arsenals of both the U.S. and Russia--neither country lost the ability to rapidly target key military facilities and population centers around the world. While the coordinates for those targets may have been erased from Russian and American ICBMs and SLBMs, thanks to the wonders of computer technology, those same coordinates and ballistic profiles can be reloaded in a matter of minutes.
Russia, like the United States, has never abandoned its nuclear targeting program. Target sets and strike options are continually updated for various scenarios, including regional conflicts in Europe. As we've noted in recent columns, Moscow is more dependent than ever on nuclear weapons for strategic deterrent, thanks to the implosion of its conventional forces after the Cold War. Russian military journals have talked openly about nuclear employment in conjunction with regional warfare, indicating that plans to "re-target" Europe began long before Mr. Putin's cozy little dinner.
It's also rather interesting that Putin equates missile defense with the U.S.'s "strategic nuclear potential." However, he is correct in noting that the proposed deployment pushes the American (and NATO) tripwires to the edge of Russian territory, and potential strikes against the BMD shield would certainly invite a strong response by the alliance. Putin is also clearly concerned about the long-term potential of missile defense to hold his nuclear arsenal at risk, and render it impotent.
That's why Moscow is generating its biggest disinformation campaign in 30 years to derail the BMD deployment. The last time we saw a strategic propaganda campaign on this scale was the 1980s, when the Kremlin attempted to dissuade Ronald Reagan from deploying cruise missiles and Pershing II IRBMs in Europe. Russian leaders howled, using rhetoric that was remarkably similar to what we're seeing from Mr. Putin. Moscow invested heavily in a European peace movement (bound to re-emerge in the coming months), that generated mass protests against the war-mongering Americans and their "nuclearization" of the continent.
In the end, Ronald Reagan was unmoved. Supported by key European allies, the deployment went forward, and Moscow learned that the "cowboy" meant business. The missile basing also led to a ban on intermediate range weapons in Europe, an agreement that would have been unreachable without American resolve.
This time, the stakes are slightly different. The planned BMD radar and missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland are aimed at deterring Iran--a threat that Mr. Putin and his regime have done little to deter. If the Russian leader is truly concerned about missile defense in Eastern Europe, then it's time to put up or shut up. Support a complete embargo of military, missile and WMD technology to Iran and Syria, in exchange for a delay--and potential cancellation of--the U.S. deployment. Additionally, Mr. Putin must pledge to dismantle his own ABM network around Moscow (in operation for more than 30 years), a system that just happens to protect his capital from a limited missile strike.
If Vladimir Putin believes that Europe should be defenseless against a missile attack by a rogue state, let him led the way. As for Mr. Saunders, he might try putting this Russian "threat" in its proper context.
On the eve of the G-8 Summit Meeting, Mr. Putin held a carefully staged dinner with journalists at his country estate outside Moscow. Eight journalists were invited to the dinner, one from each country that will participate in the summit.
The Canadian "representative" was Doug Saunders, European columnist for the Globe and Mail. He was quite willing to print Putin's vow to re-target Europe with "missiles, including potentially nuclear weapons." Mr. Saunders describes it as a dramatic escalation of his Cold War-style showdown with the United States.
To underscore his talking points, Putin offered a few dramatic quotes, designed to promote fear (and anti-American sentiment) in various European capitals--and undercut potential support for the BMD deployment.
"It is obvious that if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States is located in Europe, and according to our military experts will be threatening us, we will have to respond," he said.
"What kind of steps are we going to take in response? Of course, we are going to get new targets in Europe."
But there's only one problem with Putin's claim about "re-targeting" the continent.
It's essentially a bald-faced lie.
Truth is, Russia never stopped targeting Europe (or the United States) with its ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons. Despite the end of the Cold War--and a decrease in the strategic arsenals of both the U.S. and Russia--neither country lost the ability to rapidly target key military facilities and population centers around the world. While the coordinates for those targets may have been erased from Russian and American ICBMs and SLBMs, thanks to the wonders of computer technology, those same coordinates and ballistic profiles can be reloaded in a matter of minutes.
Russia, like the United States, has never abandoned its nuclear targeting program. Target sets and strike options are continually updated for various scenarios, including regional conflicts in Europe. As we've noted in recent columns, Moscow is more dependent than ever on nuclear weapons for strategic deterrent, thanks to the implosion of its conventional forces after the Cold War. Russian military journals have talked openly about nuclear employment in conjunction with regional warfare, indicating that plans to "re-target" Europe began long before Mr. Putin's cozy little dinner.
It's also rather interesting that Putin equates missile defense with the U.S.'s "strategic nuclear potential." However, he is correct in noting that the proposed deployment pushes the American (and NATO) tripwires to the edge of Russian territory, and potential strikes against the BMD shield would certainly invite a strong response by the alliance. Putin is also clearly concerned about the long-term potential of missile defense to hold his nuclear arsenal at risk, and render it impotent.
That's why Moscow is generating its biggest disinformation campaign in 30 years to derail the BMD deployment. The last time we saw a strategic propaganda campaign on this scale was the 1980s, when the Kremlin attempted to dissuade Ronald Reagan from deploying cruise missiles and Pershing II IRBMs in Europe. Russian leaders howled, using rhetoric that was remarkably similar to what we're seeing from Mr. Putin. Moscow invested heavily in a European peace movement (bound to re-emerge in the coming months), that generated mass protests against the war-mongering Americans and their "nuclearization" of the continent.
In the end, Ronald Reagan was unmoved. Supported by key European allies, the deployment went forward, and Moscow learned that the "cowboy" meant business. The missile basing also led to a ban on intermediate range weapons in Europe, an agreement that would have been unreachable without American resolve.
This time, the stakes are slightly different. The planned BMD radar and missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland are aimed at deterring Iran--a threat that Mr. Putin and his regime have done little to deter. If the Russian leader is truly concerned about missile defense in Eastern Europe, then it's time to put up or shut up. Support a complete embargo of military, missile and WMD technology to Iran and Syria, in exchange for a delay--and potential cancellation of--the U.S. deployment. Additionally, Mr. Putin must pledge to dismantle his own ABM network around Moscow (in operation for more than 30 years), a system that just happens to protect his capital from a limited missile strike.
If Vladimir Putin believes that Europe should be defenseless against a missile attack by a rogue state, let him led the way. As for Mr. Saunders, he might try putting this Russian "threat" in its proper context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)