By VK
The Chicago summit of NATO scheduled for May is expected to hear the announcement of the completion of the intermediate stage of European missile defense construction. The Kremlin is quite aware of this project and demands guarantees of the system not targeting Russian forces of nuclear deterrence. Russian and American experts also disagree on some other aspects of the future of the European missile defense architecture.
Sergey Oznobischev, head of a sector in the International Economic and Foreign Affairs Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
We have moved from the edge of the nuclear abyss a long time ago. Even standing on the edge of the nuclear abyss we managed to conduct negotiations and sign profitable agreements. Today we have time. We should treat the situation calmly. I feel uncomfortable because of the degree of exaggeration in our country. I think there is no reason for concern. The general constructor Salamonov, who has spoken on this theme many times, said that the missile defense systems of potential rivals today cannot be implemented and exist as an effective instrument of struggle against ICBM. That’s the point. On the one hand there is a statement by West, the US and NATO, that development of the missile defense system is aimed against Iran or third countries, if the situation with Iran is settled. But we don’t believe them. First of all, it is connected with a deep mistrust that is still present, despite efforts made and all positive progress in our relations. Secondly, we are still thinking in Cold War categories. Such an insignificant situation as launching the European missile defense system… Even our experts say that only by 2020 could the system be considered a threat to a small part of our missiles. Missiles that could threaten us haven’t been constructed yet. As for the current activity, of course the situation is tense. Crucial events are coming, but Russia isn’t involved in the dialogue. In Russia there are many different views and great concern. I share the view of Lavrov that no declarative policy should be provided towards Russia when we, as partners, are informed on what has been done or decided. In this situation I see a political challenge for the partnership. I am against such a situation and the form of dialogue. As for a compromise on the missile defense program, I’m sure it will be found sooner or later. It is not a reason for a complete clash of the sides or inability to find a common ground. It could be found before the summit in Chicago or after it. The position of Russia is firm. It will be difficult to change it, but a compromise is possible. For me this is the main point of the President’s speech at the Russian Council for Foreign Affairs. He said that we are open to dialogue, and that is the most important thing.
Robert Pshel, the head of the NATO information Bureau in Moscow
President Medvedev’s words are supported by the allies, saying we have to strive and search for answers to the questions important for Russia. We think the correct way is a dialogue, sharing views and even arguing. But we will achieve the treaty, because the logic of possible cooperation in the sphere of the missile defense system, in general the problem is connected with proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, we think there is no major contradiction. We have to find an optimal form, while the NATO system itself is adaptive. We are at the very beginning. Of course, we have time and themes for discussion.
Dmitry Suslov, Deputy Director and scientist of the European and International Studies Center of The National Research University Higher School of Economics
The current dead-lock in negotiations is connected with the fact that Russia cannot dare to make some strategic decisions in the sphere of the missile defense system before the results of the presidential elections in the USA. However, on the one hand, prospects for negotiations will be improved. Even if any compromise on the MDS is achieved in 2013, it will be of a somewhat political and temporary character, because the next American administration will probably reconsider this agreement and start its own, fourth, program of the MDS. The problem is fundamental. For Russia, maintaining strategic parity with the US is still the main aim of the defense policy. It is a criterion of our security and the criterion of our greatness. If we analyze the essence of Russia’s demands to the US, we see they don’t touch on the desires and intentions of Obama’s administration. Russia doesn’t hide that it is not interested in the plans of Obama’s administration; it is interested in the inversion of a new treaty on the MDS. That is the main point of Russian demands: let’s define quantitative, qualitative and geographical criteria and limits beyond which the American MDS mustn’t exist without correlation with the phase adaptive approach. While Russia maintains the idea of parity, America doesn’t reject the MDS. Probably a Republican administration would return to the idea of a strategic MDS instead of the tactical MDS of Obama’s administration. However, there is another important aspect. I think despite the fact we are doomed to live with the unsettled problem of the MDS, it could be compared with a painful tooth of Russian-American and Russian-Western relations. It is painful but you cannot die of it. Due to many reasons, including political, technical and economic, the US is hardly likely to establish such a system that will be able to threaten Russian strategic nuclear forces. The modalities reached by the sides in November 2011 mean that until the American hardware threatening Russia is launched, Russia won’t do anything except take diplomatic steps. So the sides will argue, but no situation really threatening Europe and Russia will be created. In conclusion I would like to disagree with Alexander Rahr in one aspect. Obama’s administration says adaptability of the MDS presupposes that if the Iranian threat changes, the infrastructure will change as well. This is one of the reasons that the current administration won’t implement the announced phases. I think the main objective of the MDS is improving military and political cooperation between Europe and America. It is not about Iran. Iran is a cause. In the 21st century, when NATO has difficulties with self-identification, we see what is happening in Afghanistan, something should be found. And the MDS was found. But for improving military and political cooperation between Europe and America it is not necessary to launch a strategic MDS.
Leonid Ivashov, president of the Geopolitical Problems Academy
The Americans make detailed assessments. The fact that at the current stage they fail to do something doesn’t mean they won’t succeed in the sphere tomorrow. I mean the strategic missile defense system. All the Russian institutes suggest the government is waiting for the presidential elections in the US. I remind you that the program of withdrawing from the operating treaty on missile defense was started by Clinton, who is a Democrat, it was continued by Mr. Bush during two terms, now it is Mr. Obama, and the next president of the USA, whoever it is, won’t stop the program. Yes, some aspects will be corrected, considering tactical elements and conditions of tests. As for the American MDS threatening Russia, I don’t think that after the Americans launching the MDS they will launch a strike at us the next day. It won’t happen. But the balance of nuclear forces between Russia and the US is changing dramatically. Even under parity of missiles, imagine it - one side is protected and the other is not. We will feel this advantage of the US in their policy and NATO policy. Military pressure will grow, our allies will be destroyed, economic problems will be settled from the point of view of force. Today we have minimal parity of strategic armaments between Russia and the US. In case of its breaking we will see a different policy by NATO and the USA.
Vladimir Yevseyev, the head of the Social and Political Research Center
What can we suggest if we have no systems able to stop these missiles? We have a backlog, but it wasn’t turned into anything real. Russia has to develop a system equal to the “Aegis” that is planned to be launched in Romania. It is not necessary to urge the Americans to establish a joint MDS. It is sufficient to launch near Rostov-on-Don a Russian missile defense base equal to the Romanian one. What will happen next? The fifth article of NATO’s charter will do nothing with it. A Russian system near Rostov-on-Don with similar characteristics as the American MDS will work effectively, not due to the fifth article of NATO’s charter. In this case Russia would make cooperation inevitable, as it would have the systems that could solve these problems. While Russia has no such systems, the United States can launch the MDS anywhere they want. Along with radio-location stations on earth they have stations at sea. As Russia has nothing to suggest, it is in a weak position. At the moment the situation has begun to change, as an air-space defense army was established. We can criticize the way they were established and the necessity of their existence. But if real investments are made, Russia wouldn’t imitate defense from the MDS, it would create systems equal to “Aegis.” And in this case Russia would be in a strong position. And we would have grounds for discussion. I think today we have nothing to discuss. Information exchange is not a serious basis for a conversation. We had a period of missed opportunities. While we did nothing in the 1990-2000s, America continued flight tests, improving the existing systems, and they made a breakthrough.
Viktor Litovkin, the managing editor of Independent Military Observer
I think one of our objectives is to avoid an arms race. American policy doesn’t depend on our suggestions. They have a fixed idea – they want to protect their country from Russia. It is understandable that the USA had been across two oceans, nobody threatened them, and then the Soviet Union, Russia appeared, the only country that could cause “unacceptable damage” to the United States. When Vladimir Putin offered Bush our station in Gabala for following Iran, he said it would be an acid test – if you agree, it is against Iran, if you don’t agree, it is against us. You know that nobody agreed. It appeared it has the wrong characteristics and so on, many reasons could be found. Today Dmitry Medvedev, and not only he, suggests signing a legal obligatory agreement on non-directionality of the American MDS against us. But what is an agreement? Today I give it to you, tomorrow I will take it back, the same thing they did in 2002. But they don’t do it for one reason: they understand they cannot cheat on their legal bodies. The worst crime in the USA is cheating. That is why they do not intend to sign it. What will be our response? I think, first of all, we should avoid an arms race. Secondly, we should develop our state armament program to 2020 that presupposes some steps on neutralization of the MDS. But the main thing we should develop is our economy. For technical balance with the USA, we should at least catch up with them, I don’t expect a breakthrough.
Can we use an arms race in favor of development of our economy?
No, the Americans are able to do it, but we are not. The program of the Strategic Defense Initiative helped them to develop the Internet and so on. As for us, our total secrecy between one department and the other, one laboratory and the other, cannot be overcome.
Dmitry Danilov, supervisor of the European Security Department in the Europe Institute of the RAS
The program of missile defense is a serious issue, and it is connected with serious technological breakthroughs. It is not about the fact that by investing a dollar in the military program, the USA is starting any new technological development. No, they take old dual-purpose technologies. That is why the US by development of the system, notwithstanding the results received, has a serious technical motivation. Furthermore, globalization. Who will be the leader of the world in the future? Those who will be the leader in the space sphere. Is the MDS connected with space? Many would say no. But if we look at the prospects, why “no”? If we try to limit its capacities, why wouldn’t it be connected with space? I think it is reasonable that it is connected with space and space technologies. I wouldn’t say it is the system of the global defense system of the USA, I would say it is a program that would provide leadership of the US in the future. That is why it is important for Russia and Europe to take a certain place within cooperation on this program. I think Europe, threatened by the one-sided policy of Bush when the agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic were declared to be one-sided and had nothing in common with wide cooperation between the US and Europe, has today a satisfactory result. The USA has returned to Europe. Europe cooperates with America within NATO. But I believe it is not enough to be satisfied with your place, it should be considered why the logic doesn’t concern Russia. I think a compromise is possible in the future. But each of us should think not only about our own interests. Pragmatism is not about promotion of your own interests and positions, but about understanding of your partner’s interests. We have a great deficit in Russia and the USA and NATO in this sphere. We should realize the position of our partners clearly. Only in that case can we talk about common political harmony, without which no global decisions could be made in the current world.
