NATO-Russia - ABM dialogue continues
Perhaps, in the near future, the answer to the question that concerns many people will be known - will Russia and NATO, but in reality, Russia and the United States, create joint missile defense systems in Europe. Analysts and diplomats are confident that if this project is implemented jointly with Moscow, the cold war and the associated arms race will become historyOtherwise, the development of the situation may well become real. The NATO Summit, which took place in Lisbon in November, was called a truly historic alliance. Such a definition could be heard not only in the EU and the USA, but also in Russia. Washington and Brussels consider it as such because of the decision taken in the Portuguese capital on the integration of American and NATO plans to create a European missile defense system. For Moscow, the Russia-NATO summit in Lisbon is expensive because it was there that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev suggested that the United States and the alliance should create an anti-missile defense system together. He described in general terms how he personally sees it: the missile defense system should be created on the basis of a sectoral approach, which implies the responsibility of each of the parties to the treaty for covering one or another of the most missile-prone areas. Political observers considered the Russian initiative a “breakthrough”, since, with a positive decision, this project could truly become the first in history an example of the genuine integration of military capabilities of formerly hostile parties.
Five months have passed since the summit, and it is becoming obvious that a widely publicized breakthrough is cluttered with problems. One of the Russian diplomats, who was directly involved in the negotiations and was familiar with their content, said: “The situation is extremely difficult. The parties have come to an impassable political and diplomatic deadlock. The difficulty is that Russia continues to insist on legal guarantees from NATO and the US about the non-direction of the missile defense system deployed in Europe against the Russian strategic nuclear forces. One of the high-ranking officials of the Russian Defense Ministry is convinced that "the European missile defense system as such howling is not and will not be. There are plans to deploy US missile defense systems, and there is its interest in the European segment. "
Charles Hayman, the former commander of infantry troops, and now a famous military analyst in Great Britain, made an attempt to explain what prevents to find compromises in resolving this issue: “We certainly trust each other much more than 10-20 years ago but there is no absolute trust. "
The fact that there are certain difficulties in the implementation of plans for joint participation in the plans to deploy missile defense systems in Europe, Russia and the United States, says Sergey Ryabkov, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation. “Moscow is equally obliged to take care of its own security. Probably, for this reason, a proposal was made to create a sectoral missile defense system, and the question was raised about providing legal guarantees for Russia's security in case the sectoral option is rejected,” says Ryabkov.
But in this case there is a new problem, and it is connected with the fact that the provision of any legal guarantees in the field of missile defense cause a terrible allergy in the United States. Representatives of the administration of US President Barack Obama informed the Russian side that, on the eve of the elections, it would be unrealistic to hold a document of such a plan through Congress. Especially if we take into account the efforts with which the new Treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation on the restriction in creating strategic offensive arms was ratified, the preamble of which points to the need to link defensive weapons, including missile defense with strategic offensive ones.
But the reasons listed above are by no means the only and certainly not the main ones. The stubbornness of the American side in its reluctance to provide Russia with the required guarantees is primarily due to the fact that, having broken the Russian-American Treaty on restricting the creation of anti-missile defense systems unilaterally ten years ago, Washington no longer intends to bind itself with any legally binding documents.
“We initially foresaw just such a reaction from the Americans,” says Sergey Ryabkov. “But despite this, the situation does not change for us. We continue to work to find new points of contact. I’m completely sure that this idea will be revolutionary character and will be a real contribution to the construction of new political relations between the Russian Federation and NATO on a completely new basis. "
In order to decide what kind of a missile defense system should be in Europe, NATO, Moscow and Washington do not have much time left. Already in June, the ministers of defense of the Alliance countries will meet in Brussels, 2011, who need to introduce certainty to the project. After the internal meetings in Brussels on the same topic, NATO ministers will talk with the head of the Russian Ministry of Defense.
At the same time, while Russia and the West continue to argue even about whether an American missile defense system is needed in Europe at all, and whether there are real missile threats that it is intended to protect against, the United States declares that the deployed missile defense system is not directed against the Russian nuclear forces, and is created to prevent a possible rocket attack from Iran. Despite the persuasiveness with which this statement is presented, Moscow does not believe this.
The situation with Iran, which military officials from the United States and NATO representatives echoing them continue to talk about, looks extremely far-fetched and greatly exaggerated. First of all, these statements are not confirmed by anything. In order for Iran to be able to really threaten the countries of Western Europe, it must first of all have long-range missiles. But at the moment, Tehran does not possess such technologies. But even if we take into account the fact that Iranian physicists will be able to create this type of rocket, its tests will require huge polygons, like the French Mururoa or Kwajalein, used by the United States. It is also necessary to control such tests. Considering all this, it becomes quite obvious that both the United States and NATO need missile defense systems, but for a completely different purpose, about which the military prefers to keep silent.
However, Russia seems ready to close its eyes to agree with these phantom fears against Iran, but only if it becomes a full-fledged partner of the United States and NATO in creating missile defense systems. In any case, this is stated in a statement by Russian Deputy Minister of Defense Anatoly Antonov, who sounded last week during a meeting of the Trialogue international club. “Everything is so simple - it’s necessary to sit down and agree on the structure of the system that will protect all of us in the future,” calls on Western diplomats Anatoly Antonov. In another version, he is sure, the further the United States and NATO anti-missile plans advance in their development, the greater and significant problems the Russian Federation will have in ensuring its own national security. As Russia plans to solve problems related to its own security, in the event that its proposal is rejected, President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have not once voiced their words, who in this case predict the start of a new arms race.
Decision time for the problem of missile defense systems is approaching. At the beginning of summer, at a meeting in Brussels of the Russia-NATO Council, which will be held at the level of alliance’s defense ministers, a final answer should be received about the possibility of real cooperation in this area. The decision of Russia to shape its own missile defense systems largely depends on what the answer will be.
In response to the proposals and reproaches advanced and presented by Russia, Western politicians and experts put forward their weighty counterarguments. In particular, Brooks Tigner, an expert at Jane's Defense Weekly, said the following: “It will be extremely difficult for the leaders of some countries that have recently joined the alliance to explain to the citizens of their countries why NATO should entrust its defense to the state, which they themselves continue , do not trust and in which they continue to see a real threat.The main arguments against: the inability to outsource the defense of the alliance countries to a player from the outside, as this contradicts Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.In addition, there are still issues related to technical compatibility and the cost of a single missile defense system. The specified amount of? 200 million looks very underestimated. But in the variant, combining this system with a similar Russian will lead to additional costs. "
Samuel Charap, an expert on international politics and national security at the Center for American Progress, on the contrary, urges not to ignore the Russian initiative in terms of sectoral development of missile defense. “This idea is quite interesting, but not indisputable. The proposal of the Russian president is not the end of the discussion, but only its beginning. Cooperation in the development of missile defense systems is an opportunity to smoothly convert a complex issue in relations between Russia and NATO into a real success story” - says Mr. Charap. Experts from Russia are also somewhat cautious optimists. “The likelihood of creating a joint European missile defense system is very small. However, it is there. That is what we all talk about so much is not a ghost. Being, in its essence, the only and most realistic project implemented jointly by NATO and Russia has chances on existence, albeit in a minimalist implementation, "believes Vladimir Orlov, President of the PIR Center.
Information