According to the Foundation’s specialists, the White House’s military policy in the current circumstances does not provide a strategic missile balance with the Russian Federation. In addition, the Kremlin, according to American analysts, clearly demonstrates its readiness to use force against threats arising on the state borders of Russia, and when holding actions to counteract America’s national interests by military means. In this regard, American experts believe that Washington needs to further expand its missile defense system to ensure the protection of America, its allies and partners.
RUSSIAN THREATS AND AMERICAN POLICY OF MISSILE DEFENSE
Russia is currently making the greatest efforts to develop its strategic nuclear forces (SNF) since the end of the Cold War. In addition, in accordance with the plans of the Kremlin, in the next six years about 55 billion will be spent on improving missile and air defense systems. While the United States plans to spend only 8 billion on these purposes for these purposes.
Currently, according to American experts, more than 1400 warheads have been installed on intercontinental ballistic missiles of the Russian strategic nuclear forces. Each of these missiles can reach US territory in 33 minutes. The Russian Ministry of Defense also continues to carry out measures for the modernization of medium-range ballistic missiles, which, according to the White House administration, is a violation of the bilateral “Treaty on the Prohibition of Ballistic Missiles of Medium and Small-Range”, which Moscow and Washington signed in 1987 year. These missiles, according to American experts, pose a very significant threat to the security of the allies and partners of the United States in Europe.
The Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles imposed a ban on all American and Soviet ballistic and cruise ground-based missiles with a range from 500 to 5500 kilometers. When the cut-off period for the 1991 was over in June, 846 American and 1846 Soviet missiles were destroyed along with their launchers and other equipment. Strict controls over the implementation of the clauses of this agreement formed the basis of the provisions included in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-1) of 1991.
In 2009, the White House administration, with the goal of improving relations with Moscow, canceled George Bush’s two-stage plan to deploy anti-missile systems in Poland and to deploy a modern X-band radar station in the Czech Republic. This station detects, escorts, recognizes and allocates attacking targets, selects combat units comprising elements of a complex ballistic target, and also targets missiles at selected objects that are real targets to be destroyed.
In exchange for Bush’s plan to create a European missile defense system, the American military-political leadership proposed a four-stage plan for the development and deployment of radar and missile defense system launchers, called the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA).
The decision to create a European missile defense was taken by members of the NATO bloc in November 2010 at the Lisbon summit. The creation of this system is scheduled for completion in the 2020 year. The first phase of this plan was actually completed when, in the Mediterranean, the American cruiser Monterrey, armed with the Aegis missile defense system and interceptor missiles, took up combat duty.
At the second stage of the implementation of this plan, which is to be completed in 2015, anti-missile radar will be installed in Turkey and Bulgaria. In addition, during this period, supplies of anti-aircraft missile systems THAAD to the theater, which are designed to intercept the head parts of ballistic missiles at the final stage of the middle section of the flight trajectory and when approaching the target, should begin in the US Army. These complexes will allow, in the opinion of the American leadership, to ensure the protection of US troops and their allies, as well as cities and important objects from ballistic missiles of both short range and long range.
All activities of the third stage should be completed by the end of 2018. At this stage, it is planned to deploy a ground-based version of the Aegis system equipment in Poland and complete the modification of this system in Romania, which, according to the Pentagon, will make it possible to monitor almost the entire territory of Europe. At this stage, the United States also intends to deploy the PTSS (Precision Tracking Space System) and the airborne infrared detection system ABIR (Airborne Infrared). These systems, according to American experts, will be able to simultaneously track up to several hundred missiles. In addition, the number of ships with the Aegis system in the combat structure of the American fleet should increase to 43 units.
In the fourth stage of Washington’s missile plan, which was to be fully completed in 2020, the deployment of SM-3 Block IIB interceptors capable of intercepting short and medium-range ballistic missiles and intercontinental ballistic missiles was proposed. However, last year the White House, for political and economic reasons, canceled the practical implementation of this stage.
NEW MISSING REALITIES IN EUROPE
The actions of Russia in Ukraine and their geopolitical implications, say American experts, require new assessments of plans for building a European missile defense system, a study of issues for its further improvement and the study of the expansion of its functionality. According to US military and civilian specialists, deploying an X-band radar station in Europe can significantly increase the defenses of allies and partners of the United States in Europe and the Middle East, and also provide a higher level of protection for the US against missile strikes that can be inflicted on their continental part.
The actions of the Kremlin at the present stage, the American experts emphasize, also point to the extreme importance of maintaining the necessary funding for the development programs and systems of the American missile defense system. At present, the budget of the Department of Defense Missile Defense Department of the United States, which is responsible for the creation and procurement of appropriate systems and tools to combat the nuclear threat, is less than 1,5% of all allocations allocated to the Pentagon for military construction. Considering how much damage to material and human resources can be caused to America by nuclear missile strikes by potential adversaries on its territory, investments in the missile defense system are considered by American military analysts to be, at the present stage, highly effective.
In their opinion, the United States first of all needs to create a multi-level, effective and efficient anti-missile defense system capable of hitting all ballistic missiles flying towards the US, including the reflection of salvo-nuclear strikes that Russia can inflict on US territory. If necessary, the optimal use of financial resources in the face of budgetary constraints is, according to American military experts, space-based interceptor missiles the most effective means of solving missile defense tasks.
It should be noted here that a year and a half ago, at the Moscow ABM conference, then General of the Army Nikolai Makarov, who held the post of Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said that Russia could decide on pre-emptive strikes on European missile defense facilities. “Given the destabilizing nature of the missile defense system, namely, creating the illusion of causing an unpunished disarming strike, the decision to proactively use existing means of destruction will be made during a period of aggravation of the situation,” said Army General Makarov.
The next step in improving the European missile defense system should be the deployment in one of the NATO countries of an X-band radar station, which was previously supposed to be deployed in the Czech Republic. This radar, allegedly, will significantly expand the capabilities of the American continental missile defense system.
According to American experts, Washington should officially announce to Moscow that “strategic stability” is no longer the main factor in the development of Russian-American relations, since Russia is very actively intensifying the processes of modernizing its nuclear weapons and increasing funding for programs to develop anti-missile defense technologies. At the same time, the leadership of the White House, the same experts believe, should officially indicate to the Kremlin the exclusively defensive nature of its strategic nuclear forces, and also note the crucial role that the missile defense system plays in implementing this approach.
Experts of the Heritage Foundation believe that the deterioration of Russia's relations with Ukraine and the separation of the Crimea from it will require a fundamental change in the White House’s approaches to the development of a European anti-missile defense system. They emphasize the fact that if the White House does not pay enough attention to the growing threat from the Russian Federation, America may subsequently pay an exorbitant price for the inadequate attitude of the federal government and lawmakers to the current growth processes of the Russian military potential and increasing the aggressiveness of the Kremlin leaders.
PARLIAMENTARIANS, FORMER MILITARY AND OTHER ABOUT EUROPRO
Some leading US parliamentarians, retired high-ranking military officials and some former political figures also adhere to the opinions of the American Foundation specialists. All of them suggest that the current White House administration should tighten its stance towards Russia and revise its attitude to the canceled plans to build anti-ballistic missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic.
In particular, the former well-known politician Dick Cheney told representatives of the American media in March of this year that “there are military options for solving the Ukrainian problem without bringing troops into the Crimea.”
“We can go back and restore the missile defense development program, which was closed. This program was to be implemented in Poland and the Czech Republic. Obama canceled it to appease Vladimir Putin, ”said Dick Cheney. Recall that this program was adopted during the reign of President George W. Bush, when Cheney himself served as vice president in the administration of the White House and was one of the main initiators of this program.
The construction of mine launchers for missile defense interceptor missiles almost immediately after the start of work in 2009 was discontinued. This was due to the fact that US President Barack Obama sought to improve relations with the Russian leadership, which categorically objected to the deployment of these objects of the American anti-missile defense system near the borders of the Russian Federation. The resulting improvement in relations between the United States and Russia allowed the White House in 2010 to conclude a new bilateral “Treaty on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms”, called START-3. This treaty provided for the reduction of intercontinental ballistic missiles, their launch systems and the number of combat units in service with both states.
Chairman of the Budget Committee of the House of Representatives of the American Congress, Republican Paul Ryan, speaking with Cheney to reporters, also said that in the light of Ukrainian events, Washington needs to thoroughly review its missile defense policy in Europe again.
“I believe that we just need to re-consider the program for building missile defense, told the congressman told reporters. - In my opinion, if President Obama himself decides to consider this program again, this will be a very good signal. I think that you should show in soft tones to the American and world public that the revision of plans to build a missile defense system is nothing more than a naive wishful thinking. ”
The official representative of the Department of Defense Missile Defense Department of the United States, Rick Lehner, told the press that the White House, instead of the previous plan for the construction of ground-based missile defense systems, developed a plan for the phased deployment of the Aegis sea-based radar system in the offshore areas adjacent to Romania and Poland. this system in the territories of the specified countries in 2015 and in 2018. He did not touch on the various opinions of experts on this plan, but noted that work on the construction of facilities of the land variant of the Aegis system in Romania had already begun. Lehner also officially announced that the coastal version of this system will be ready for use by the end of 2015. According to him, in the next three to four months, tests of this missile defense system will be held in Hawaii. In the Romanian version of the Aegis system, SM-3 IB interceptor missiles will be used, and from Poland, intercontinental enemy ballistic missiles will be destroyed by SM-3 IIA missiles, which have a greater range and greater power than their predecessors, SM-3 IB missiles.
As Lehner stressed, unlike SM-3 missiles, interceptor missile silos, which were planned to be deployed in Poland, are capable of destroying intercontinental ballistic missiles that are in space in the middle of their flight path. "These missiles are designed to destroy intercontinental ballistic missiles that can appear in Iran and North Korea, while Ajis coastal missiles can only hit short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles," said the US Defense Department’s Missile Defense Department spokesman.
In turn, the vice-president of the Lexington Institute, Dr. Daniel Gore, notes that mine-based interceptor missiles are capable of destroying enemy intercontinental ballistic missiles flying at a speed of more than 27 thousand km / h. In his opinion, the White House’s ban on the construction of missile defense installations in Poland was due to many factors. First of all, this was dictated by the need to improve relations with Russia and the signing of the START-3 agreement. Secondly, the experts of the presidential administration believed that the coastal system "Aegis" is fully capable of providing resistance to regional missile threats. To a certain extent, the decision to stop the construction of mine installations was due to the conviction of Washington experts that in the near future, Tehran is simply not able to create an intercontinental ballistic missile to attack the United States and will only be armed with ballistic missiles that can only threaten European countries NATO and the states of the Middle East. According to the White House administration, the missile defense of the continental US will be fully supported by missile defense systems based in Alaska and in California. In particular, last year the Pentagon announced that the number of mine installations at these missile defense bases would soon increase from 33 to 44 units.
Gore also noted that the White House needs to resume the research and development program for the development of the SM-3 IIB rocket, which will be able to destroy intercontinental ballistic missiles of various capacities. This program was closed "in favor of Russian President Vladimir Putin," since the Kremlin was categorically opposed to creating a missile defense system in Europe.
Interestingly, recently the ambassador of Ukraine in Minsk, Mikhail Yezhel, said: the possibility of deploying an American missile defense system in Ukraine in exchange for receiving financial aid from the United States to Kiev is the subject of negotiations that may be held between Kiev and Washington in the near future. However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, summing up the talks with his Spanish counterpart, José Manuel Garcia-Margallo, 3 of April of this year. stressed that the statements about the possibility of deploying the US missile defense system in Ukraine are speculation. “I have not heard this statement, but if this is so, then we see another example of how, with the connivance of our Western partners, those who now sit in the Verkhovna Rada try to speculate on the relations between the Russian Federation and the West, try to aggravate these relations, hoping to catch something in the muddy water, ”the ITAR-TASS news agency quoted the minister as saying. Lavrov called this policy of the Ukrainian authorities "extremely frivolous" and expressed the hope that Russia's western colleagues "understand this entire game perfectly well."
True, in January of this year, NATO Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow invited Russia to join the construction of a NATO missile defense system in Europe. This step, he said, could help improve the security of Russia and NATO countries. “I still believe that our cooperation on missile defense can change the rules of the game in Russia-NATO relations,” said Vershbow in his speech at the University of Tel Aviv. “I still hope that Russia can join us in this venture, thereby enhancing its security and that of the NATO countries,” the Deputy Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance said, noting also that “if this opportunity is missed, NATO will continue to develop those opportunities that it considers necessary in order to counter the growing threat of rocket ".
OBJECTIVES, COSTS AND PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE BROWN REVOLUTION
A coup d'état in Ukraine organized by the United States and the European Union, directly involving CIA officials, representatives of the US State Department and members of non-governmental organizations, cost 5 billion dollars to Washington in a speech at the National Press Club in Washington 13 December last year, announced the US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. However, according to Russian and foreign experts, this amount is ten times less than America, the European Union and numerous foreign funds spent on destabilizing the situation in Ukraine and on coming to power of brown representatives of Ukrainian society. In addition, experts believe that the United States has already earned about 500 billion dollars on the New Orange Revolution, which is 100 times the expenditures of the federal treasury, although few can say exactly what America’s revenues are in that amount.
The main purpose of this action of America, its NATO and EU allies, is believed to have been the destruction of Ukraine’s sovereignty, the subordination of its government to Washington and Brussels and the deployment of new Pentagon military bases near the borders of Russia, which is in line with the concept of forward basing that is actively implemented by the US military. . The US military bases, Russian experts say, could then approach the borders of Russia by almost a thousand kilometers.
However, the United States has not yet achieved the desired result. The entry of the Crimea and Sevastopol into the Russian Federation became a bone in the throat of the White House administration and the NATO leadership. Now, US Navy warships armed with the Aegis multifunctional combat information and control system will not be able to be based in Sevastopol if necessary, as the Americans expected, and the military potential of Crimea from the Russian side will now be significantly increased. Recently, at a conference call at the National Center for Defense Management, Russian Defense Minister General of the Army Sergei Shoigu stated that the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces is already developing a military action plan for the period up to 2020 to ensure the security of the Russian Federation in the Crimean Federal District.
True, it should be noted here that Washington, not only in the economic and political, but also in the military sense, nevertheless managed to achieve certain positive results for itself. In particular, the leadership of Ukraine has frozen military-technical cooperation with Russia, which in a number of areas, primarily in rocketry, space and production aviation engines, was very voluminous, significant and important for both sides. And although this may to some extent weaken the military potential of the Russian Federation, but not to the extent that the United States would like it. The Russian leadership is already taking measures to eliminate the consequences of the decision of the Ukrainian administration, and in the near future the Russian defense-industrial complex will be able to independently solve the tasks that were previously assigned to the Ukrainian defense industry. But the latter will receive such a serious blow from this decision that it is unlikely to be able to recover. Ultimately, this will further exacerbate the economic crisis and increase social tension in the country.
In conclusion, it should be noted that the deployment of the US missile defense system in Europe is one of the most important and difficult problems in relations between the Kremlin and the White House. But neither Washington nor the Pentagon has yet commented on the wishes of some politicians and legislators on changing plans to build missile defense systems in Europe. What steps will be taken by American politicians and the military in this direction in connection with the changing situation in Ukraine and the inclusion of Crimea in the Russian Federation, only time will tell.