Russia: We'll Trade Missiles for Defense Shield
James Joyner | December 19, 2008
Reuters passes on word that "Russia will stop developing some strategic weapons if the United States drops plans for a missile shield in Europe, Interfax news agency quoted the commander of Russia's strategic missile forces as saying on Friday." Correspondent Oleg Shchedrov conjectures that, "The remarks may be another step in Moscow's efforts to build ties with the incoming U.S. administration but also reflect difficulties Russia faces in financing its ambitious military programs at a time of global economic crisis."
"If Americans give up plans to deploy the third positioning region and other elements of the strategic missile defense system then certainly we will adequately respond to it," Colonel-General Nikolai Solovtsov said. "We will simply not need a number of expensive programs," he added echoing earlier Kremlin overtures to the new U.S. administration.
U.S. plans to deploy in Europe elements of its projected missile shield, intended to avert potential strikes from Iran and North Korea, have been a factor in the deterioration of bilateral ties to the lowest point since the Cold War. Russia says that U.S. plans to deploy interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic, described as the "third positioning region" are targeted against it.
President Dmitry Medvedev has said Russia will deploy Iskander missiles in its Kaliningrad enclave bordering NATO members Poland and Lithuania. Medvedev and his predecessor Vladimir Putin, now prime minister, have also said Russia was designing new weapons, including strategic rockets, capable of breaking through any missile defense in the next 30-50 years.
Oddly, U.S. plans to build a missile defense shield, ridiculed as unworkable by U.S. scientists and defense experts since Ronald Reagan floated his Strategic Defense Initiative (dubbed "Star Wars" by critics) have continually caused great consternation in Russia. Many observers credit the specter of SDI with causing a defense spending frenzy that hastened the demise of the Soviet Union. Now, promises to build a defense shield we can't afford and can't reliably implement is sparking major concessions.
This would be a win-win. Neither Russia nor the United States need to spend huge sums on systems that one hopes would never be used. And NATO-Russia cooperation would likely be more effective in dealing with Iran and North Korea than a theoretical missile shield.
There are two problems, however. First, can we trust the Russians to keep their word? Certainly, they've largely ignored their promises to the EU with respect to Georgia. Reagan's continual citing of the old Russian proverb "Trust but verify" would be apt here. Given the economics of the situation, though, it shouldn't be much of an issue. Russia wanted to annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia; it doesn't want to spend billions on these missiles.
Second, the Poles and others in Eastern Europe see the promised shield as proof positive of U.S. commitment to their security. Other options, though, such as permanent basing of U.S. forces in their countries could provide similar assurance (although, granted, causing consternation in Russia).
James Joyner is managing editor of the Atlantic Council.
Comments
Isn't the Russian's worry that SDI enables first-strike thinking on the part of the possessor, rather than that it would work to prevent a strike? Given that the same neocon think-tanks are still pushing adding space-based weapons to SDI as originally floated the idea that SDI could be used to allow a first strike without significant retaliation, I can see how Russia might assume their underlying plan hasn't changed any, just their spin.
The Russians have good reason to be concerned about a U.S. Missile Defense Shield; their nuclear deterrent depends heavily on ballistic missiles, particularly since the end of the Soviet Union, which brought about massive deterioration in their nuclear submarine fleet.
It's not as if it's "unworkable" or "too expensive", either - the other reason why the Russians are concerned about it is because they have their own ABM system around Moscow and its immediate environs (one which they've had for decades, to boot, and which was allowed under the now-dead ABM Treaty). Costs spend on missile defense are negligible, particularly compared to other weapons systems and modernization programs (especially that abomination called the Future Combat System).
Steve: There are various theories behind BMD. But, rather clearly, we don't have any designs on launching a nuclear strike on Russia. So trading away the ability to increase success of same in exchange for real security gains is a good deal.
Brett: Having a system in place and having a workable system in place are two different things, indeed.
The Russians have good reason to be concerned about a U.S. Missile Defense Shield; their nuclear deterrent depends heavily on ballistic missiles, particularly since the end of the Soviet Union, which brought about massive deterioration in their nuclear submarine fleet.
Post new comment