Russia's top military officer warned Thursday that Moscow would
strike NATO missile-defense sites in Eastern Europe before they are
ready for action, if the U.S. pushes ahead with deployment.
"A
decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the
situation worsens," Russian Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov said
at an international missile-defense conference in Moscow attended by
senior U.S. and NATO officials.
Gen. Makarov made the threat amid
an apparent stalemate in talks between U.S. and Russian negotiators
over the missile-defense system, part of President Obama's policy to
"reset" relations with Moscow. The threat also elicited shock and
derision from Western missile-defense analysts.
"It's remarkable,"
said James Ludes of the Pell Center for International Relations and
Public Policy at Salve Regina University in Newport, R.I. "That Makarov
would make this kind of threat in a public forum is chilling."
"He must have been drunk," said Barry Blechman, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center think tank.
Calling the threat "crazy," he said, "I hope the Russian political leadership takes him to task for it."
But
that seemed unlikely Thursday as Russian Defense Minister Anatoly
Serdyukov dismissed the missile-defense talks as fruitless.
"We
have not been able to find mutually acceptable solutions at this point,
and the situation is practically at a dead end," he said.
The press office at the Russian Embassy in Washington did not return phone calls or emails seeking comment.
The
U.S. repeatedly has said the European missile-defense system is
designed to fend off an attack by Iran, but Russia has insisted that the
system would blunt its own arsenal. Moscow has proposed to jointly
operate the missile shield, but NATO has rejected the offer.
Ellen
Tauscher, the U.S. special envoy for strategic stability and missile
defense, insisted the talks on NATO plans for a missile-defense system
using radar and ground-based interceptor missiles stationed in Poland,
Romania and Turkey are not stalemated.
But she acknowledged
Wednesday in Moscow that recent elections in Russia and upcoming
elections in the U.S. make it "pretty clear that this is a year in
which we're probably not going to achieve any sort of a breakthrough."
In
March, Mr. Obama privately told outgoing Russian President Dmitry
Medvedev that he would have more "flexibility" to make a deal on missile
defense after the election in November. Mr. Obama's comment was
captured accidentally by a live microphone during a summit in Seoul.
Many
critics interpreted the remark as a promise by Mr. Obama to give in to
Russian demands once the political danger of doing so during an
election campaign had passed.
Ms. Tauscher did not answer a
question about the meaning of the president's Korea comment, but said
the two leaders agreed in Seoul to continue technical-level
discussions.
"We'll spend the next nine to 10 months trying to
work through some of these technical aspects of what's a very complex
proposal," she said.
She reiterated that the U.S.-built system is
designed to shoot down only Iranian intermediate-range missiles that
could hit Europe, and would not be effective against Russian
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
In the initial
stages, the system will use radar based in Turkey and ship-based Aegis
missiles. In the later stages, new radar stations and ground-based
interceptors in Poland and Romania will be integrated into the system.
The
system, which still is being developed, is a scaled-back version of
the missile shield proposed during the George W. Bush administration.
But
Russian officials insist the missile-defense system will rob their
nuclear deterrent of its credibility and destabilize the balance of
mutually assured destruction that has persisted since the Cold War.
"A
thorough analysis by the Defense Ministry's research organizations
showed that once the third and fourth stages are deployed, the
capability to intercept Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles will
be real," Gen. Makarov said.
Robert L. Pfaltzgraff Jr., a
professor of international security studies at the Fletcher School at
Tufts University, noted that while ICBMs fly faster than shorter-range
missiles and the technology to intercept them is different, the Kremlin
sees these deployments as providing a basis for a better system later.
"The Russian concern is that these systems could be upgraded in the future," he said.
But
Mr. Pfaltzgraff said the fact that Moscow is thinking in these terms
proves Russia is not a U.S. ally and has "divergent interests from us
and to pretend otherwise to try and placate them is a fool's errand.
"Russia
wants a deterrent relationship with the United States," he said. "Why?
Is Canada worried that they don't have an effective deterrent against
our nuclear weapons?"
In Moscow, Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly
Antonov indicated that the "red line" for Russia would be the
deployment of ground-based interceptor missiles, estimated to happen in
2018 at the earliest.
"Red lines are a dangerous game," said Mr. Ludes. "This has been simmering for years."
"The
Russians have opposed U.S. plans, whether offered by the Bush
administration or the Obama administration. But the fact that they would
make this kind of public threat gives us an idea of just how strongly
they feel about it," Mr. Ludes said.
Gen. Makarov said the
Russians have set "only one condition [to agree to NATO deployment of
the system]: the zone of possible interception for current and future
missile-defense weapon systems should not cross the border of Russia."
U.S. officials have rejected any deal that would put limits on the capabilities of the system, or on how many would be deployed.
"We've
made very clear that we will not accept any limitations on either the
number or the capabilities of these [missile-defense] systems," said
Madelyn Creedon, the Pentagon's assistant secretary of defense for
global strategic affairs.
Ms. Tauscher also said the U.S. and its
allies are not interested in a treaty or similar arrangement that would
limit the use of the system and that they will push ahead with testing
and deployment.
"We cannot and will not make any legally binding
agreement that includes limitations on our ability to protect
ourselves," she said, before Gen. Makarov spoke. "There is nothing I
can imagine that will stop us from making those deployments on time."
Responding
to the general's comments, State Department spokesman Mark Toner said
the United States has "made clear for many years now that there's no
intent, desire or capability [for missile defense] to undermine
Russia's strategic deterrent."
Asked whether he was "alarmed" by
the general's threat, Mr. Toner replied: "I think we're just going to
redouble our efforts to seek common ground on this and to seek
understanding."
Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain, traveling in
Lithuania, accused the Russians of using missile defense as an "excuse
to have a military buildup in this part of the world, which is at
peace."
The Arizona Republican, who once referred to the look in
longtime Russian strongman Vladimir Putin's eyes as spelling out
"K-G-B," called Kremlin saber-rattling"an egregious example of what
might be even viewed as paranoia on the part of Vladimir Putin."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It's worrying that Russia would so blatantly threaten a missile attack and just because of deterrents being built in Eastern Europe. It's also happening at a bad time, because of the election, meaning the problem won't be solved for a while
NATO's actions are just bad faith. Basically they're saying they don't trust Russia. "Hey, we think you might use these missiles against us sometime in the future." Also, the missile system wouldn't be that effective anyway. Russia has too many missiles to be hindered by something like this, and most of them are submarine-launched, which would be unaffected by this.
NATO's actions are just bad faith. Basically they're saying they don't trust Russia. "Hey, we think you might use these missiles against us sometime in the future." Also, the missile system wouldn't be that effective anyway. Russia has too many missiles to be hindered by something like this, and most of them are submarine-launched, which would be unaffected by this.
NATO's actions are just bad faith. Basically they're saying they don't trust Russia. "Hey, we think you might use these missiles against us sometime in the future." Also, the missile system wouldn't be that effective anyway. Russia has too many missiles to be hindered by something like this, and most of them are submarine-launched, which would be unaffected by this.
I think this public announcement should not be taken lightly. After N. Korea said it would take out any of its enemies, anything having to do with nuclear arms (obviously) is a serious matter. With both Russia and N. Korea being threatening, we need to be more careful.
Heres the underlying problem to all the hyped up talk about these missile launches involving the United States: our involvement in NATO and our attempt to police the world is only hurting us in the long run. We need to stop creating these so called "league of nations" and just mind our own business; that way we can stop pissing off all other nations not included in NATO.
It seems that Russia has taken an ultimatum against the defense system in eastern europe... Which is an extremely terrifying thought. I feel like letting the situation fizzle out would be the best situation. The fact that Obama was caught saying he will have more "flexibility" in november is just as scary to think of. Hopefully this situation will pass without too much trouble.
It seems that Russia has taken an ultimatum against the defense system in eastern europe... Which is an extremely terrifying thought. I feel like letting the situation fizzle out would be the best situation. The fact that Obama was caught saying he will have more "flexibility" in november is just as scary to think of. Hopefully this situation will pass without too much trouble.
Post a Comment