Without exaggeration one can say that the issue of a European missile defense system creating is now one of the key topics of Russia’s relations with the United States and NATO in whole, a cornerstone of future European security system. Ignoring this issue or the application of double standards when considering it is fraught with mounting distrust between NATO and Russia and regular confrontation on the European continent in the spirit of cold war. Speaking with the Address of the Federal Assembly on 30 November, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said bluntly that if Russia and NATO fail to reach agreement on missile defense and to create a “full-fledged mechanism for cooperation” in this sphere, then a new round of the arms race will follow.
The way of coordination that began after the Lisbon NATO summit to give practical orientation to the adopted declaration on cooperation between the alliance and Russia in creating a unified and equitable European Missile Defense system was not easy. Several meetings of the expert working group, talks between Chiefs of General Staff and the ambassadors of the member countries of the NATO-Russia Council, meetings between the U.S. Vice-President and the President and Prime Minister of Russia, a session of NATO defense ministers in Brussels, a session of defense ministers of Russia and the USA in Moscow have not yet had significant effect, except new declarations of intentions that agreements on missile defense would be “the best way to strengthening trust and strategic stability on the European continent, between Russia and the U.S.".
What do the sides disagree with? Firstly, there still remain differences in the approaches of Russia, the United States, NATO leaders to the assessment of missile threats: against whom must joint European Missile Defense system defend Russia and the NATO countries? In view of the fundamental differences in the geographical position of Russia and the NATO countries, and sometimes diametrically opposite geopolitical and economic interests, today there is no answer to this question which would satisfy each side.
Another problem is different approaches of Russia, the U.S. and NATO to the very structure of European Missile Defense. The substance of Russia’s proposal is to create a sectoral missile defense system in Europe, with the division of responsibility of the Russian Federation and NATO for the security of specific areas: The alliance is building its system along the borders of Europe, and Russia along its own borders. Each participating side will be responsible for its own safety zone and at the same time inform its partner about what is happening in its aerospace.
This approach does not suit Brussels, may be because the latter still does not trust Moscow. NATO insists that they will create their own missile defense system not along the borders of Europe, but the echeloned one. Whereas Russia, if it wishes to do so, can join only at the level of surveillance and reporting systems of data exchange.
The fact that in the West the position of those who oppose to any cooperation between Russia and NATO is strong enough yet, has no small share in the application of double standards to Russia when discussing the missile defense system (in the statements one thing, but in fact another). Especially in matters of missile defense, where there is a belief that the U.S. technologically excels the whole world.
It is no coincidence, therefore, that as noted above, among some NATO leaders the prevailing view is that in the future European Missile Defense system Russia will only be expected to submit “a limited amount of data from the Russian radars”.
According to NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen himself, the NATO missile defense system being created “is intended to supplement the doctrine of nuclear deterrence, and not replace it.”
Among the participants of the intra-NATO debates there are still differences on what coverage should have the ‘anti-missile shield’ being created with Russia: should it be some regional structure, only covering the European continent from the Atlantic to the Urals, or would it represent a broader transcontinental structure extending over Europe and the U.S. at the same time, in which Washington would play a major role.
Questions arise as to Washington’s actions to establish the U.S. strategic ballistic missile defense system in Europe. In January, at the instigation of the Pentagon, NATO military command launched the first command and management structure of the missile defense system at the European theater of military operations. In March, the U.S. Navy deployed the Monterey guided missile cruiser in the Mediterranean Sea, equipped with the Aegis sea-based missile defense system, which represents the first concrete steps by Washington to implement a phased plan of deployment of the national missile defense system on the European continent and around it.
The current American administration continues to believe that the program “Phased adaptive approach” on the development of the U.S. missile defense system in Europe, declared by Barack Obama in September 2009, will complement the existing antimissile weapons of the alliance, and NATO missile defense elements in turn will strengthen the similar American components. It is clear that a place for Russia is not provided for in this program.
All the above obstruct a constructive dialogue between Russia, the United States and NATO on the issue of creating a joint European Missile Defense system. Moreover, Russia today in this dialogue is not interested in verbal assurances only, as it was in the recent past with regard to NATO's eastward non-expansion. There need to be our partners’ written political and legal obligations and guarantees that the missile defense system in Europe planned to be deployed will not be directed against Russia's national security and its defense capabilities. Nobody is going to give such guarantees to Russia yet.
It is also of crucial importance that the joint European Missile Defense system does not give rise to concern of third countries, particularly of India and China which have nuclear and missile facilities, and with which Russia maintains close ties. In this context, a joint European Missile Defense system must be open and understandable to all present and future ‘missile defense partners’, always remain equal and equitable and not be based on the master-slave principle and not to provide for the differentiation between ‘primary or secondary players’.
According to experts, the planned joint missile defense system should also have strong ties of mutual control and act in real time, otherwise the NATO countries, led by the United States will make important strategic decisions on the use of anti-missile systems without Russia’s participation, which may lead to dangerous consequences for the cause of peace and global security.
In the course of ongoing consultations on missile defense and taking into account double standards therein manifested towards Russia, President Dmitry Medvedev had to warn the Western partners that “if Russia still does not find any appropriate place for itself in this system, then by the 20th year we can come to a situation where the relevant umbrella of missile defense will be considered as a factor destabilizing nuclear balance, reducing Russia’s capabilities...”
In this context, the statement by the commander of operational and strategic command forces of Russia's air and space defense, Lieutenant General Valery Ivanov, does not look accidental; before the start of consultations on European Missile Defense in Brussels he spoke on the air on the Vesti 24 TV Channel, and said that by mid-2011 Aerospace Defense forces will be created in our country. They will consist of five subsystems: air defense systems, missile warning systems, space tracking systems, electronic warfare forces, and missile defense troops. The general made the NATO partners understand - Russia is ready to establish a joint European Missile Defense, now the matter depends on them.
Meanwhile, the hard way of coordination of the positions of Russia, the U.S. and NATO of European Missile Defense system continues. It is assumed that the finally agreed approach to this problem will have been worked out by the summit of the defense ministers of the Russian Federation and NATO, which is scheduled for June 2011.
