US Missile Shields Demand a New Tough Response

Wrapping up the “sidelines” meeting at the Seoul nuclear summit, Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama acknowledged by mutual consent they failed to get ahead in finding a common stance on the most acute but still unsolved issue of global dimension – the creation of some kind of “cooperative” Russia – USA / NATO joint ballistic missile defense in Europe.

The US President asked for a “time out” till the US presidential campaign is over. He also dropped a hint he would have “more flexibility” concerning the missile defense bilateral cooperation prospects if re-elected in November.

Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama confined themselves to an agreement to continue consultations, but not full-scale talks, in the next six-eight months with the participation of technical experts.

Actually the meeting repeated the zero result of the talks in Honolulu in November 2011 followed by well known statement by the Russian President listing the military-technical steps to be taken in response to continuation of the US-NATO “missile shield” build-up in Europe while ignoring Russia’s security concerns.

It’s still not known how serious is the Washington’s intent to discuss European missile defense with Russia. The hopes Moscow had to reach a concrete agreement with the USA at the end of last year and before the then forthcoming event in Seoul and would be NATO summit in Chicago in May are fading away.

Looks like Washington has an intent to go on deploying missile defense infrastructure on the European continent and around it using the postponement of decision finding deliberations to its advantage: its plan is wrapped up and made final a long time ago.

First, it’s not known if Barack Obama will continue to be the head of state and Supreme Commander of the armed forces. If he stays, what his stance on missile defense will be like? Will it be like the present one – “foot dragging”?

Secondly, what will a Republican President-elect do in case he manages to win? Actually nearly all Republican senators have stepped out against changes in the US stance on missile defense or taking Russia’s concerns into account. Just recently 43 out of 47 Republican Senators have signed a warning letter to Obama saying they would not support any limitations concerning the European missile defense component being deployed in case the current administration comes up with such plans.

Let’s remember that during the deliberations on the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-3) ratification Barack Obama assured the senators that under no circumstances he would introduce “qualitative or quantitative” limitations on the BMD infrastructure or sacrifice US national security interests.

The first phase of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) missile defense plan was successfully fulfilled in 2011, the nest stage of the program is being implemented.

The major specific feature of the EPAA first phase was the achievement of the initial capability to hit short, medium and even “intermediate” (including the missiles with the range of 3000 – 5500 km) range ballistic missiles, mainly thanks to moving the global missile defense sea component, that is Aegis command and control multifunctional integrated system with SM-2 and SM-3 interceptors, to European shores.

It’s worth to emphasize the USA is a long time leader in sea based missile defense systems. At the beginning of 2012 there were totally 24 Aegis equipped ships (5 Ticonderoga class cruisers and 19 Arleigh Burke class destroyers) in the US Navy inventory. According to the US long-term thirty years (2011-2041) shipbuilding program 84 ships are to be upgraded to acquire the Aegis capability: 10 out of 22 cruisers and practically all destroyers (74 ships).

The naval missile defense component is constantly gaining more importance in the overall missile defense architecture. The plans in force foresee an increase of the number of SM-3 interceptors from 111 in 2011 up to 436 in 2015 and 515 in 2020 (not 50 as some Russian experts say!). An Aegis equipped Ticonderoga cruiser or an Arleigh Burke destroyer is capable of launching up to 30 SM-2 or SM-3 interceptors of various modifications. So the overall number of such “interceptor ships” may grow up to 84 making the total global sea based interceptor missiles force exceed 2500.

Further, NATO missile defense command and control facilities were built while implementing the first stage of the European Phased Adaptive Approach plan. Early warning systems are upgraded, new radars are being installed. Unlike other military programs the national missile defense and its overseas (European) component are immune from budget cuts, its expenditure preserves stable tendency to grow.

The Washington’s close allies besides NATO members (like the UK, Spain, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania) are actively joining the program. For instance, Japan, a neutral state, that in fact has become an alliance member a long time ago, has contributed to a technological breakthrough to enhance the interceptors’ capabilities. The technology has been successfully used by the USA to its advantage. Australia and South Korea are long time missile defense development partners.

A sophisticated multilayered and multi echelon missile defense architecture is being created in the immediate vicinity of Russia encompassing Europe and Asia. It’s major specific feature is that in any emergency on the international scene, the architecture is going to interact most closely with US and NATO tactical and strategic nuclear potentials.

Under the circumstances Russia needs to take a more tough and resolute stance defending its national security interests. The Washington’s attempts to impose discussions on the tactical nuclear weapons and make it part of the agenda separately from missile defense plans should be repelled. The deployment of missile defense along with NATO partners and some Asia-Pacific region allies should be taken into account while outlining the pattern of future strategic offensive arms reduction talks.

Finally Russia should toughen its military-technical and diplomatic-political response to the United States in case it doesn’t realize what kind of adventure it is pushing the world into while vibrantly developing and installing practically everywhere its missile defense components that enhance the US nuclear potential capability. A long time experience of arms control testifies Washington doesn’t understand the language of polite diplomacy, but rather practical military-technical actions making it also face the complex challenges to its own security.

While Russia’s and US technical experts discuss some missile defense aspects till the end of this year it’s expedient to come out with a simple but logical step (if such a proposal has not been put forward to the White House as yet): to freeze further deployment of US and NATO missile defense in Europe till the experts’ work is done. It’ll make their efforts more fruitful.

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  1. NMD becomes a theme for everybody, even adventurists.
    Sorry but it strikes an eye. The number of ships and interceptors has nothing to do with what we have here, in the USA. SM-2 is an old weapon, it has never been capable of hitting stategic, intermediate or anything else but small range ballistic missiles at terminal stage and it has nothing to do with the NMD. The author probably counted frigates into the number of surface Aegic platforms, a grave mistake. The article puts forward unsubstantiated affirmations. this is outright incompetence, but what is peculiar – the author represents the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies funded by the Russian state. Is it the point of view of the institute or the state? Is it formal? Or just another case someone writes about the things he doesn’t know the first thing about just for the pleasure of it? And we are trying to erect only one shield – NMD, we don’t have many shields in the USA as the caption states.

  2. Vladimir Kozin

    I always prefer to read any written text very carefully, especially before I give my comment on its substance.
    1. The number of “Aegis” ships, the USA is going to have by 2041 (84)was borrowerd from the US Congressionl Reseach Service Report “Navy Aegis Cruiser and Desrtoyer Modernization….”, January 18,2011 p.2. These 84 ships equate to about 27 percent of the entire US Navy by that time. You will defenitely see then in different US bases.
    2. This fleet includes only cruisers and destroyers of specific type, not frigates, as you put it. I did not use word “frigates” in my conmment and will never use in this context.
    3. I did not say in my comment that US interceptors can hit “strategic” ballistic missiles (according to int’l accords,flying beyond 5,500 km). But they can destroy short-range, medium-range and intermediate-range missiles (in the last case – the ballistic missiles that can fly between 3,000 to 5,500 km). It was clearly stated by a “top-gun” expert – Lt.Gen. Patric O’Reilly, the US Missile Defense Agency Director in the HR anf the Senate hearings in 2011 (his statements can easily be obtained via the Internet; see the respective MDA web-site).
    4. True,SM-2 are being replaced by SM-3. But this process has not been finished yet. This fact is undisputable – everybody knows that. In terms of the US EPAA Russia’s main concern are not SM-2, but rather SM-3. We know the difference between them.
    5. Yes, the USA are trying to erect “one” BMD shield, but on a global scale. But, it consists of several BMD shields or layers: on the continental USA (land-based GBI), new one – now being fielded in Europe (initially, sea-based, and later, land-based). The US Naval BMDS has been emplaced in Asia-Pacific. There are suggestions to install the BMDS interceptors aboard UAV – heavy unmanned drones, as well. There are plans to put them into space (in the long run). If they are linked with (bolted onto) the strategic and tactical nuclear arms, they will explode the entire global strategic stability. By the way, Moscow does not plans to move forward its national BMDS close to the US shores, and can give Washington and NATO all legally binding guarantees not to use its own BMD assets vs the US and NATO.
    6. So, there are no “unsubstantial affirmations” or “outright incompetence” in the original comment of mine. When you claim so, you are blaiming at the same time the US authorities who have revealed these facts and shared the relevant figures with the US general public.
    Do not worry, Michael, – I still remember the English saying “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”. And I think that you now have a wonderful opportunity to look through the US official statements and see what they have said by themselves. You will find more interesting facts and figures than you have found in my reporting. So, go ahead, check it out! Good luck!
    PS. Why not to cancel (stop)the EPAA at all?
    Vladimir Kozin

  3. Talking about SM-2 and SM-3. Non of them pose any threat to Russia. I suggest that everybody should write about the things they know. Whatever is in the article starkly contradicts what the leading Russian experts (real experts like Mr. Esin, for instance) say. Sir, I reccomend you leave all these missiles balony for not being someone who knows the first thing about these things. National Missile Defense is a theme for experts.
    Michael Annap, US Navy captain (ret)

  4. Vladimir

    Michael, hi,
    It is good that you have responded to my previous remarks. Happy that you have read them carefully. I say so, because your comment is a rather short one. You have mentioned several topics:
    1) As to SM-2 and SM-3. True, none of them pose any threat to Russia, provided they are stored in the continental USA. But if they move closely to the Russian shores, they may create a lot of troubles to us.
    To go by Lt-Gen Patrick O’Reilly, the US Missile Defense Agency Director, SM-3 interceptors can hit “intermediate ballistic missiles” having the travelling range between 3,000 to 5,500 km. So, if USS “Monterey” CG-61 sails in the Black Sea, she can create some problems there for Russia’s defense. This ship has already stayed in the Black Sea for 15 days last year. By the way, how many SM-3s she can fire from her 122 VLS tubes in a single salvo? Any idea?
    2)Yes, my article really contradicts with some “leading Russian experts”, as you put it, dealing with the US BMDS in Europe. It is true.
    So what? First of all, they are not so “leading” (like Mr. Esin, e.g. and some others), because they openly advocate the US desire to field the BMDS near Russia. But lucky we are, that Mr Esin, Dvorkin,Oznobischev and some others are not invoved in a decision-making process to formulate our responses to react to the US BMDS shemes (or the EPAA). Their voice is not heard at all, and their recommendations have not been accepted, and will not be accepted as serious proposals. Their “advices” have evoked sharp criticism in the local press.
    Why? A) because they mislead the general public here, use distorted information, and therefore, have no chances to persuade the Russian leaders to change their mind as to the US BMDS in Europe;
    B) because we have much more leading, high calliber, experts in Russia who can assess the US BMDS (EPAA)plans more soberly and precisely. Yes, you rightly observe that the BMDS is a theme for bona fide experts(not the NMD, because it existed as a term between 1999 till 2002; after that time it is gradually becoming a global system). And they are: the President (by the way, he is the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, like your President), the Prime-Minister, the Defense and Foreign Ministries, etc. There is also an Expert Working Group on the BMD matters attached to the Presidential Administration. Namely they evaluate and assess the threats and challenges stemming from different sources and directions, but not pro-Western retired generals or academics who have already compromised themselves by their own articles and public remarks.
    So, I think that now you will see the difference between them and the persons invoved in a “realpolitik”, and will understand our “domestic” vision of the US BMDS much better.
    Good luck,

  5. The author undermines the official Russian position on the issue. But says he works for the President’s administration. So someone who is clearly incompetent advices the Russian President! What about the editor of the Oriental Review? Does he understand he is responsible for what he prints? Does he not understand that if our General Riley really said the things Mr. Kozin ascribes to him due to his lack of knowledge of English he would be dismissed from the Armed Forces in a few minutes? What about RISI research institute do they really treat seriously such “experts”? Are tbey incompetent too? And spend Russian taxpayers money this way! Here at NATO HQ we’ll certainly raise the issues with our Russian colleagues I’ve already talked it over with Russian General (ret) Zolotarev, who is a leading expert of Institute of the USA studies (ISCRAN). He told me not to take Mr. Kozin seriously, but I am flabbergasted by the incompetence of Russian editors who let such “stuff” see light. Do they not understand they offend readers and bring damage to their own country?

  6. frank gaffney

    The right term is National Missile Defense. We don’t say BMDSs, it’s never plural. The term is very much in force. At least here, at NATO HQ. And the Russsian expertsd mentioned (Zolotarev, Arbatov, Rogov, Esin others) were the ones to meet the Russian President. Mr. Kozin was not anmong those who were invited. I still think they have much more influence than the author of the “BMDs” article thinks. The article shows he has a long way to go to get acqainted with the security issues. By the way Russian President never said SM-2 and existing modifications of SM-3 posed any threat to Russia’s strategic potential.I think it’s more blessed to stick to KNOW FIRST WRITE SECOND principle. Myb dear colleague Valery is right as she always is.

  7. @Valery Brandt

    Valery, you are welcome to write any article on the subject of your competence and we assure you that it will be considered with due respect. But please try not to be as emotional and pointless as you were in your comment. Sorry to say, but Mr.Kozin’s post and comments look much more informative and insightful than yours…


    Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) is the official term of the Department of Defense of the United States. In case of doubt please google it. Think first, then post :)

  8. Vladimir

    Dear readers,
    Some remarks that have been already made by a number of esteemed foreign commentators need to be answered because they seemingly are not aware of the current realities dealt with the US BMDS through Russian perspective.
    1)As to the terminology. The US Missile Defense Agency interprets the “BMDS” as “Ballistic Missile Defense System” (not “systemS”). Here in Russia we have the same term “Система ПРО” which is absolutely the same (a 100% equivalent).
    2)Whatever Lt-Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, the US MDA Director, have said during a number of Congressional hearings on the US BMDS between 2009-2012 are HIS statements and that of the US MDA, but not as alleged Russian interpretation. These unclassified statements are awailable at the US MDA web-site and can be verified by anybody all over the world via the Internet.
    3)Russia’s major concern are phases 3 and 4 of the EPAA, where SM-3 interceptors occupy the leading role, as it was annownced by the the US President, US Defense Secretary and the US MDA Director many times. The fact that in some Russian official statements stages 3 and 4 of the EPAA are specifically mentioned, without making direct references to the SM-3 interceptors, means nothing substantial. The crux is the same – the fielding US BMDS close to Russian borders is no good for Russia.
    4)True, that some of the Russian experts, including pro-Western and those who share official Moscow’s view on the BMD issue, have been invited to talk to Mr Vladimir Putin earlier this year. At the meeting held in Sarov city on February 24th the next Russian President (after the inauguration on May 7th) reiterated Russian official stance on the BMD issue with the USA (to be more accurate I quote it in Russian): “Что касается выстраивания наших дальнейших отношений по ПРО, они серьёзно не хотят с нами разговаривать (вот министр обороны здесь сидит, здесь некоторые другие коллеги есть), я вам могу сказать точно – они уклоняются. По сути всё, что делается в этой сфере, – это разговор на заданную тему с попыткой представить международной общественности дело таким образом, что да, развиваются наши отношения, да, технологии уходят вперёд, да, угрозы возникают, и никто не может им запретить эти угрозы купировать на будущее для своей национальной безопасности. А кто против-то? Понятно, что нужно купировать угрозы для своей национальной безопасности, но нужно сделать это таким образом, чтобы не создавать новых угроз глобального характера, не разрушать вот этот баланс стратегических сил, вот о чём идёт речь. Но всё-таки, на наш взгляд, предпринимается попытка этот баланс разрушить и создать для себя монополию на неуязвимость, вот о чём идёт речь. И нам просто нужно делать то, о чём мы уже сказали. А о чём мы уже сказали? Что мы будем предпринимать ассиметричные, но эффективные шаги, я уже говорил публично, ещё раз могу сказать, мы разговаривали с прежним президентом, я сказал: «Если вы будете так дальше действовать, мы вынуждены будем ассиметрично эти шаги предпринимать. Допустим, создавать новые комплексы, которые будут гораздо более эффективными по преодолению этой системы ПРО, это нам дешевле и проще. Что будет потом? Мы посмотрим, но так как вы нам говорите, что это не направлено против нас, системы ПРО, так и мы говорим вам, что они не направлены против вас». Ответ был простой: «Делайте, что хотите, мы же не враги больше». – «Хорошо, мы так и сделаем». Вот у нас уже «Тополь-М», «Ярс», десять ракетных полков оснащено, – это не всё, что мы ещё можем сделать. Но мне кажется, что всё-таки осознание того, что мы можем воткнуться в какой-то новый виток этой гонки вооружений, он всё-таки должен нас всех подвигнуть к тому, что нужно быть более конструктивными в ходе переговорного процесса, – это первое”. So, the official Russian position on the BMD issue was clearly stated.
    What has happened with the Russian stance on the BMD issue after that meeting in Sarov? It has NOT been reconsidered at all! More that that, three days after the talk Mr.Vladimir Puti has published an article in the “Moscow News” national newspaper entitled as “Russia and the Changing World” where his remarks on the US BMDS became more stronger (see the original para):

    “Как и прежде, считаю, что к числу важнейших постулатов относятся неделимый характер безопасности для всех государств, недопустимость гипертрофированного применения силы и безусловное соблюдение основополагающих принципов международного права. Пренебрежение всем этим ведет к дестабилизации международных отношений.

    Именно через такую призму мы воспринимаем некоторые аспекты поведения США и НАТО, которые не вписываются в логику современного развития, опираются на стереотипы блокового мышления. Все понимают, что я имею в виду. Это расширение НАТО, включающее размещение новых объектов военной инфраструктуры, и планы альянса (с американским авторством) по созданию системы ПРО в Европе. Не стал бы касаться этой темы, если бы такие игры не велись непосредственно у российских границ, если бы они не расшатывали нашу безопасность, если бы они не работали против стабильности в мире. Наша аргументация хорошо известна, не буду ее вновь разжевывать, но, к сожалению, она не воспринимается западными партнерами, от нее отмахиваются”.
    So, the key words used by him here are: the US/NATO BMD in Europe is “shaking our [Russian] security”, and is working “against the stability in the world”.
    In the other paragraph below Mr. Vladimir Putin said the following:
    “Повторю, что американская затея с созданием системы ПРО в Европе вызывает у нас законные опасения. Почему эта система беспокоит нас больше, чем других? Да потому, что она затрагивает имеющиеся только у России на этом театре силы стратегического ядерного сдерживания, нарушает выверенный десятилетиями военно-политический баланс.

    Неразрывная взаимосвязь между ПРО и стратегическими наступательными вооружениями отражена в подписанном в 2010 году новом Договоре по СНВ. Договор вступил в силу и неплохо работает. Это крупное внешнеполитическое достижение. Мы готовы рассматривать разные варианты того, что может составить нашу совместную с американцами повестку дня в области контроля над вооружениями на предстоящий период. Незыблемым правилом при этом должен стать баланс интересов, отказ от попыток через переговоры добиться для себя односторонних преимуществ.

    Напомню, что я еще президенту Дж. Бушу на встрече в Кеннебанкпорте в 2007 году предлагал решение проблемы ПРО, которое — будь оно принято — изменило бы привычный характер российско-американских отношений, перевело бы ситуацию в позитивное русло. Более того, если бы тогда удалось добиться прорыва по ПРО, то в буквальном смысле открылись бы шлюзы для выстраивания качественно новой, близкой к союзнической модели сотрудничества и во многих других чувствительных областях.

    Не получилось. Было бы, наверное, полезно поднять запись переговоров в Кеннебанкпорте. В последние годы российским руководством делались и другие предложения, как можно было бы договориться по ПРО. Все они — в силе. Во всяком случае, не хотелось бы ставить крест на возможности поисков компромиссных вариантов решения проблемы ПРО. Не хотелось бы доводить дело до размещения американской системы в таких масштабах, чтобы это потребовало реализации наших объявленных контрмер”.

    Mr. Putin observed that the US BMDS in Europe “is causing amongst us legitimate concerns”, because it touches upon not only the Russian strategic deterrence, but undermines the “military-political balance that have shaped up during several decades”. He also mentioned the objective interrelationship between the the BMD and the Strategic Offensive Arms – the point many Russian pro-Western prefer to neglect.

    What is more important that the current position of the Kremlin on the US BMDS is not going to be changed after Mr. Vladimir Putin will be sworn in as the next Russian President on May 7th, 2012.
    5) The truth is that a number of pro-Western Russian experts that has attended the meeting with Mr.Vladimir Putin in Sarov city on February 24th, 2012 have not been able to change the Russian official stance on the BMD issue. Their well-known positive attitude towards the US BMDS in Europe does not mean that they reflect official point of view on the issue. All of them reveal their own, privite assessments. I was not at the Sarov meeting and therefore could not influence on Mr.Putin’s views on the matter under consideration, either.
    By the way, after that conversation Mr.Esin and Mr. Savostianov admitted publicly that the USA can increase the velocity of their interceptors and emplace weapons in space in the future, and that it might create problems for Russia. Mr. Arbatov prefers to stay “in the shadow” (avoiding to take part in the discussion where previously he took part). Mr.Oznobischev and Mr.Dvorkin claim that the US BMDS in Europe will do no harm to Russia. Former General Zolotarev in an article published by “Nezavisimoe Vojennoe Obozrenie” (No 14, April-May 2012) admitted that there is a ground for concern over the US BMD and that the lack of clarity in the US BMD makes further reductions in Strategic Offensive Arms “problematic”. Mr. Rogov does not want to spoil his relationship both with Moscow and Washington. At the same time he made some negative points towards the US BMDS in Europe and labelled some Russian scholars backing the the Kremlin’s position on the BMDS as “hurray-patriots” that caused displeasure in the respectivbe circles: Mr.Putin said that in the terms of national security to use the term “hurray-patriots” is irrelevant.
    The Russian academic community currently are conducting a rather tough and even fierce discussion on the US BMD issue – unlike in the past. It is good, really good fenomena while creating a civil society. Nevertheless,I have a normal, business-like working relations with those Russian scholars who openly crticise me for my pro-Kremlin stance on the BMD issue. It is really good fenomena, because, as we used to say: “The truth may stem from the debates”.
    6) On May 3-4, 2012 the Russian Ministry of Defense have conducted an international conference on the BMD issue where it prooved quite the contary – the system can pose a real threat to the Russian strategic capabilities at a later stages. The material of the conference is worth reading, I believe, for better understanding Russian national position on the US/NATO BMDS in Europe.

    7) And a final brush. I have noticed a long time ago that too many Americans still adore their pro-Western “comrades” for their criticism of the Soviet Union and later Russia and for their sharing of Western views on strtategic security matters that undermine my country’s security and her national interests. At the same time they hate those Russians who advocate Russian national position on the same issues. It is their owm business, we do not care.It will do no harm to the letter. Some harch criticism that have been heard already in this domain signifies that someimes, to go by Russian proverb, “the real truth pricks an eye” (direct translation; the meaninfg is “the real truth annoys the other side who hears it”).
    Partly, there is one of the reason, why there is a mistrust between the USA and Russia.
    Do you know, by chance, the saying that has been used by ex-President Ronald Reagan while meeting with thew Soviet newsmen in the White House – a long time ago: “People arm because they mistrust each other, and people mistrust each other because they arm”. What do you think about it?

    Good luck and take care!

  9. Vladimir

    Hi, everybody,
    As I have tolsd you earlier, the Russian Defense Ministry has organized a representational international conference called “Missile Defense Factor in Establishing New Security Environment” on May 3-4 in Moscow to correlate positions of many interested states on the burning issue of missile defense.
    Over 200 experts from military departments of 50 countries, including 28 NATO states, have gathered in the Russian capital to share opinions.
    Opening the conference, Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov stated that so far no mutually-acceptable solution to the issue of ABM has been found.

    “The situation is practically heading towards a dead end,” acknowledged Servdyukov.
    Russia is ready for a pre-emptive strike on European missile defense systems if the US refuses dialogue, stated Russia’s Chief of General Staff Nikolay Makarov at the Moscow ABM conference.
    ­“Considering the destabilizing nature of the [American] BMD system, namely the creation of an illusion of inflicting a disarming [nuclear] strike with impunity, a decision on pre-emptive deployment of assault weapons could be taken when the situation gets harder,” Gen. Makarov told the audience.

    The projected European missile defense system could by 2020 have the ability to intercept Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles, Secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev said on Thursday.
    The United States and NATO agreed to develop the system at a summit in Lisbon in 2010, but talks between Russia and the alliance have floundered over NATO’s refusal to grant Russia legal guarantees that the system would not be aimed against Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent.
    “By 2018-2020 – that is the third and fourth phases of the deployment of the Euro-missile defense in Europe – the continent should have enough anti-missile defense to be able to intercept part of Russia’s intercontinental ballistic missiles, and submarine launched ballistic missiles,” Patrushev said at an international conference on Euro-missile defense in Moscow.
    “The geographical regions and technical characteristics of these missile defense systems create the foundations for additional dangers, especially considering the current and future levels of high-precision armament of the United States,” he said.
    “Our experts say other targets, which could require serious missile defense against it, do not really exist,” he said.
    Patrushev said the creation of the Euro-missile defense, which is taking place without Russia’s agreement and will lead to a degradation of Russia’s nuclear deterrent, could lead to a disbalance in strategic stability at the regional and global levels.
    “The refusal to discuss the conditions for providing legal binding guarantees for the deployment system to be not aimed at Russia strengthens our convictions that the real goal of this missile defense system could differ from what is stated,” he said.
    Russia’s military and political leadership has already warned its western partners several times that if talks fail, Russia may take a series of measures including deployment of Iskander short-range nuclear-capable tactical ballistic missiles in the Kaliningrad exclave, as well as in the south and south-east.
    So, I personally share all these views expressed at the Moscow conference.

  10. Vladimir

    Additionally, I would like to add:
    New Russia weapons to counter NATO strategic fist – expert
    Published: 23 May, 2012, 19:57
    Edited: 24 May, 2012, 11:43
    Russia Today TV network:

    In light of America and NATO’s blunt refusal to cooperate with Russia on a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, Russia has put the development of new offensive weapons on the fast track.
    Vladimir Kozin, the leading researcher at the Russian Strategic Research Institute (RISI), praised the test launch on Wednesday of a new intercontinental ballistic missile, saying it is an important step to further perfecting Russia’s strategic offensive weapons
    “The new missile project is a step in the right direction at a time when the United States is engaged in…large-scale modernization of its strategic and tactical nuclear potentials, and amid the continuing deployment of the European and global missile defense systems,” he said.
    The researcher said the US system targeted Russia’s “national interests and defense nuclear potential,” a view held by many Russian military analysts.
    Defense Ministry spokesman Vadim Koval said the first launch of the prototype missile, which successfully hit a target on the far eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, took place at the Plesetsk launchpad in northern Russia.
    “The launch was conducted using a mobile launch vehicle by RVSN combat units and the Aerospace Defense Forces,” the spokesman said.
    Meanwhile, Kozin, who is a member of the Experts Council of the Kremlin’s Interagency Group for Interaction on Missile Defense with NATO, pointed to NATO’s recent summit, where it was decided to “form a sort of Chicago triad – a radically new decision to combine nuclear and conventional weapons, together with the missile defense system, into one strategic fist.”
    Such a development, says Kozin, presents a real threat to Russia and its allies.
    “Such a combination carries even more threats for Russia and its allies and friends, than a separately operating missile shield,” according to the top-ranking missile researcher. “Washington, as NATO’s May summit demonstrated, continues to neglect the Russian leadership’s concerns about the absolutely unjustified assembly of a multi-layered missile defense structure near the Russian borders, as well as Russia’s proposals to form a less provocative, but more efficient missile defense structure.”
    Russia must take adequate counter-measures and develop advanced means to penetrate the US-NATO missile defense infrastructure and, concurrently, to depreciate their nuclear-missile potential, he added.
    Is NATO luring Russia into summit trap?
    Published: 11 March, 2012, 15:59
    Edited: 20 March, 2012, 18:56
    Russia Today TV network:

    Washington’s election-year offer to share with Russia data on a US-built European missile defense system will likely fail to address Moscow’s objections to the project, a Russian security expert says.
    Vladimir Kozin, a senior researcher at the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies (RISI), said Moscow’s lack of full membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) precludes the military bloc from data-sharing sensitive information with Russia.
    “I doubt that the offer of the US Defense Department, which has been voiced in general terms, will materialize since Russia is not a member of the trans-Atlantic alliance,” Kozin said. “US legislation prohibits the sharing of technological secrets with countries that are not…100-percent military and political allies, and countries with which there are no plans for joint combat operation on a global scale.”
    Russia has warned the US and NATO on many occasions that the construction of a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, without Russia’s cooperation, will be viewed as a potential threat to its national security.
    Earlier, Bradley Roberts, US Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary, told a congressional meeting that Washington was willing to share with Russia “secret data” on the planned missile shield in a bid to break the deadlock in Russian-American talks on the controversial project.
    Kozin doubted the sincerity of the invitation due to its unofficial delivery.
    “Offers of this kind, if they really are a serious invitation, would only be made in official form and not through the media or through public statements,” noted the researcher, who also serves as liaison between the Kremlin and NATO on the missile defense project.
    According to Kozin, the best explanation for Washington’s statement on date sharing is the upcoming NATO Summit, scheduled for May 21-22 in Chicago.
    He said the goal of Roberts’ statement was “to lure Russian representatives” to the summit, where a Russia-NATO summit could be held on the sidelines.
    At such a meeting, however, “Moscow is unlikely to be offered anything of substance on the missile defense issue,” Kozin said.
    It would hardly make any sense for Russian representatives to be present at such a venue he said, while adding that the Pentagon’s initiative fails to address the main obstacle, which is the creation of a “cooperative” NATO-Russian missile defense shield in Europe, he said.
    Some political analysts have suggested that President Obama, who will be looking to win another four years in the White House in November elections, may be looking to lure Russian representatives to the NATO Summit with the goal of refusing Moscow cooperation on the system.
    “This could be an election-year move by Obama to silence Republican claims that the American president is going soft on the Russians,” said a senior-ranking defense industry consultant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to his proximity to the talks. “It seems unlikely that any game-changing offers will be made to the Russians in Chicago.”

Leave a Reply