European Missile Defense Tour 2010

In September 2009, the "kényian d’Indonésie" scrapped the plans of the George Bush administration to deploy elements of the shield in the Czech Republic and Poland aka the New Europe. Over the course of the recent weeks, there was a plethora of news related to quest for a new missile defense architecture. Let’s try to cast some light on this obfuscated issue by taking off to a trip through Eastern Europe.

Poland – the old ally

Under the duumvirate of the Kaczynski brothers, Poland was a steadfast yea-sayer in the framework of the GBMD plan and accepted willfully to host ten interceptor missiles. This attitude has changed when Donald Tusk took over the position as prime minister. He remained noncommittal: “We must know the answer to the question whether [missile defense] increases or decreases Poland’s safety,” he said upon assuming office.

Poland tried to extract concessions from the Bush administration, including the deployment of Patriot missile batteries and in early December 2009 after some hiccups, Poland and the United States signed a deal that paved the way for the deployment of a PAC battery in Morag in northern Poland. The site is about 50km southeast of the Baltic Sea and 65km southwest of the Russian city of Kaliningrad. The choice of site is said to have everything to do with infrastructure and nothing to do with Russia.

While the 10 interceptor missiles negotiated under the Bush administration found their way only into history books but not to Redzikowo where they were inteded to be deployed, Poland is on schedule for its deployment of Patriot missiles, despite grumblings from Moscow. American troops should be manning the new missiles sites by the start of April.

The Russian reaction to this was not hard to predict: saber-rattling and mawkishness! Nikolay Makarov, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation complained that the Europeans are ungrateful because Russia “actually carried out the demilitarization of Kaliningrad Oblast [while] the countries of the West began to increase their arsenal, including batteries of Patriot air defense complexes in Poland.”

The purpose of the interceptors was in between discussed by RIA Novosti which came up with a very poignant argument: “Given the lack of critical facilities in the vicinity, the current position of the [Morag] Patriot battery renders it essentially useless as a means of missile defense, which confirms that Warsaw's foreign policy is directed against Russia and that Washington backs this policy.”

Viktor Litovkin, Editor-in-Chief of the Независимое Военное Обозрение (Nezavisimoye Voyennoe Obozreniye, Independent Military Review), elaborated further on that:

“Iran does not have missiles that could fly to Poland. It is not likely that [such missiles] will emerge in the Islamic Republic of Iran in the next 20-30 years. There is a technological gulf between the missiles, which Teheran has at the present time, and missiles that would be able to strike the territory of Poland.”

Litovkin definitely had a point when he asserted:

“Patriot missiles are used against air targets and tactical and operational-tactical missiles that fly over distances from 150 kilometers to 300 kilometers. Consequently, it is clear that the Patriot batteries are intended for counteracting missiles which may fly to Poland from territories of its immediate neighbors—Kaliningrad Oblast and Belarus.”

This viewpoint is also shared by Riki Ellison, Chairman and Founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, who said in a statement:

Contrary to the [U.S.]Administration's decision, the President's new missile defense plan and its sensitivity to Russia to withdraw long-range ballistic missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend Europe and the United States from Iran, this decision is directly providing Poland a capability with deployed U.S. troops to defend Polish military against Russia with no intention of the future threat from Iran to Europe. [...] This decision would also seem to be against the Administration's goodwill and intention to move forward with Russia on the START Follow-On Treaty.

Aleksandr Khramchikhin, Deputy Director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis in Moscow, kept cool(er) than Litovkin and said that

“...it is necessary to keep in mind that [the PACs] are exclusively defensive in nature. Simply put, they can be used against Russia only if Russia attacks Poland. I do not understand why the General Staff is overreacting to the sending of American missile interceptors to Poland.”

While the PACs are ill-suited to defend Poland or the United States from a hypothetical Iranian attack with (currently non-existing) IRBMs or ICBMs, the SM-3s that are scheduled to be deployed in 2015 are better suited to do so. Warsaw agreed on March 2 to a new version of a deal on stationing SM-3s, a government statement said, adding it would be aimed essentially at potential threats from Iran. Other sources report that the missile silos in northern Poland are not likely to come online before 2018.

The necessary Status of Forces Agreement has already been signed by President Kaczynski on February 27. The agreement will make it possible to establish a periodic, and then – in accordance to U.S. declarations, by the year 2012 – permanent base of a Patriot air defense missile battery, and in the future also a base of SM-3 missiles.

In short: in spite of the change from the Bush to the Obama missile defense architecture, nothing has changed in terms of the role that Warsaw plays in this system. It is still a reliable partner. Let’s see what the next country has to offer.

Czech Republic – vacillating but on board

Originally, the Czech Republic was chosen as partner to host the X-band radar in Brdy, southwest of Prague. In March 2009 the Czech government withdrew treaties committing the country to the US' missile defense shield from parliament. In the recent weeks the Czech Republic has appeared to be sidelined from missile-defense developments which was perceived by Czech officials as a payback for the withdrawing.

Senior U.S. and Czech officials discussed in January 2010 Prague's potential role in the updated U.S. plan for European missile defense. In February, a high-level defense policy expert with ties to Washington D.C. said the Czech Republic is in discussions with the Obama administration to host a command center for the United States’ altered missile-defense plan. However, these discussions are in the early stages. A Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesman refused to come up with detailed information and simply said that “no concrete proposal has been mentioned yet.”

The Czech Foreign Minister Kohout was more outspoken when he praised the fact that the new U.S. project of anti-missile defense embraces all NATO allies and that the Prague will play an active role in it. He said on March 4, however, he does not expect a command post to be established in the Czech Republic, but rather a post serving information exchange.

“We are expected to shoulder responsibility for our own security and Europe to invest means into becoming a partner of the United States,” not a client, Kohout said.

We will have to wait for more information to see whether Kohut’s statement will have a real impact or if it was only a kind of re-labeling intended to soothe the Czech population that vehemently opposed the original missile shield plans. What other tasks does a command post have than the exchange of information?

However, there was only one source that reported recently that Czech participation would exceed the role of a information broker / command center host: according to UPI SM-3 systems will also be based in the Czech Republic from 2015 on.

Romania –new best buddy

After having scrapped the Bush missile defense plan, Obama came up with a scaled-back successor plan called for Mediterranean Sea-based radars to monitor potential projectiles launched by Iran, and shorter-range missiles to be deployed in an southeast European country, that was at the time of the announcement undisclosed. This changed in February 2010 with a beat of the drum: the Romanian President Traian Băsescu announced on February 4 that he had received a formal proposal from U.S. President Barack Obama to participate in the deployment of an American missile defense system. Romania’s Supreme Defense Council has already approved the plan to host 20 SM-3 interceptors (other sources speak of 24 interceptors) but according to Foreign Minister Teodor Baconschi, negotiations alone might last a year and a half and the agreement will be implemented after it is ratified in Parliament. The installations are scheduled to become operational by 2015.

Ellen Tauscher, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, specified the new proposal and highlighted that it is limited to hosting a land-based site SM-3. She said the U.S. had no plans to deploy Aegis ships and there are no sea-based missile defence elements in the Black Sea.

MDAA’s Rikki Ellision analyzed the capabilities of Romanian site:

Placing the proposed capability by 2015 in Romania with the current sea -based defensive missiles (SM3 Block 1A) [...] can only technically provide fixed protection of a few nearby countries from an Iranian ballistic missile threat. Iran’s intermediate-range missile system currently in development, the Shahab-3 (with a 1200 mile range), will severely challenge the system in Romania as projected. This is due to the narrow defended area that its capability can provide. Requirements for the proposed site in Romania and the Land -based Aegis Ashore system have not been set. [...] Future adoption and integration of remote sensors coupled with the future capabilities of faster and more adept interceptors could lead to a much more enhanced site. This could lead to a system with the potential to have more capability than the canceled site in Poland or the current capabilities our country now has in place. Because of time and development this would most likely be a decision made by the next Administration.

Romanian officials are delighted by the increased attention their country receives. Gabriel Obrea, Romania’s Defense Minister, said: "Romania becomes an important landmark within NATO and EU and brings more security not only to the Romanian people but also to the entire south-east Europe.” While Romanian Foreign Minister Teodor Baconschi said the defense system will provide the protection of the entire national territory and it will not have significant costs for the Romanian side, rumors emerged that Romania would have to pay half of the allegedly €4 billion cost ($5.4 billion).

It is surprising that even a couple of days after Băsescu’s announcement the topic hardly made it into the news in spite of all the controversial issues that it contains. One analyst noted that the response in Romania will clearly depend on the stance of the various political parties. Chances are that only marginal nationalistic parties, plus pacifist groups, will vocally oppose the missile system.

In spite of all the excitement of Romania’s new grandeur, Bucharest is aware of the fact that the United Sates has also other options:

“Romania is closer to Iran, of course, than Poland or the Czech Republic,” the channel said. "However, Turkey, an old member of NATO, is even closer,” [Romania’s NTV channel] noted, adding that the Americans are negotiating the issue with the Turkish authorities.

Regardless of how far these negotiations with Ankara have matured, the adoption of the Armenian Genocide Resolution by the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee on March 4 deferred the discussions indefinitely.

As always, there is also a grain / pinch / package of salt. Vesti TV Channel highlighted that it is still unclear if the new missile shield system will be effective, how real the Iranian threat is, and how the news plans will influence relations of the U.S. and Romania with other countries, first of all, with Russia. Moscow indicated what kind of impact the new plans might have on international relations. Russian officials reacted coolly to the news that Romania had agreed to host American missile interceptors, with a top envoy saying that the announcement could directly affect Moscow’s position as negotiations to replace START reach their conclusion. Though the general outlines of the new missile defense plan were made public months ago, Russian officials made it clear that they were taken aback by the announcement of Romania’s role. Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov said the Russian and American presidents had agreed that the “threats and risks of missile proliferation will be assessed jointly as a first step.”

Aleksandr Khramchikhin doubted that the Romanian president’s words could guarantee that “the U.S. missiles will be deployed in that country.” He continued: “I think Băsescu statement does not mean anything. [...] It is clear that such decisions are taken in Washington rather than in Bucharest,” the analyst noted, adding that the case of Warsaw and Prague shows that the decision may be reversed.

RIA Novosti came up with its own theory of what will be deployed: “...it is reasonable to assume that the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) mobile ground-based radar system will be deployed in Romania instead of the SM-3 missile system, which hasn't been created yet.” But THAAD is not all:

One has to admit that deploying elements of the U.S. missile defense system in Romania will neither pose a threat to Russia nor change the strategic balance between Moscow and Washington. However, the U.S. plans to deploy more powerful anti-ballistic missiles in Europe by 2018-2020. These will probably be silo-based missiles, for example upgraded SM-3 missiles with high runway speeds and interception altitudes exceeding 1,000 kilometers, making it possible to destroy not only ICBM warheads but also ballistic missiles launched by Russia.

We will see what half-life the current plan has and if it will be reversed just to become a footnote in the Molvanîa guidebook.

Bulgaria

Bulgaria was also among the list of countries that expressed interest in hosting a base. This interested was welcomed inter alia by U.S. ambassador to Bulgaria, James Warlick who said that Bulgaria "has a place in the U.S. missile defense shield”. Bulgarian Prime Minister Boiko Borisov stressed he would not be alone in making the decision on whether his nation would play a role in the missile shield, but said that, as a European Union and NATO member, Sofia should "show solidarity."

Russia reacted surprised when Bulgaria was named as a potential interceptor host and has submitted a formal request to Bulgaria for information on reports that it is in talks with the United States on hosting elements of a planned European missile defense shield: "We have already asked our partners in Washington ... what does this all mean and why after the Romanian 'surprise' there is a Bulgarian 'surprise' now," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an RIA news agency report.

Bulgaria's president, Georgi Parvanov backpaddled somewhat trying to soothe Russia’s concerns. He was quoted saying that there had been no official talks between Bulgaria and Washington on hosting the missile shield. This was echoed by the United States that said it has not yet asked Bulgaria to host any missile interceptors.

Again, RIA Novosti’s assumptions of what will be deployed in Bulgaria are “special”: the news agency reported that Bulgaria could host a THAAD radar station with a direction range of 1,000 kilometers.

One has to wait for the official talks to get more insight … unless RIA Novosti provides us with more information ahead of these meetings.

Russia – on the other side of the iron curtain

Like his counterparts in the other countries, Romanian President Traian Băsescu highlighted from the very beginning that the new system is not directed against Russia but “against other threats.” Unfortunately, he did not elucidate which other threats he had in mind. Mr. Băsescu reiterated this peaceful character several times and added recently that the system is only “offensive [for] propaganda reasons.”

These reassurances obviously had an effect on some analysts who believed that Moscow might not be irritated with the new deployment plans:

When the U.S. wanted to deploy elements of the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, “Russia stressed that if they are still to be deployed somewhere, then Romania and Bulgaria could be the best place,” Aleksandr Khramchikhin, deputy director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis [in Moscow], told Gazeta daily.”

In retrospect, this analysis was definitely far out. If Russia indeed said such things, Moscow obviously forgot about it. Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov said the new plan is very familiar to the old one from the Bush-era:

“It is still unclear what infrastructure and weapons systems are concerned. If they are identical to those the Bush administration planned to deploy in the Czech Republic, then it's just trading one problem for another,” Ivanov said.

Dmitry Rogozin, the head of Russia’s mission to NATO, even said that Romania’s decision only confirms the fact that “there is no difference between the race for anti-ballistic missiles and strategic offensive weapons.” This is a quite bizarre line of the thought of the ambassador who is not known for a restraint way of speaking. It seems that his skills lie rather in the field of the use of metaphorical language: on his Twitter feed he said that the proverbial Russian bear would "kick the ass" of the United States and its allies if cornered by a new U.S. missile shield.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev referred already last November to one element of what Rogozin referred to as “ass-kicking”: Medvedev threatened to retaliate if the U.S. missile shield plans go ahead by deploying Iskander-M missiles in the country's westernmost exclave of Kaliningrad, which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. Russia's foreign minister Lavrov reiterated this threat by saying that Moscow would be forced to position missiles on the EU border if U.S. missile defense components were deployed in Central Europe. The Russian defense minister Anatoliy Serdyukov also echoed the threat but came up with one condition for the deployment: if Moscow felt directly threatened. It was not the first time the threat has been reiterated. This is the reason why some analysts take do not take it overly serious:

In politics, failure to appreciate the importance of acting quickly invariably creates problems, the above situation being a vivid example. The Iskanders are a remarkably potent weapon but it appears that Moscow risks playing the card as a minor element in the diplomatic game. One gets an impression that the threat to deploy the missiles in the Kaliningrad region has been aired too long for NATO on the whole or even Poland and the Czech Republic to take it seriously.

It seems that either not even the own military is convinced by the constantly reiterated threat or that – once again – there is a lack of coordination inside the Russian military. Col. Gen. Alexander Postnikov, Russia's newly appointed chief of Ground Forces, denied that his country's plans to equip units in the northwestern military district with Iskander missiles later this year have anything to do with U.S. missile deployment in Europe. Maybe someone should have told him...

Kaliningrad is not the only region where Russia could deploy missiles. Luckily, the cornered and threatened Russia has powerful allies: Moldova's rebel region of Transdniestria said on February 15 it was ready to host Russian Iskander missiles if the Kremlin were to ask. Some analysts already said that the deployment of Iskander missiles would serve as the guarantee of normal coexistence of Russia and the “Atlantist Europe”. Hooray, happy cold-waring. And so the story continues: if you deploy your missiles in your satellite state, I will likewise deploy my missiles on the soil of my satellite state. Maybe nowadays sattelite states should be called partners, but that is a side issue for those people. However, Transdniestria linked the offer to the possible deployment of U.S. interceptor missiles to neighboring Romania.

Another rumor came up but was revoked: RIA Novosti news agency had quoted a high-ranking official in the Baltic Fleet as saying Russia would be boosting the weaponry of the fleet's ships, submarines and aircraft in response to the Polish announcement. The Russian Defense Ministry stated shortly afterwards that Russia had such plans.

If one reads some more extreme comments, the Iskander deployment in the Kaliningrad Oblast or the boosting of the navy seem totally harmless: Alexander Pikayev, a government employed expert, announced that Russia may respond to a launch of a BMD interceptor with a nuclear attack on Romania, believing it is not an interceptor, but a ballistic missile aimed at Russian territory.

Another way that Russia uses to put pressure on the United States is to threaten to walk away from the START+ negotiations. Armed forces chief of staff Makarov said differences over missile defense were among reasons "why we have not yet reached a signing of this agreement," RIA-Novosti reported. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said in an Interfax report that the planned Romanian involvement in the U.S. missile shield is "influencing" final talks on the START successor agreement "In the most immediate sense”.

A senior Russian lawmaker indicated that Russia's parliament is unlikely to ratify a START successor deal that does not include a link to missile defenses. Earlier, his U.S. colleagues warned such a link would not get past the Senate. This seems to be another sheer show of non-existent force. Despite the warnings of obstacles in getting a treaty through the Russian parliament, Konstantin Kosachyov, head of the State Duma committee for international relations, hinted that the concerns of the U.S. Senate meant the linkage between arms cuts and missile defense was unlikely to be included in the new pact.

However, not everyone is convinced by the threat scenario that Russian comes up with:

Former President George W. Bush’s plans for a limited strategic BMD deployment in the Czech Republic and Poland did not actually threaten Russia, but Russian political and military leaders deliberately created a standoff. The same process appears to be unfolding with the potential Romanian and Bulgarian BMD deployment plans.

It seems that this perception is shared by several U.S. officials. The United States is – or pretends to be – optimistic that the Russian rumbling will not last for a long time. Alexander Vershbow, Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, believes that discussions with Bulgaria and Romania about future missile sites should not have a long-lasting adverse affect on US-Russia negotiations.

Epilogue

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov summed up the present state of U.S.-Russian relations: “I will not say we are enemies, and I will not say we are friends.” Russian-U.S. friendship is not conditio sine qua non for having a working relationship based on trust and mutual interests. Washington took a step into the right direction when it called on Russia to participate in the missile defense endeavor. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview: "While Russia faces challenges to its security, NATO is not among them […] We want a cooperative NATO-Russia relationship that produces concrete results and draws NATO and Russia closer." Building a chain of missile defense bases around Russia’s borders and confronting Moscow with a fait accompli – like it seems that Washington did especially in the case of the Romanian base – is detrimental to the effort to build cooperative relationships. This is what irked Moscow most.

Likewise, Russia’s Rocket Rumbling does not help Moscow to be perceived as a partner on an equal footing. It only cements what the former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt once said: "The Soviet Union is like Upper-Volta with missiles."

Missle Defense Aftermath

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Saturday lashed out at critics of a new missile defense plan for Europe and insisted it was not a concession to Russia, as some charge. This is something that Senator John McCain, ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, accused the plan to be. Since when is making concessions a crime? Well, we already know for some time how McCain prefers to solve conflicts. Maybe he should take a conflict resolution class to learn that making concessions is neither a taboo nor a capital sin. Anyhow, I digress, let’s get back to business:

Concession or not, shortly after President Obama announced his decision to scrap plans to base the missile defense components in Poland and the Czech Republic, it was reported that Russia will abandon plans to deploy Iskander SRBMs in Kaliningrad. Luckily some people in Russia are not as narrow-minded as certain U.S. senators.

Two days before President Obama made his announcement rumors came up that Russia and the United States might cooperate on the Gabala Radar Station. While this idea has been under discussion for already some time and was only recycled, the rumor mill has also something new to offer. NTI’s Global Security Newswire reported on September 14:

Recent news reports have indicated that the Obama administration is considering Israel as one alternative location if it chooses not to pursue the planned deployment of missile interceptors in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic. Some U.S. systems might remain in Israel after the two nations conduct a joint missile defense exercise scheduled for October, the Jerusalem Post reported last week.

A senior U.S. State Department official hinted that reports of plans to deploy missile defenses in Israel might be incorrect. They might be incorrect? A strong refusal sounds differently.

Even though the original missile defense plans for Europe were scrapped, this does not mean Washington will limit itself to the Vandenberg Air Force Base and Fort Greely. Under Obama's new plan, the United States would initially deploy ships with missile interceptors and in a second phase would field land-based defense systems. To “tip the balance back just slightly towards the wonky”, make sure to read Joshua Pollacks post “Testing European Missile Defense” over at the Arms Control Wonk.

Picture © Reuters

It is time for another round-up of reading

First some articles concerning our good old European GMD base:
• U.S. eager to search dialogue with Russia on missile defense
• While some say that Russia offers Obama olive branch on missiles other media reports that Russia denies missile suspension. The Warsaw Business Journal brings it to the point: Conflicting rumors surround Kaliningrad missiles
• Russia says missile threat [to deploy its Iskander missiles] stands, only as response
• Czech minister hails freezing of Russian missile plans
• Poles, Czechs wary on Russia missile move, eye Obama
• Czech adamant on missile shield referendum
• Czech lawmakers postpone missile defense vote
• Rethinking U.S. missile defense: “Between 1985 and 2008, America has spent $116 billion on missile defense, with an additional $50 billion envisioned over the next six years”. Taken together, this incredibly big sum makes up more than one fourth of the U.S. package intended to bring up the economy back up to its feet. And it was spent for a project which is “an expensive insurance policy whose payoff remains doubtful”
• Missile shield could boost U.S.-Russia ties
• German Foreign Minister Steinmeier seeks U.S. missile defense shift

And here something on the itsy bitsy rest of the world:
• Iran says 'self-sufficient' in missile production
• Iran's slow but sure missile advance
• India rushes to buy anti-tank missiles
• Failed test and rocketing costs: Army says no to BrahMos missile
• Second phase of BrahMos missile program to be launched Feb 10
• India lags behind Pakistan in missiles (an Indian perspective)
• Pakistan surges well ahead of India in missile technology (from a Pakistani viewpoint)
• Russian space agency to support Bulava project
• Russia boosts targeting tech for Iskander missiles
• Russia wants new START and BMD bases scrapped
• DPRK space ambitions raise missile concerns, analyst warns
• DPRK set to test long-range missile as tension rises in region
• China will create a versatile missile force
• Missile Defense in Japan

A positive step

Every now and then there are also some good news: Russia's military has announced it will halt its plans to deploy short-range missiles in its Baltic enclave Kaliningrad, Interfax news agency says.

The Asterixian wars

It is great to see that not only cartoons depict reality, sometimes it is also the other way round: I just felt reminded of the "Asterixian Wars". At the end of ‘Asterix and the Goths’ all clans of the Goths are allied with each other in various opaque configurations and they also fight each other. It is a huge mess and nobody knows who started it.

One can get a similar impression from the current debate about the use or nonsense of the current missile deployments and defense systems by reading the headlines of the recent days. NATO is concerned over Russia’s missile plan to station Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad. Russia picks up this ‘blame your eastern neighbor’-game: Lavrov expressed his worries over Asian missile programs. One of his addressees – China – strikes back by announcing that global missile defense systems do not aid world stability. Moscow takes the same line by calling the alleged Iranian missile threat a ‘fairy tale’. At the same time Russia made the tremendously generous offer that it would not rush to deploy its tactical missiles near the Polish border if Washington scrapped plans to station a missile shield in east Europe (oddly enough Reuters speaks of ’a softer stand’). It should come to no surprise that the U.S. rejected these proposals. A MDA spokesperson counters that the Russians know that the missile shield is no threat.
So who was blamed by whom and why? Let’s hope this mess finds a different end that that in the Asterix cartoon.

Sorry for the long pause. I will write again on Tuesday.

another treaty-signature and a strange congratulation

Right before the presidential elections there were are major news in to report on: last Friday the United States and the Czech Republic signed a framework agreement outlining terms for deploying a planned missile-tracking radar station on Czech territory.

The signed agreement does not come for free: U.S. Missile Defense Agency chief Henry Obering announced that the United States would provide $600,000 for Czech scientific research in exchange for agreeing to host the station – a sum that reminds of fire sale prices. It is a far cry from the $20bn that the Polish neighbors originally demanded.

The treaty still awaits parliamentary ratification which should – according to Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek be put off until the next U.S. administration. So it sounds more like: “Okay, you get your signature but we will wait until the next president comes into office. Then we will (quietly) renegotiate.”

AFP reports:

"We want a delay to make sure about the attitude of the new American administration," said Topolanek. Initially, the Czechs were planning to ratify the missile shield agreements without waiting for the US presidential election results.

Some have no doubts about Obama’s attitude: Czech unsuccessful presidential candidate Jan Svejnar told the press that the missile shield project will go on despite the financial crisis even during the term of President Barack Obama. Poland shares this expectation.

In the meantime the Czech opposition Social Democratic Party demanded on November 3 that the Constitutional Court examines the legality of two deployment-agreements.

Faced with all these uncertainties the United States’ Missile Defense Agency is not getting tired to reiterating one of its old threats in order to increase the pressure on Warsaw and Prague. MDA Chieftain Trey Obering said that the United States has a fall-back plan for its European missile defense project should either Poland or the Czech Republic choose not to house key installations. However, he did not elaborate on this mysterious Plan B.

General Obering mentioned already last week that he is worried that delays in Poland's ratification could upset a tight timetable for deploying American missiles here to ward off attacks from so-called rogue states. He expects that interceptor base to be in operation in 2013 or 2014. The original deadline was set to 2012. Given the progress – or the lack of it – in the Czech Republic, it will not take long before we can hear a similar MBA addressing Prague.

The Russian President Medvedev came up with his own form of congratulating the newly elected U.S. President: he ordered the deployment of short-range missile systems in the Kaliningrad region on the EU's eastern border to counter the planned US missile defense installations in Eastern Europe.

"There will also be radio-electronic neutralisation of the new US missile defence installations from the Kaliningrad region," he added.

The idea of deploying Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad oblast is not new. Russia has been threatening to move Iskander missiles to Kalinigrad since April last year, but until now no specific order had been given.

We will see if Medvedev really lives up to his announcement or if this just an attempt to deviate the Russian public's attention from the difficulties caused by the financial crisis by providing them with an option be proud of the wannabe-strong and in military terms powerful country.

We can do it!

We can do it! That might have been the motto of the recent days of the Russians. The military conducted its Stabilnost-2008 exercise.

The show started on Saturday, October 11, when the Tula submarine successfully launched a R-29RM Sineva SLBM. Officials bragged that the missile reached its target after flying 11,547 km which was reported to be the longest range demonstrated by the missile.

On the following day, October 12, the Northern Fleet’s Ekaterinburg and the Pacific Fleet’s Zelenograd joined the shooting. While the Zelenograd fired a R-29R missile (SS-N-18 Stingray) the Ekaterinburg test-launched a R-29RM. Pavel Podvig writes on his blog:

Unlike the test a day before, on October 11, 2008, this one was not reported to be a test of the Sineva modification of the R-29RM missile. It appears that Ekaterinburg normally carries older R-29RM missiles, but can be used to launch Sineva as well.

However, the Russian First Channel reported that it was a the Sineva-type of the R-29RM. Have you recently improved your Russian? Give it a try here:



For a few notes on a comparison between the original and the Sineva-type of the R-29RM take a look at an earlier post.

Also on October 12, Russia test-launched a Topol ICBM which hit a target on Russia's Pacific coast.

It seems that attending missile launches is becoming the new favorite hobby of president Medvedev. He was not only present at the launches of the Sineva on Saturday but also at the one of the Topol on the following day. On September 26 he attended the firing of the Tochka-U (SS-21 Scarab) short-range tactical ballistic missile. The Tochka-U is a 1989 modification of the Tochka missile system that went into service with the Soviet military in 1976. It has an effective range of 120 km.

Reuters India reports further that:

Over the course of the weekend, 12 Tu-160 and Tu-95MS strategic bombers took off for an exercise that involved launching multiple cruise missiles to pulverise a dummy town on a testing ground in the Arctic.

Pavel reports that in the course of the exercise, some bombers launched full complement of their missiles. Tu-160 never fired full complement of their missiles before.

Reuters also quoted analysts saying that the Stabilnost exercise was a show of military preparedness for domestic consumption and not a Kremlin warning shot to the West. President Medvedev added to this PR-campaign by saying that two new systems were being developed. However, he provided no details.

RIA Novosti cited Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov as stating that plans were already under way for a follow-up exercise with a joint strategic command-and-staff exercise called Zapad-2009 next year.

Besides playing with its own missiles, Russia is optimistic to sell its Iskander-E to a number of countries. Rosoboronexport-official Nikolai Dimidyuk said that Syria, the UAE, Malaysia, India and some other countries have shown an interest in the missile system and that Russia will also seek to export the missile to Algeria, Kuwait, Singapore, Vietnam, and South Korea.

But it is not all offensive. There are also some developments on the defensive side. UPI came up with the news that mobile air defense units around Moscow planned to conduct live-fire exercises on this Thursday, October 17, using Buk-M1 surface-to-air missile systems. Apart from this announcement I have not found any post-firing news.

Moscow is also keen to extend its missile defense to other areas. Russia and Belarus will sign an agreement creating a joint missile defense system, secretary of the Union State Pavel Borodin told journalists on October 8. He added: "Military speaking, it is virtually a shield against NATO”. Belarus has several Russian-made S-300 air defense divisions on combat duty and is negotiating the purchase of advanced S-400 systems from Russia, which will be made available by 2010. The signing of the agreement will take place on November 2.

At the same time Russia tried to present itself as a responsible global actor and nonproliferator. Its Foreign Ministry suggested that Moscow would not sell advanced anti-aircraft missiles such a S-300 to Iran, a possibility that has alarmed Israel:

We have declared more than once at the very highest political level that we do not intend to supply those types of armaments to countries located in regions that are, to put it mildly, uneasy," he said. "This is not in the interests of our country's policy or the interests of preserving stability in one region or another of the world."

© Medvedev, Topol: Reuters
© Iskander: Kommersant

Catch me if you can - part 2

The potpourri continues:

Russia is planning to install Iskander missiles in Syria and its Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad, in a response to United States missile interceptors in Poland and U.S.-Israeli military aid to Georgia, an Israeli news agency reported on Monday. Russia is furthermore reported to plan arming warships, submarines and long-range bombers in the Baltic and Middle East with nuclear warheads. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni spoke out against the deployment of Russian missiles on Syrian territory. Admitting that Russia has “its own interests” in the Middle East, Livni added however that “no one has an interest in destabilizing the region.”

Ukraine is ready to cooperate with West on missile defense after Russia abrogated of an agreement with Ukraine on early warning and space monitoring systems in February.

Israel and the US have agreed to deploy a high- powered, early-warning missile radar in Israel. The radar will be manned by US-personnel and will be linked to a US satellite-based alert network. The new system will more than double Israel's early- warning system to 2,000 kilometers.

A National Research Council blue-ribbon panel of defense experts is recommending development and testing of a conventional warhead for submarine-launched intercontinental Trident missiles to give the president an alternative to using nuclear weapons for a prompt strike anywhere in the world. The panel recognized that the launch of a conventional SLBM could not be distinguished from a nuclear one and suggested several ways to mitigate it, but in the end it concluded that the benefits outweighed the risks. Conventional SLBM were described as "attractive in the near term".

The disarmament spokesman of the German co-governing Social Democratic Party (SPD) Rolf Muetzenich said the signing of the American GMD deal in Warsaw will further heat up the arms race. He urged to step up efforts to promote disarmament and arms control, if the US missile shield were to become a fixed component of American security policy. "Otherwise this could lead to military threats which could even go beyond the Cold War," the lawmaker stressed.

Over at the Arms Control Wonk Joshua took up the discussion about the origin of the Iranian Ashura missile. Is it Iranian-made? Is China the source? And what about India?

For those of you who have time at their hands can find a 49-page report on “Sea-Based Ballistic Missile Defense - Background and Issues for Congress” (dated August 11) over at the OpenCRS site.

Russia's reprisal options

There was no need to wait long until we get some “options” how Russia might react to the conclusion of the US-Polish agreement. RIA Novosti came up with an article by Yury Zaitsev, who is an academic adviser at the Russian Academy of Engineering Sciences. He writes that:

Russian missile defense systems will not be able to distinguish missile interceptors launched from Polish territory from ballistic missiles. Any launch of an interceptor will automatically result in retaliation, and not only at the interceptor deployment site.

This direct threat to Poland has to be seen in the light that Russia mentioned earlier that it could direct its missiles toward Poland in case it should decide to host the interceptor base.

Russia does not want to be dragged into another arms race, but it should not ignore the emerging threats. Its most obvious reply to the U.S. missile defense deployment would be equipping its Topol-M missiles with supersonic maneuverable warheads, using jammers, and reducing the boost phase of Russian missiles. It is also important to equip the armed forces with new MIRVed missiles.

Both ideas are not new. For some background information on the maneuverable warhead check the Missilethreat website. Russia is already working on MIRVed versions of the Topol-M, which are labeled RS-24. It is expected to complete the RS-24 flight tests program with the two launches scheduled for this year and, if the tests are successful, begin deployment of RS-24 in 2009.

Russia could also revive its program to develop global missiles, which could be put into near-Earth orbits and directed at enemy territory while bypassing missile defenses.

This is also a revamped idea: in the 1960’s the Soviet Union came up with the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS). After launch an ICBM would go into a low Earth orbit and would then de-orbit for an attack. The clear military benefits of this program were that the missile had no range limit and the orbital flight path would not reveal the target location. While the FOBS program did not constitute a breach of the Outer Space Treaty, the program was phased out in January 1983 in compliance with the SALT II agreement, which explicitly banned fractional orbital missiles. However, the Reagan Administration withdrew from SALT II in 1986 after accusing the Soviets of violating the pact. Therefore there are currently no international obligations that ban Russian from reanimating FOBS.

[Russia] could also deploy Iskanders, with a range of up to 500 km, there. Initially any missiles in Kaliningrad would be strictly non-nuclear, but they could be equipped with nuclear warheads when Poland hosts the interceptors.

The frequent readers of my blog know that this idea is around for a while. Considerations exist to not only deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad but also in Belarus. Back in November 2007 Minsk has announced that the missile brigade, which will be equipped with Iskanders, will be deployed in the Mogilev Region, which is near the Russian border. This would mean that the US-interceptor-base at Redizikowo Pomorskie would be out of range, namely roughly 860km away which significantly exceeds the range of 280km of the Iskander-E (export) version. Only an updated version of the Iskander could put the interceptor base into reach but this would at the same time constitute a breach of Russia’s MTCR obligations. Back in May 2007 Sergej Ivanov said in an interview after an R-500 missile test that Russia will definitely not infringe its international MTCR obligations but the extension of the Iskander missiles’ range for Russia’s own purposes is a different issue.



Yury Zaitsev came up with another recommendation for Moscow how to formulate the sought “adequate response”:

[…] reducing the number of strategic offensive arms enhances the role of missile defense systems [and] therefore, Russia should keep an adequate nuclear deterrent in the next few decades, which must become one of the most important military and political tasks.

This is no surprise either. The importance of the Russian nuclear forces was stressed quite often in the recent time. The START I treaty will expire on 5 December 2009 and the SORT-of Moscow Treaty only regulates the number of warheads deployed by 31 December 2012. This is also the day on which the treaty loses all force. From that day on Russia will not be obliged to limit its nuclear arsenal in the future unless any follow-up agreements will be concluded. However, the technical and financial means for a major nuclear weapon expansion are not given. As examples serve the slow pace of the deployment of Topol-M missiles and the numerous failed tests of the Bulava missile. One option, of course, would be MIRVing existing missiles, as already mentioned above.

These are of course all worst-case options but as things are now there is no reason to be overly optimistic that Russia and the United States will find a negotiated solution any time soon. Probably a severe plunge in the oil-price would help but this is equally unlikely to happen soon.


UPDATE: Now we could hear the first nuclear threats in the direction of Poland. General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, a staunch supporter of Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin, pointed out that Russian doctrine permitted the use of nuclear weapons 'against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them.'

Irony and non-relatedness: Washington and Warsaw sign a GMD agreement

I love life – it is full of ironies. Read here about the latest episode: for a long time the Russian complains about the offensive nature of the two European bases of the U.S. GMD system could be heard everywhere. Russia strongly opposed the missile shield plan, which it says will undermine its nuclear deterrent and threaten its national security. It tried hard to thwart Washington’s plans using some small carrots and numerous huge sticks:

Russian officials earlier said Moscow could deploy its Iskander tactical missiles and strategic bombers in Belarus and Russia's westernmost exclave of Kaliningrad if Washington succeeded in its missile shield plans in Europe. Moscow also warned it could target its missiles on Poland.

After all this rumbling, Russia was now the main reason why Poland and the United States signed yesterday, August 14, a preliminary agreement to deploy 10 interceptors in Poland operated by US soldiers. Its tanks in Georgia gave a fresh impetus to the negotiations and led to their conclusion.

The agreement was reached after Washington had "given very serious consideration" to Warsaw's demands, i.e. it agreed to reinforce Poland's air defenses. According to the German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Poland will receive 96 Patriot missiles which it can base “wherever it regards it to be of importance for its security”.

Defence Minister Bogdan Klich told the Polish daily Rzeczpospolita:

"We're also counting on the fact that getting Patriots would allow us discounts on other batteries and open the road to a more modern air defence system, like the THAAD."

In addition to that there will be two U.S. garrisons permanently based on Polish territory. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said in televised remarks that "the events in the Caucasus show clearly that such security guarantees are indispensable." But his Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski has a different opinion: he said “this has nothing to do with Georgia […] We agreed this negotiating phase a week ago.” You can listen to a short interview with him here. White House and State Department officials also denied that the signing of the deal was linked to events in Georgia. I beg your pardon, not linked to Georgia? C’mon. Poland probably all of a sudden realized that it made a stupid mistake by not accepting the U.S. offer at the very beginning of the negotiation-marathon. The Russian tanks in Georgia in these days and back in 1968 in Prague during the Prague Spring are certainly not related to it at all.

Anyhow, the Russian senior State Duma member Gennady Gudkov said that the deal would further divide European countries into U.S. "vassals" and those pursuing more independent policies. It would be interesting to know if he had Georgia in mind as a shining example of an independent country when he made this comment.

Besides that there has been no factual response from Russia. Probably the threats of withdrawing from the INF treaty will be tabled again. The calls for deploying Iskander missiles in Belarus will also be heard again. Earlier this month Russian Ambassador to Belarus Alyaksandr Surikov noted that Russia will not return nuclear weapons to Belarus. However, this was back in the pre-agreement age. Only a symbolical step was taken so far: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is reported to have cancelled a scheduled visit to Poland shortly after the deal was announced. But probably this cancellation has nothing to do with this trip, too.

The deal still has to be ratified by Polish parliament, the Sejm and both countries’ governments. The US-Czech agreement which was signed on July 8 also awaits ratification. Officials say the interceptor base in Poland will be opened by 2012. The radar in Brdy, Czech Republic, is scheduled to be ready in 2014.

I am eager to get some updated polls to see if the attitude of the population of the two countries has change since the Russia’s Georgia adventure. Prior to that the percentage of Czechs and Poles who oppose the hosting of the GMD components was in the low 70’s.

Iskander deployment in Belarus

Today’s news agencies report that Russia might re-equip its forces with Iskander missiles (SS-26 Stone) and it also contemplates to deploy them in neighboring Belarus. The development of the tactical short-range missile started in the early 1970’s and it is in service since 1998.

The missile is regarded to be of high combat effectiveness. The former director of Israel's Missile Defence Agency, Uzi Rubin, concluded that the Iskander is “is the first ballistic missile ever to include built-in countermeasures against the West's growing range of deployed theatre missile defence [TMD] systems”. These countermeasures include:
· Boost phase maneuvering;
· Depressed trajectory (apogee of 50 km);
· Low radar signature, achieved by "a special composite"; and
· Terminal phase maneuvering.

The Iskander missile system is in between designed to engage air and missile defense facilities.

Currently only one missile battalion in Russia is fully equipped with Iskander missiles. Another one will follow in 2008. Until 2015 the number is scheduled to increase to five. In addition to that, Russia and Belarus have been in talks for several years on the delivery of Iskander-E complexes to equip at least one Belarus missile brigade by 2015. Other sources mention 2020. The situation is a bit blurry: while a Belarussian defense ministry spokesman said there had been no discussion of any such deployment, another spokesperson said in Minsk that Belarus planned to purchase and incorporate the Iskander in one of its missile brigades by 2020 under its military program.

Leaving the date aside, the Commander of Russian Armed Forces Missile Troops and Artillery Col. Gen. Vladimir Zaritsky called the deployment of the Iskander in Belarus an asymmetrical response by Russia to the deployment of a U.S. anti-missile system in Europe. He was further quoted that “"Any action must have a counter-action“. But this reaction is literally falling short. There are two versions of the Iskander missile. The first version is deployed by the Russian army and has a range of 400km and a payload of 480kg. A second version, the Iskander-E, was especially designed to meet the MTCR restrictions, so it can be exported. This E-version has a range of 280km (i.e. below the MTCR’s 300km range limit) and a payload of 415kg. This is the type Belarus would receive. Even if the country were to deploy the Iskander-E in the utmost Western part of its territory, the missiles could by no means reach the potential future U.S. missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. Redzikowo, the potential site for the interceptor base, is located roughly 450km away from the Belarussian border and Brdy in the Czech Republic, which is under discussion to host the radar, is even further away, roughly 720km. Even the Russian non-export version could not reach the bases.

This would be indeed an asymmetrical response. Stay tuned for the next episode of “The big sabre-rattling”.

© picture: RIA Novosti