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."

European missile defense bases - yet another post

More than a month has passed since President Obama announced to bury the former plans for the two controversial missile defense bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. This gave ample opportunity to digest this major change. Here is a brief summary of the reactions and latest developments:

Paul Taylor at the Reuters blog wrote that the decision to drop plans to install it on Polish and Czech territory constitutes a test for NATO’s unity because

President Barack Obama’s decision […] leaves those former Soviet satellites feeling betrayed — because they expended political capital to win parliamentary support — and more exposed to a resurgent Russia, especially after its use of force against Georgia last year.

Megan Stack from the LA Times puts it more poignantly:

Washington's decision to back out of the missile shield agreement forged by the Bush administration –and opposed by Russia – has evoked memories among Poles of Cold War helplessness, of being brushed aside as casualties of great power politics.

When Barack Obama entered office it was often mentioned in the European press that even though the substance of his foreign policy might not change dramatically, the way he would address his (European) partners would alter in comparison to Dubya. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee obviously shared this view and awarded Obama the prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Well, it seems that sometimes the Obama administration is not necessarily more successful than the Bush gang: Polish officials seemed to be the last to hear about the change in plans.

"We heard first from the media," said Witold Waszczykowski, deputy head of Poland's national security bureau. Speculation that the missile shield plan would be dropped had been in the air since the U.S. presidential campaign. And yet, Waszczykowski said, Polish leaders were repeatedly reassured - even days before a team of U.S. officials arrived to brief officials - that no decision had been reached.

Aiming to sooth this frustration and concerns, Poland and the Czech Republic are being offered roles in the Obama administration's new plan to defend Europe against Iran's development and deployment of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, senior administration officials told Congress on October 1.

The U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Ellen O. Tauscher, informed the House Armed Services Committee that

"We have offered the Poles a future piece of the SM-3 [Standard missile-3] deployment" and "we're working on a number of different things" for the Czechs.

Russia remains suspicious about Washington's new antimissile plans and fears its strategic nuclear weapons could still be threatened by the reconfigured scheme. However, at the same time Moscow sees a redrafted U.S. anti-missile shield plan as less of a security threat than the previously proposed project. Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, stressed that there are chances for cooperation. He said that Moscow believes it would be possible to establish a missile-defense system jointly with the military alliance.

"If we are convinced that the European missile-defense initiative is not part of a U.S. theater missile-defense system, such efforts are possible."

Cooperation is also under discussion in Washington. The United States has not dismissed an offer to use two Russian radars in southern Russia and Azerbaijan for missile defense, a senior Defense Department official said in a recent interview with Interfax. The NTI Newswire reported that:

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates "and other senior defense officials have already pointed to the possibility of some form of link between Russian radars ... to provide additional data and early warning information that could benefit both of us in defending against ballistic missile threats," said Assistant Defense Secretary Alexander Vershbow.

Vershbow bang the drum also with other remarks that raised concern on the Russian side. He told reporters on Thursday that countries in the region, such as Ukraine, "may also have radars that could contribute to early-warning information." This statement prompted Moscow to call for clarification. Subsequently Washington denied in an official statement that it planned to station U.S. radar systems in Ukraine.

Leaving aside all this animosities, concerns, and the potential for cooperation, some observers question whether the weapons that would be central to the Obama administration's new missile defense plan for Europe can be trusted to function during a conflict. There has been no realistic testing of the Standard Missile 3, which could still be fooled by balloons or other decoys likely to be deployed by an enemy missile, argued David Wright, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. In addition critics come up with a very creative form of accounting to show that the new plans will not lead to cost-savings. The Congressional Budget Office early this year estimated the cost of the Bush plan at between $9 billion and $13 billion over two decades. However these savings are allegedly eliminated by the construction and extended operational costs of the ship-based alternative which would cost $18 billion to $26 billion. However, there is one teeny tiny thing that the critics might have forgotten to take into consideration: some of that cost comes from pre-existing plans to equip no fewer than 67 Navy vessels with Aegis ballistic missile defense technology. Besides that, the vessels are far more flexible and neither static nor do they serve a single purpose as the European components of the original plan would have.


There is another reason why the new plan leaves a lighter footprint: Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, added that preparation of a Polish missile defense site, which was to have taken five years to complete, could now be finished in less than a year and be staffed with fewer than 100 U.S. personnel, instead of the 400 who would have been needed under the Bush-era plan.

© picture: Korea Times

Game Over Press Start to Continue – Obama Scraps European Missile Defense Plans

I can end the time of silence with a bang. You probably have already heard the big new: US President Barack Obama has shelved plans for controversial bases in Poland and the Czech Republic in a major overhaul of missile defense in Europe.

Make sure to read NTI’s great article on the issue. For those of you who are more visually oriented, you can also watch president Obama’s announcement here.

Barack Obama received much kudos for his decision politicians and from press. Here are some examples from Germany: Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Obama’s decision is a promising signal to solve the problems with Russia. Federal Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier lauded the step and stressed that there is a new chance to discuss the issue of missile defense in Europe once again with all partners. The daily Sueddeutsche described the decision to shelve the plans as an act of courage, willingness to take risks and decisiveness. The German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung lauded the style how the U.S. approached his allies.

Take this as a brief appetizer. I will write more on this issue tomorrow.

Missile defense farrago

A report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, released on August 6, comes to the conclusion that the cost of building and operating the controversial U.S. anti-ballistic missile sites in Europe could substantially exceed the original estimate:

After reviewing several proposed missile-defense sites in Eastern Europe, the Army Corps of Engineers has determined that initial construction estimates for sites in the Czech Republic and Poland for $837 million are unrealistic, and that "almost $1.2 billion" is a more accurate figure.

The GAO report does not only come up with its own assessment but also contains also some homework for the Pentagonians: it urges them to develop "accurate, realistic, and complete cost estimates for military construction and operations and support for ballistic missile defenses in Europe”. For more details see the post over at the Nukes of Hazard blog. If you want to put the spending into a historical context you might want to take a look at this chart.

Recently the Obama administration has proposed to emphasize battlefield missile defenses over systems for intercepting strategic ballistic missiles. This would save money while potentially making it more vulnerable to future attack, says a report published yesterday by a Washington-based defense think tank. For more details see NTI’s GSN.

Costs are not the only issue that raises concerns. A group of U.S. and Russian scientists from the East West Institute say that the proposed missile defense shield deployed in Central Europe would be ineffective.

These are some of the reasons why the Obama administration is currently reviewing the plans to field 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic. The major U.S. defense contractors use this time to offer new toys out of their toolbox.

Raytheon proposed to develop a land-based variant of the SM-3 interceptor originally designed for use on warships by 2013. This interceptor would target short- and medium-range missiles from land. Raytheon also already a scenario for the deployment of the new interceptor:

The U.S. Defense Department is considering the proposed system for inclusion in a European missile shield, according to Raytheon leaders. Russia has long opposed a proposal to field in Poland ground-based interceptors that could target its ICBMs, making SM-3 interceptors a potentially more acceptable alternative for countering an Iranian long-range missile threat.

This seems to be only Raytheon’s viewpoint. U.S. Strategic Command head Gen. Kevin Chilton did not specify whether the Pentagon was considering an SM-3 system as a replacement for the proposed ground-based interceptors.

Raytheon’s rival Boeing has something else to offer: The United States could temporarily place a mobile ground-based missile interceptor in Europe as protection from a potential long-range missile threat, U.S. defense contractor Boeing Co. recommended.

By 2015, Boeing could prepare a two-stage, 47,500-pound interceptor that could be transported by C-17 cargo aircraft and deployed at a NATO site on a trailer-based launch platform, [Boeing vice president and general manager for missile defense]Hyslop said. The interceptor could be fielded within 24 hours and then removed when the missile threat abates, he said.

While these alternative ideas do the rounds and the future of the missile base is still uncertain – the U.S.-Polish agreement has not been ratified by the Polish parliament nor agreed by President Obama - Poland is convinced that another deal will put into effect. Polish Defense Minister Bogdan Klich said yesterday that the first battery of U.S. Patriot missile will be deployed in Poland either this year or next.

“We are negotiating with the Americans and we are getting closer to a conclusion. I hope we will make the final decision in the autumn. There are still some controversial points, but the number of those is decreasing,” Bogdan Klich told Polish Radio.

The agreement to supply Poland with Patriots as was signed in 2008 but in official statements the idea that the delivery was a form of payment for hosting the interceptor base was rejected.
All these issues are no reason for the Missile Defense Agency not to come up with new plans. MDA Director Patrick O’Reilly predicts that the United States will significantly improve its ability to track incoming ballistic missiles from space by 2016:

Currently, U.S. sensors […] are providing data as soon as a ballistic missile boosts after launch. However, a gap exists after boost, forcing MDA officials to look to reacquire a target later in its flight when the U.S. has other capability for tracking.

A step ahead in the missile-defense-maze

The meeting of the two presidents in Moscow was not only about counting warheads and delivery systems – the issue of missile defense was also discussed. It is time to catch up with the developments:

While visiting Russia, U.S. President Barack Obama and his counterpart, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, have signed a joint statement on missile defense. It reads in between:

“Russia and the United States plan to continue the discussion concerning the establishment of cooperation in responding to the challenge of ballistic missile proliferation. […] We have instructed our experts to work together to analyze the ballistic missile challenges of the 21st century and to prepare appropriate recommendations, giving priority to the use of political and diplomatic methods.”

At a speech at a Moscow university President Obama elaborated further on this and highlighted the purpose of the missile shield and the condition under which the program could be scrapped:

"I want us to work together on a missile defense architecture that makes us all safer. But if the threat from Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs is eliminated, the driving force for missile defense in Europe will be eliminated. That is in our mutual interest."

However, some Russian actors are reluctant to make a linkage between the two issues of missile defense and Iran. These topics should be considered separately from each other, believes the head of the international affairs committee of the State Duma lower house of Russia’s parliament Konstantin Kosachev. “The missile defense issue and Iran should not be mixed, no matter how the Americans insist on this,” the lawmaker said on the Echo of Moscow radio station commenting on President Obama’s speech.

Also in the Washington the question is deliberated whether this linkage can be made and if the presumptions on which it is based are watertight. Already back in January a review of the proposed European missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic was announced in order to see if this is the best solution to defend Europe and the United States from long-range ballistic missile threats of third sources. The United States expects to finish the review by the end of the summer.

Moscow hopes that at the end of this review Washington will realize the counter-productivity of its plan to deploy elements of U.S. missile shield in central Europe. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said earlier this week.

"I hope that the revision [of the missile shield plans] in Washington... will result in an understanding that unilateral steps in this sphere are counterproductive."

This viewpoint is shared by Russia’s Federation Council Speaker Sergei Mironov. He told Ekho Moskvy radio that he has reasons to believe that “ultimately, this thoughtless and very dangerous step will not be made - there will be neither radar nor missiles”.

Naturally, Russia cannot assume that Washington will follow its line of thought and it keeps all options open: on the one hand it has already expressed its willingness to collaborate with the United States on missile defense if Washington first dropped the Europe proposal, Interfax reported. On the other hand Russian President Dmitry Medvedev reaffirmed on July 10 Moscow's threat to deploy short-range missiles near Poland if Washington moved to field the European defense system. Russia is also cautious to put off Iran. It has therefore broadened the scope of the missile shield’s purpose. Vladimir Yevseyev, senior research associate with the renowned Institute for World Economy and International Relations, said that:

"Iran is not the only missile threat because there are many countries in the vast Middle East area which have developed missile programs and arms. Some of them would like to create a nuclear infrastructure.”

Yevseyev proposed to deploy missile defense systems in other places than sites proposed by the United States and use, for instance, Russia's S-400 air defense system and the U.S. Patriot system, which are both capable of intercepting missiles from the Middle East.

Some people were less creative – rather a bit off – and recycled an idea from the 1980’s: Space systems designer Boris Chertok recommended building a U.S.-Russian missile defense system in outer space, Interfax reported. Chertok should take a look at the draft PPWT, the “Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects” proposed by his own government and China. The draft’s article II starts off with the sentence:

“The States Parties undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying any kinds of weapons.”

Russia is not the only player waiting for the outcome of the review. Also Poland wants a clear answer from Washington on its plans to deploy the interceptors on Polish soil under a 2008 deal, the government spokesman Pawel Gras said on July 12.

"We're still lacking an essential, clear response as to whether the U.S. will go ahead with the shield plan. It's a fundamental question to which we need a definite answer."

Gras underlined furthermore that Warsaw was still waiting for the "U.S. to make good on the promise by the new administration, independently of the shield plan, to deploy a battery of Patriot missiles."

In summary: all options are on the table – and we will have to wait for the outcome of the review to see if the options narrow down.

© picture: Xinhua

to-do list for the weekend

Dear reader,

once again, I can only supply you with a brief list of links to missile-related articles. As announced, this will be the last article for a while. I will be back online in April. It would be great to see you back then.

GMD

• Obama Likely Flexible on Missile Shield
• Poland, Czech Republic Worried by Obama's Intentions on Missile Defense
• Poland ready to conclude U.S. missile shield negotiations: FM
• No timetable exists for radar on Czech soil - U.S. source
• Biden hints at compromise with Russia on missile defense plan
• Obama's arms reduction idea a threat to missile defense in Europe?
• Missile shield plans delayed, but not discontinued?
• UK backs missile defense shield
• Russian missile plans depend on US
• Ballistic Missile Defense Efforts Tied to Iran, Gates Says
• Belarus says air defense pact with Russia not aimed at missile shield
• Iran denies claim its missiles can hit anywhere in world
• Iran, Russia, U.S.: the BMD link

Missile Defense

• Kinetic energy weapons may be best way to intercept missiles
• Kinetic Energy Interceptor shows promising flexibility
• Airborne Laser offers new era for ballistic missile defense
• NATO keen on missile shield in Europe
• South Korea to complete missile defense system by 2012
• South Korea May Join U.S. Missile Shield
• Geopolitical implications of missile defense
• Missile Defense in the Obama Budget
• India Working Towards LASER Based Missile Defense System
• US in talks with India for providing missile defence

DPRK

• North Korea Prepares Missile Near Launch Site
• South Korea says DPRK’s missile test would violate UN resolutions
• A look at DPRK's missile arsenal
• North Korea eyes disputed sea border for missiles-media

Miscellaneous

• U.S. urges Russia to consider missile offer
• U.S.-Russia: Missile Diplomacy
• Kissinger calls for missile cuts
• France transfers more anti-tank missile technology to India
• Russia and Iran's missiles
• Russia expands production of precision guided weapons, see also here
• Iran builds S-300-style anti-aircraft missile defense system
• Iran's Missiles: Don't Go Ballistic
• Black Market Missiles Still Common in Iraq
• Brahmos field testing today, February 20
• China can't stop India's missile system

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

another reading list

Hi everybody,

here is your today’s agenda:

• India test-fires BrahMos and admits that the test failed
• Fresh test of BrahMos missile within a month
• India plans to test a Prithvi missile
• India goes for 'urgent' purchase of anti-tank missiles
• India plans to use laser weapons in Ballistic Missile Defense
• India Plans Missile Defense Test
• India, U.S. Discuss Potential Missile Defense Sales but U.S. Denies Pursuing Indian Missile Defense Sales
• Czech politicians disagree on U.S. radar plans under Obama
• Poland Encourages Obama to Pursue European Missile Defenses
• Obama urged to boost priority of BMD development
• Ballistic missile threat growing in 21st century
• China rebuts global anti-missile system
• U.S. Navy flight tests new Raytheon SM-2 target detecting device
• Bulava tests should continue – Russian official
• Venezuela Aids Iranian Missile Sales to Syria
• United Arab Emirates to Buy PAC-3 System
• Nuclear War Concerns Spur UAE Missile Defenses
• Taiwan Would Continue Arms Buildup Despite Potential Chinese Missile Reduction

Sign of life

Hello everybody,

There is no need to order wreath and flowers, the Missile Monitor is by no means dead. I am back – kind of. I am still very busy with other projects so that the blogging will be rather light over the next weeks. Therefore I will continue with the reading-list-style. Sorry about that. So let‘s start with the first list, catching up from mid-December.

Russia:

· Russia hopes for deal on START-1, missile defense by 2010
· Bulava missile fails a 5th test
· Russia to hold more test launches of Bulava ICBM in 2009
· Russia to get 70 nuclear missiles in 3 years
· Topol-M ICBMs enter service with new missile regiment in Russia
· Russia to deploy new missile systems by 2020
· Russia deploys 2nd S-400 missile system
· Russia's S-400 air defense system may be world's best
· Russian S-300 deal with Iran 'on the go’
· Tehran Says It’s Getting Russian Missiles
· Russia denies sales of sophisticated missiles to Iran
· Russians deny selling S-300s to Iran; U.S. skeptical
· Russia says Iran weapons buys 'defensive'
· Israel urges Russia not to sell missiles to Iran
· Russia selling surface-to-air missiles to Libya, Syria

Missile Defense:

· Poland hopes for continuation of anti-missile project
· U.S. could review missile shield plans
· Russia hopes U.S. will review missile defense plans
· Moscow says offer to U.S. on joint radar use still stands
· Airborne Laser Blasts Off
· Belarus backs Russia's missile plan to counter U.S. shield
· Japanese missile defense system cleared despite test failure
· U.S. Promotes Middle Eastern Missile Shield
· UAE is to acquire advanced interceptor Patriot missiles
· Aiming high: Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense
· U.S. to place Aegis missile defenses on several warships
· US missile defense system will be unable to destroy Russian nuclear potential
· Northrop Grumman begins testing 'cold-launch' system that makes kinetic energy interceptors mobile, global, flexible
· India 'eyes' U.S. missile defense system
· Pentagon denies missile defense sales talks with India

Other:

· India successfully test fires anti-tank missile
· Rockets are again at the heart of a Mideast war
· Poland to buy naval strike missile from
· China’s ‘missile reduction’ is fantasyChina's missile plans put U.S. naval power in a weaker spot

Waiting selflessly

Earlier this month it was celebrated (by some) as a major breakthrough that Washington and Prague signed a framework agreement outlining terms for deploying a planned missile-tracking radar station on Czech territory. I already mentioned in earlier postings that the deployment agreements still have to be ratified despite by the Czech Parliament which faces resistance from the parliamentarians. This was confirmed by the speaker of the lower house of the Czech parliament, Miloslav Vlcek, who said last Friday, November 21, that he is certain that the U.S. missile defense radar would be deployed in the Czech Republic. Vlcek elucidated that the Social Democratic Party and the Communists, which hold 96 of the 200 seats in the lower chamber, and also some members of the ruling Civic Democratic Party would vote against the deployment of the U.S. radar. The ruling Civic Democratic Party of Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek has only 81 seats.

The situation does not look any better northward (taking a U.S. administration’s perspective). Poland's Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski said that his country will wait for the Obama administration to make up its mind on basing missile defense interceptors in his country and will not lobby to have the project proceed. He also explained how selflessly that the Warsaw government is – it only agreed ‘out of friendship’. Right, and the U.S. government finances only out of friendship the reinforcement of the Polish air defenses like the 96 Patriots that will be dispatched in Poland next year. It is always good to have such friends.

If you take the recent statements of French President Nicolas Sarkozy on this matter it seems that it is time to rename the French Fries into Freedom Fries again: On November 14 Sarkozy questioned the value of U.S. missile defense plans in Europe, but later appeared to step back from his criticism, the Associated Press reported. Initially he said that the ‘deployment of a missile defense system would bring nothing to security in Europe ... it would complicate things, and would make them move backward’. He was joined by Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini who suggested in La Republica that the Obama administration should sacrifice the location of the missile defense shield in Poland and the CzechRepublic for the sake of good relations with Russia.

In his article for MWCNews Jacob Hornberger makes a similar point. He dreams of a speech of President-elect Obama in which he extends the change also to the missile defense policy:

'The missile interceptors will not be installed in Eastern Europe. I can understand why the Russian regime would consider this a provocative act. If Russia were installing the same type of system in Cuba or in Mexico along the U.S. border, that would concern us. Such a project will accomplish nothing more than to increase tensions unnecessarily between our two countries, which it is already succeeding in doing. It’s time we reduced such tensions, […]'

However, NATO reaffirmed on November 17 its backing for a planned missile shield in Europe. NATO spokeswoman Carmen Romero said the alliance's position had not changed. During its last summit in Bucharest in April NATO leaders agreed upon that the missile shield makes ‘substantial contribution to the protection of allies’.

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.

Missile Defense and more

Even though it is hard to believe but there are still other news besides those on the financial crisis. For example this one: the Obama-camp has expressed support for the European missile defense bases, despite Moscow’s protests that the deployments would threaten Russia. One of Obama’s senior advisers said on October 2 that “Serious conversation needs to be had with the Russians about what we’re trying to do, because it is not anti-Russian.” The other side in the presidential race has a different understanding of the purpose of the missile defense system and bluntly speaks of a new justification:

Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain (Ariz.) has strongly supported missile defenses to protect the United States and its allies, in addition to discussing a possibly rising threat from Moscow.

So McCain takes this position in spite of all the vehement declarations that the European GMD bases are NOT directed against Russia. The times, they are a-changin' – and so does the rhetoric.

The support for the European bases has also increased elsewhere. According to a new poll the support by the Czechs ticked up by 10 percent to an amount of 38 percent. The majority of the population, 55 percent, is still opposed. Meanwhile a speaker of the parliament in Prague said that the discussions on the ratification of the Czech-U.S. agreement may begin in November.

The shift from objection to support is even greater in Poland: support for the interceptor base rose to 41 percent in early September, compared to 27 percent in early August, before the much-disputed deal was reached. Opposition to the plan dropped to 46 percent from 56 percent, over that same time.

While the U.S. administration certainly loved to read about these new polls, there are other things that are not to their taste: a GAO report says that the United States has increasingly failed in attempts to launch mock enemy missiles for its test interceptors to destroy. The failure rate has more than double over the course of the last three year up to now 16 percent. This comes at a time at which the unit costs of the mock warheads increased eightfold up to almost US$ 50m.

The United States also spent some money on another type of missile: Washington is weary to leave the super- and hyper-sonic cruise missiles to India and Russia alone. Therefore Boeing has been awarded an $18.3 million follow-on contract from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to conduct a third powered flight of the HyFly hypersonic missile. The first two tests were conducted in September 2007 and January 2008, respectively. In January the HyFly boosted to Mach 3.5.

With all these expenses, Washington needs to generate some income. Therefore it is money-wise quite helpful that the United States plans to sell PAC-3 missile defense systems to Taiwan as part of a $6.5 billion armaments deal.

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.