Real Russian Worry Isn’t European Missile Defense Interceptors In Poland, But Rather U.S.-Run Radar: Vershbow
Russians Act Out Of Anger Over Perceived Slights, But Can Be Brought Around By Giving Them Role In EMD System: Experts
Russia is exaggerating when it vows to use nuclear weapons to annihilate the European Missile Defense (EMD) interceptors that the United States wishes to construct in Poland, but Russians truly are worried about the EMD radar to be placed in the Czech Republic, experts said.
“I think there’s a lot of exaggeration in the Russian stance on this issue,” said Alexander Vershbow, retired U.S. ambassador to Russia.
He responded to a question from Space & Missile Defense Report as to whether Americans should take seriously the Russian threat to use nuclear arms. Vershbow spoke in a forum of the Schieffer School of Journalism at Texas Christian University hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a think tank in Washington, D.C. The forum was led by Bob Schieffer, CBS news chief Washington correspondent and moderator of Face the Nation, the Sunday morning show.
Several senior Russian civilian and military leaders have voiced explicit or lightly veiled threats of nuclear war to intimidate the Czechs and Poles into rescinding their offers to host components of the EMD shield against missiles fired from the Middle East.
For example, Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister who formerly was Russian president, said if the EMD system is constructed, Russia would be justified in responding with a nuclear strike.
The Times of London quoted Putin as saying in an interview, “It is obvious that if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the U.S. is located in Europe and will be threatening us, we will have to respond.
“This system of missile defense on one side and the absence of this system on the other … increases the possibility of unleashing a nuclear conflict.”
The United States has said for years that the EMD system is designed to take down any missiles fired toward either Europe or the United States from Middle Eastern nations such as Iran. Tehran flouts world opinion by continuing to produce nuclear materials, which it says would be used in generating electricity but which Western leaders fear would be used to construct nuclear weapons. Iran also is developing missiles of increasingly long ranges. And Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said Israel should be wiped from the map, and that Israel soon shall cease to exist.
Putin expressed skepticism of this motive, arguing that “there are no such missiles — Iran does not have missiles with” a range sufficient to strike targets in Europe. That means, Putin argued, that the EMD system would be “installed for the protection from something that does not exist. Is it not sort of funny? It would be funny if it were not so sad.”
Vershbow challenged the Russian view of the matter.
Russian leaders must know that there would be only 10 U.S. missile defense interceptors versus hundreds of Russian missiles and warheads, Vershbow said. And it also is true that the interceptors in the EMD system never could catch Russian ICBMs aimed at the United States, since they would be traveling over the North Pole, away from Poland, not toward it.
“They have to know that our 10 interceptors, when deployed, not only couldn’t catch 10 Russian missiles, they couldn’t catch any, because the Russians would go over the North Pole, and those [interceptors] would always be 15 to 30 minutes behind, chasing after” the Russian weapons, depending on how quickly the interceptors were launched.
If there is a genuine concern among the Russians about the EMD system, it is that the radar in the Czech Republic could track Russian missiles, and also that the Czech radar could be linked into U.S. radars around the world, Vershbow said.
This may be, he said, as well an attempt “to put a wedge between us and our European allies.”
At the same time, while some Russian fears may be contrived and less than accurate, “that doesn’t mean that we should dismiss their concerns out of hand,” Vershbow said.
Not only is it possible the United States might be able to reduce Russian concerns here, but if the United States plays its cards astutely, there might be some opportunity opening here for the next administration. U.S. voters on Nov. 4 will decide whether Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, or Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic hopeful, will be taking the oath of office in January as the next president.
With President Bush moving out of the White House, Vershbow said, the incoming president might find great opportunities not only in mending frayed relations with Russia, but in moving further to work with Russia on problems such as Iran and even North Korea.
Pyongyang has launched a missile arcing over Japan to land in the Pacific Ocean, and has tested, successfully, a nuclear weapon. It is working on developing the Taepo Dong-2 missile, which would be capable of striking U.S. cities. While it has said it will denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, it has yet to turn over to international inspectors even one nuclear weapon.
Clearly, “the Russians could be doing more” to aid European and U.S. moves to restrain Iranian programs, and U.S., Japanese and other moves to restrain North Korea, Vershbow said.
One way to defuse Russian anger, helping to make Russia more positive and cooperative in relations with the United States, would be to offer Russia a role in the EMD system, Vershbow said.
Offering Moscow some “Russian participation” in the EMD shield “could go a long way to overcome” resistance to the missile defense shield, he predicted.
Indeed, Russia has itself offered to hook in one or more of its radars to the EMD system, if it is built, an offer coolly received by U.S. military leaders, who say the Russian radars are of the wrong type or improperly located to aid in tracking and killing Iranian missiles.
Iran says it has 4,000 centrifuges spinning to produce nuclear materials.
It also has launched a missile from a submerged submarine. And Iran says it is developing a space program that would be capable of launching satellites, which would involve much the same missile technology required to produce intercontinental ballistic missiles able to strike targets anywhere in the world.
Vershbow and others on the panel discussed why Russia refuses to acknowledge a growing threat posed by Iran, and why Russia opposes the EMD system.
Aside from Russian concern about the EMD radar in the Czech Republic that Vershbow cited, the panelists were unanimous in agreeing that on a broader scale, Russia is out to stick it to Uncle Sam as payback for years of what Moscow leaders see as disrespect and contemptuous treatment by leaders in the United States and other nations.
Vershbow was joined on the panel by Jim Hoagland, The Washington Post associate editor and chief foreign correspondent, and by Andrew Kuchins, director of the CSIS Russia and Eurasia program.
They each said that Russia has an axe to grind for what it sees as demeaning treatment of a great power, deciding that it is pay-back time to settle a lot of scores.
Other factors are Russian rage that the United States aims to place its EMD bases in what Russia regards as its back yard, former Soviet Union states. As well, Russia also is awash in oil revenues that can finance adventurous behavior, according to the experts.
Hoagland said leaders in Moscow may wish the United States to take a hands-off approach to Russia similar to the very respectful stance that Washington takes toward China.
Former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), who was a chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was in the audience at the forum. He since has become CEO of the Nuclear Threat Initiative that works to reduce the danger of attacks involving weapons of mass destruction.
Nunn agreed with the panelists’ assessment of the Russian stance on the EMD, and on relations with the United States generally.
“This relationship has seriously deteriorated,” Nunn said.
The next administration should make a list of what it really needs from Russia, and leaders in Moscow should list what they most wish to gain from the United States, he said.
“We’ve got a great big problem,” Nunn said. “We’ve got to get Russia to work with us,” just as Washington has worked with the former Soviet Union on reducing nuclear arms and stockpiles.
Nunn also agreed with the panel members that Russian protestations against the EMD system are overdone.
“I do believe it is a great exaggeration on their part,” he said.
But he urged the United States to take Russia up on its offer of cooperation on EMD.
The EMD system that the United States wishes to build to protect Europe has gained approvals not only from NATO, but also from administrations in the Polish and Czech governments. All that remains is to gain approval from the Czech and Polish parliaments. (Please see separate story in this issue.)
Until those legislatures act, however, the U.S. Congress is barring the U.S. Missile Defense Agency from installing the EMD system in the Czech Republic and Poland, permitting instead some work on the EMD system short of construction.
Further, members of Congress want to put an additional hurdle in the way of the EMD, requiring tests of EMD interceptors, a step that might consume years.
The EMD system would be a variant of an already constructed and operating missile defense system, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system now installed in Alaska and California. Essentially, the EMD interceptors would use two stages of the three-stage GMD interceptors.
Both the GMD system, and the EMD if it is built, are led by The Boeing Co. [BA].