Russia's opposition to the US ballistic missile de-fense program has intensified substantially ever since the latter withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in December 2001. Therefore, the recent proposal made by Russia at the G-8 summit to establish a joint radar station in Azerbaijan took the US by surprise.
Russia has proposed that the system be installed at the Soviet-era Gabala radar station, located some 250km northwest of Baku. While Bush continues to insist that interceptors in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic proposed by him are meant to protect East Europe from the long-range missiles of Iran, Russia posits that the Azerbaijan radar would protect the whole of Europe rather than only one part of Europe.
It also states that development of such an arrangement would not force Russia to target its missiles on Europe. Russia is opposed to the US proposal of a missile shield of radars in the Czech Republic and interceptors in Poland on the ground that this would allow them to keep track of Russian missiles and also reduce the retaliatory capability of Russia. It claims that Iran does not have the capability presently to target the US or its allies in Europe.
Another Russian argument is that this system would provide complete coverage up to the Urals, thereby enabling the US to erode the nuclear and missile capabilities of Russia. Russia has also carried out a successful test of the RS-24, an ICBM which could carry multiple independent warheads. The RS-24 uses a sophisticated navigation system which allows the warheads to lock on to different targets and is capable of penetrating the US ballistic missile defense shield.
If analyzed carefully, Russia appears to be playing a dangerous gamble. On the one hand, it has proved to the world that it has the capability to penetrate US missile defenses while, on the other hand, it has opened grounds for negotiation.
Russia is fully aware about the political difficulties involved in the proposal but it is acting very diplomatically to show the international community that it is interested in negotiations, provided US cooperates with Russia. This has been described as a skillful political chess move.
However, the New England summit, held on July 3 between Bush and Putin, shows that it has become very difficult to reach any agreement on the issue of missile defense. There are mainly three proposals made by the Russian President - to broaden US missile defense plans in Europe by bringing NATO into the project, which President Bush has not agreed to; to set up an "online information exchange center" in Moscow as part of the system; and similar installations in European cities with a joint radar at Azerbaijan that would protect the whole of Europe, rather than only one part of Europe.
The problem is that the US will have to share some of its important military technology with Russia and give up its ambiguous plan in Czech Republic and Europe. But it is in no mood to do either. Also, the Putin proposal makes no mention of interceptors.
The US is interested in having these interceptors considering its present threat environment. Hence, the US will not agree to this proposal as indicated by the New England summit. With the US disagreeing to the Russian proposal, a conflict situation could emerge like in the Cold War.
Russia has been building countermeasures against missile defense since 1960, and the 1999 US National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) said Russia has developed numerous countermeasures. These include decoys, chaff, the Topal M rocket and the RS-24 missile which can be armed with 10 warheads.
Rejection of the Russian proposal and absence of any other solution to its apprehensions could encourage Russia to build more such missiles. It is also possible that Russia might start providing these technologies to Middle East countries to undermine US security.
This could lead to an arms race and proliferation of weapons, leaving the world more 'insecure' rather than 'secure.' The writer is Research Assistant, IPCS
Print
Tell friend
Top
