Viewpoint: Russia's missile fears

Does Kremlin anger over US plans to site anti-missile facilities close to its borders reflect genuine Russian concerns?

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of foreign affairs journal Russia in Global Affairs, spoke to the BBC News website from Moscow.

America keeps saying its anti-missile system will not target Russia and to suggest otherwise would be absurd because Russia can overcome it. Well, Russia could overcome it today but what about in 15 years' time, when it is not just two facilities but a global system?

Russia would have nothing to fear if it was just the anti-missile base in Poland and the radar site in the Czech Republic but if the idea of a global anti-missile system becomes a reality, the nuclear capability of Russia, China and other countries will be undermined.

So when the Americans say they are not targeting Russia, they are right, but when Russian generals say that the US is targeting Russia, they are also right. It is two sides of the same coin.

When [Russian President Vladimir] Putin criticises the US aggressively over its anti-missile system plans, I can imagine the faces of China's leaders, sitting quietly in Beijing and happily nodding approval because Putin is fighting for them against a system none of them want. Putin reflects the views of all those who are not US allies.

See maps of US and Russian missile systems

Beyond electioneering

Were the US planning to build its facilities in Turkey or Italy, I think the Russian reaction would have been slightly more restrained but still negative.

Putin's sharp words today come down to his deep sense of disappointment in the US Russian media foresee fros

The only Russian electioneering [ahead of the parliamentary ballot in December and presidential vote in March 2008] going on here is in the tough style and manner the Kremlin is using.

Not that Putin really needs it - our society could not be more politically consolidated if it tried and everyone backs the president and whoever he puts forward to replace him. Nonetheless, the authorities are always happy to have an extra bit of insurance.

But I do not think the stance on the anti-missile system depends on elections. The rhetoric may change but Russia will continue to view it as a threat.

Let down by Bush

Countries can cooperate on strategic security only if they trust each other and where anti-missile systems and national security are concerned, the trust has to be very high indeed.

The USSR built a radar station in Cuba in 19

Just now, it would be absurd to talk about such trust between Russia and the US.

Theoretically, it was possible five or six years ago, when Russia and the US were united against terrorism, but the trust gradually disappeared and Russia believes that it has been cheated by the US.

In Putin's eyes, Russia has done a great deal for the West and America. Putin removed the military base from Vietnam, he shut down the radar station in Cuba, he did not stand in the way of the US opening bases in Central Asia.

The US believes that Russia had no choice and that it was in Russian interests anyway but Russia believes that all it got for its efforts was the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the dispute with Georgia, Nato expansion and now these anti-missile sites.

Putin's sharp words today come down to his deep sense of disappointment in the US. He feels misused.

Stumping the EU

I can understand how people see this dispute in terms of New Russian arrogance and resurgent Russian imperialism but that is a very facile interpretation.

If we are talking about projecting power here, just look at Poland, for example, which has become the lead EU state in all things regarding Russia and determines how relations with us are conducted.

All the politicians I have spoken to privately in the EU - and I do meet a lot of them - have told me they do not support the anti-missile system. They all say it is a perfectly useless thing that nobody needs.

And many of the people I have talked to in private have told me they believe the anti-missile system is a US tactic to prevent the EU from becoming an independent player in foreign policy.

In my view, the anti-missile system plan spells the end of any attempt to have a common security policy in Europe because East European countries, for very understandable reasons, do not trust Western Europe to look after their security. They believe that America will defend them.

So you can blame everything on Russia, and sadly Russia does much to encourage that position, but the situation really is much more complex.

Capitalist revolutionaries

All former empires, especially the big ones like France and Britain, have gone through the same difficult process.

For Russia it is even harder because it never regarded Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan as colonies but as natural parts of our country.

The USSR's imperialism was based on ideology and confrontation with another side. A Cold War is not possible now because it would mean dividing the world in two.

We might be wrestling with the US or EU but there would be enormous countries on the sidelines, enjoying the spectacle. I mean China, Iran and India, to some extent.

It would be a lose-lose, not win-win, situation because the winners would be China and the others.

Of course, Russia wants to be a great power again but not a superpower.

It wants to be a member of the club which sets the rules and wants to review the rules which were drawn up when it was weak.

Russia's world view today is mainly through the prism of economic interests. It perceives the outside world as an enormous market where every country competes for a share.

'It is a young and terribly aggressive, ruthless, unceremonious kind of capitalism but it is guided by profit. '

Interview taken by Patrick Jackson, BBC News.

Q&A: US missile defence

Russia test launched a new ICBM last month

Russia's President Vladimir Putin has objected to a proposed US missile defence system in Europe.

What is the US proposing to do?

The United States wants to build a system that will let it knock out incoming ballistic missiles potentially coming from North Korea and Iran.

This involves using radars in Alaska and California in the US and at Fylingdales in the UK. Another radar is planned for Greenland.

Anti-missile missiles, or interceptors, are being based in Alaska (40 of them) and California (4) and the plan is to put 10 of them in Poland with an associated radar in the Czech Republic.

There would also be 130 interceptors based on ships. The interceptors work by physically hitting the ballistic missile in mid-flight. There would also be missiles to try to destroy incoming rockets in the final stages.

Why in Eastern Europe?

The US says there is a gap in its anti-missile defences.

See maps of US and Russian missile systems

A threat from North Korea could be countered with the US and sea-based systems.

But European allies or US forces in Europe could be threatened by Iran one day, Washington says, or indeed some other country (though only Iran is mentioned by name in the US Missile Defense Agency "Overview" -- see link at right) so there needs to be a system based in Europe as well.

Why does Russia object?

Because it says that the missiles in Poland and the radar in the Czech Republic could threaten its own defences. The system might be small to start with, it says, but could expand. The radar could be used to spy on Russia.

What about President Putin's threat to target Europe?

Before the G8 meeting in Germany in June 2007, he did threaten to target Europe with nuclear ballistic or cruise missiles again (something given up after the Cold War) if the proposed defence system went ahead.

But he has also offered alternatives to the US plan?

The US wants to place radar at this old base in the Czech Republic

Yes, he has softened his tone since making his threat.

First he proposed at the G8 that the US could use a Russian-rented radar site in Azerbaijan, which shares a border with Iran.

Then at a meeting with President Bush in Kennebunkport on 2 July 2007 he offered use of a radar site in southern Russia and offered to work with the US and other European countries on a joint defence system. However he is still opposed to the deployments in Poland the Czech Republic.

Will the US agree?

President Bush said the Polish and Czech deployments were "integral" to the system but he agreed to work with the Russians as well.

When would the system be deployed in Eastern Europe?

The radar would be installed in the Czech Republic in 2011 and the 10 interceptors in Poland (on a football pitch-sized site) between 2011 and 2013.

"You're not going to counter the hundreds of Russian ICBMs and the thousands of warheads that are represented by that fleet with 10 interceptors in a field in Europe," says Gen Henry Obering, head of the US Missile Defense Agency.

In addition, he says, the radar would be too small to track Russian missiles effectively.

NUCLEAR WARHEADS Russia Land-launched: 2,146 Sea-launched: 1,392 Air-launched: 624 US Land-launched: 1,600 Sea-launched: 3,168 Air-launched: 1,098 Source: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) data 2007

Have Poland and the Czech Republic agreed to the deployment?

Not finally. The Czech government agrees in principle but is negotiating conditions, such as assurances that this is not directed at Russia and will not affect Czech sovereignty. Poland is also sympathetic but wants further discussions. There is some opposition in both countries to the plan

Does Iran have a missile capable of reaching Europe or the US?

The US think-tank, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, says: "Iran currently possesses the capability to employ ballistic missiles and/or long-range artillery rockets against its regional neighbours, Israel, and US forces deployed in the region.

"Given favourable conditions, Iran is currently on track to be able to extend its ballistic missile capabilities to include Southern Europe, North Africa and South Asia by 2005-2010 and possibly the continental United States by 2015."

What international agreements cover these moves?

None. The US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001.

Ranges of Russian Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles Enlarge Image

This treaty limited US and Soviet anti-missile defences to one site each. The Russians still operate theirs, around Moscow.

The US chose to defend its strategic rockets in North Dakota but this defence has been deactivated.

Part of the Russian unhappiness about the Europe sector of the anti-missile system is that it results from the US withdrawal from the ABM treaty and Russia is worried about where it might go next.

Russia has announced the testing of a new multiple-warhead missile, the RS-24, which it says is designed to overcome missile defences. It is also developing new cruise missiles.

The US says it should not be worried.

Is this the start of a new Cold War?

It is certainly a difficult period where mistrust and antagonism are prevalent. The hopes that Russia and the United States could be friendly allies have not been realised so far. Instead there is suspicion and this is likely to continue, though to call it a new Cold War is probably going too far.

President Putin leaves office next spring and President Bush in early 2009, so a lot depends on their successors.

What ballistic missiles do the US and Russia have?

They have dramatically reduced their arsenals from the Cold War days but still retain substantial forces of several thousand missiles and nuclear warheads each.

Under the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) signed by presidents Bush and Putin in 2002, each side has to reduce its deployed warheads to a maximum of 2,200 by 2012.

Russia has its own radar early warning system, short range interceptor missiles in bases around Moscow and a number of land-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missile launch sites across the country.