Appealing to European interests, Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday offered the NATO alliance an outline for constructing a common missile defense system that provides an alternative to the shield proposed by the United States.
The Russian plan calls for a mobile anti-missile system that could be deployed quickly and targeted in the direction of any so-called rogue state. But the Russian military provided few additional details on how this non-strategic system would work, who would build it or who would pay for it.
The limited missile defense proposal represents a shift in approach as Moscow challenges U.S. efforts to construct a $60 billion defense shield. Feeling that the Bush administration has ignored their objections, Russian officials are trying to drive a wedge between Washington and its NATO allies, analysts say, if only to give Moscow some leverage in negotiations with the United States.
Russia presented its European missile defense idea Tuesday to George Robertson, the NATO secretary general, who came to Moscow to help mend relations damaged two years ago by NATO’s air war in the Balkans.
Although NATO-Russian relations are improving, bitterness over the NATO air attacks on Serbia remains. So does fear that NATO one day could turn its weapons and warplanes against Russia.
Russian officials complain of a “Cold War mentality” within the Bush administration, and not just about the National Missile Defense system.
Putin criticized the rhetoric Tuesday after meeting with Robertson. He alluded to the war of words that accompanied the arms buildup on both sides during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
“We are aware of the statements made by certain representatives of the West–we can read–who are trying to re-create the image of Russia as the `evil empire’ even though it doesn’t scare anyone anymore,” Putin said.
American officials dismiss Russian fears of NATO and the anti-missile shield as irrational. They also complain that Moscow is not doing enough to cooperate with the West on issues such as nuclear proliferation.
Last week Russia conducted a highly publicized, and not so subtly politicized, test of its land-, sea- and air-launched strategic missile systems. The test coincided with a Defense Ministry condemnation of an “information war” being run by the United States.
Russia objects to the proposed U.S. missile shield as a violation of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which Russia and many arms-control experts consider a bedrock agreement. Moscow says such a system would make the world less stable, not more, and possibly force Russia, China and others into a new arms race.
In Beijing on Tuesday, Chinese President Jiang Zemin said a missile defense shield could “sabotage global strategic balance and security.”
Some European nations have expressed similar concerns. They are asking to see details of the Pentagon’s plans.
Despite the international objections, qualms about the system’s estimated $60 billion price tag, and predictions that the technology is not sufficiently advanced to make such a shield practical, President Bush has pledged to move ahead with the project.
Administration officials say that while the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty served an important purpose, it is a document from the Cold War. Today’s world, they say, carries different threats that require new security systems.
The White House takes pains to point out that its proposed anti-missile system is limited. It would be unable to stop the giant nuclear arsenal upon which Russia still relies as its primary deterrent.
On this, Russia agrees. But Moscow fears that a future U.S. defense system might outstrip Russia’s ability to build new and better nuclear missiles.
Eventually, the White House says, NATO allies will fully support the project, especially if–as envisioned–it can be expanded to offer Europe protection as well. Moscow will drop its objections, officials say, once Russia understands it cannot stop the U.S. decision.
For now, though, Russia is on the offensive.
Earlier this month, Putin courted German officials on the issue. His top diplomats have been working on the French. And Putin met with Robertson on Tuesday, urging NATO to give the Russian proposal serious consideration.
Robertson received the proposals from Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev. They call for a meeting of “skilled experts” to determine whether Europe is threatened by missiles from rogue states and, if so, how Russia and Europe might build a mobile defense that could be oriented in the direction of any threatening country.
“They are trying to muddy the waters, or even to cause splits in the alliance,” said Andrew Brookes of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London.
In their anti-missile proposal, the Russians tacitly acknowledge that the threat of attack by a rogue state such as Iraq or North Korea does exist. But they say the threat is far more remote than the Bush administration suggests, and they contend that defusing such a threat could be done in a simpler, cheaper and more diplomatic manner.
Col. Gen. Leonid Ivashov described the Russian plan as “radically different from what the Americans are proposing.”
It is not a strategic weapons system and thus, Russia officials claim, would conform to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. It would also be less expensive, though the officials did not say how much the Russian option would cost.
The Russian idea offers only a partial umbrella over Europe. It would be aimed at short- and medium-range rockets, sources said. In the Russian version, mobile anti-missile launchers would be deployed close to a potential aggressor nation only after all diplomatic and political efforts to defuse a threat had been exhausted.
Robertson said NATO would study the idea and work more on it with Russia in the coming weeks. But he dismissed any ideas of a split in the alliance.
Finally, Russia is keeping the pressure on NATO over expansion plans.
Stung by the 1999 inclusion of the former Soviet bloc states of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, Russia is lobbying desperately to draw a new line on NATO’s growth. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia all want in, and Moscow rejects that.
