Ted Postol, in an op-ed published by The New York Times today, argues that the United States should accept Russia's offer to use the radar in Azerbaijan for its missile defense system.
Ted admits that he is quite skeptical about the proposed missile defense, but he argues that if the United States wants it to work, then integrating the systems would make a lot of sense from the technical standpoint, since the radars would complement each other:
[...] the Russian radar can quickly and effectively search the sky for missiles, but has little ability to determine exactly what it has found. The American radar may take longer to find the object, but can carefully observe its structural details. It should be obvious that when you use two systems with such different strengths and weaknesses in tandem, you will have a much easier time spotting and tracking missiles.As for the politics, Ted argues that "technical cooperation between the countries is a good way to encourage Russia to be closer with the West".
I completely agree with Ted's points. All confrontational rhetoric notwithstanding, Russia has been trying to tell the United States that it really wants to cooperate on a range of issues, missile defense being one of them. Following Putin's offers at the G8 meeting and in Kennebunkport, a call for cooperation was made by Sergei Ivanov, who oversees defense and security issues in the government. Speaking during his trip to the Far East, Ivanov hinted at a possibility of even broader cooperation on missile defense and data exchange.
I really wish someone in the Bush administration took a serious look at the Russian proposals. For the moment, however, all we hear is that the United States is not going to abandon the plan to build missile defense installations in Eastern Europe. But this does not seem to be a precondition of the Russian offers. This is something that Russia appears to be willing to discuss and I do not see any reason why this discussion could not end with approval of the Easter European deployment (which, as Ted Postol argues, may make sense). In any event, the process of talks and cooperation would matter much more than technical details of the system that may (or may not) emerge.
The book
Comments
Here is the point. If the use of an updated Russian radar system in Azerbaijan proposed by President Putin, complimented by the American X-Band radar systems, increases the success of the Ground Based Interceptors (GBI) in Alaska to engage a launch from Iran, all this makes sense. If the use of the “Azerbaijan system” only allows the United States greater warning of a missile launch without the ability to engage such a strike, where is the logic? I think that is what the American policy position keeps coming back to. Where is the defense? President Putin has stated the Russian position, radar now and interceptors in the future, if needed. Such interceptors could be ship-based or put in some NATO country like Turkey. I guess the fact that Poland and the Czech Republic are NATO members is a “historical casualty” of this debate.
I completely agree talking on this issue between Russia and the US is imperative and, I suspect, ongoing as we speak.
Frank Shuler
USA
> For the moment, however, all we hear is that the United States is not going to abandon the plan to build missile defense installations in Eastern Europe. But this does not seem to be a precondition of the Russian offers.
- According to Sergey Ivanov, Vice-premier and former Minister of Defence (citation):
'Russian offers on joint missile defence will remain actual, only if the USA will refuse to deploy an ABM facilities in Czechia and Poland' (Press-conference in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, of July 4, 2007).
I agree that freezing the Poland and Czech Republic sites is a political condition at the moment, but I'm certain that it's all negotiable if the process is right.
> If the use of the “Azerbaijan system” only allows the United States greater warning of a missile launch without the ability to engage such a strike, where is the logic?
- Again, the citation of Sergey Ivanov: 'We often hear, that plans to deploy an ABM facilities in the East Europe do not threat to Russia. We adduce a heap of arguments. I do not know, what will be visible [from radar of Czechia] at Iran, but the territory of Russia up to Urals Mountains will be visible very well. And we do not hear absolutely nothing in reply to these concerns'.
Russian:
The United States heard the same rhetoric when the first X-Band radar system was installed in Vardo, Norway.
Frank Shuler
USA
Yep, but the Vardo radar is now able to track every thing launched from Plesestk. Russia in fact, can’t stop these development. It can just target them. I think this will be the end of the story.
"- According to Sergey Ivanov, Vice-premier and former Minister of Defence (citation):
'Russian offers on joint missile defence will remain actual, only if the USA will refuse to deploy an ABM facilities in Czechia and Poland' (Press-conference in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, of July 4, 2007)."
Well that sure sounds like a good idea to me. Hate to rain on everybody's parade but "cooperation" as Russia has outlined it will NEVER happen. Not in a million years. "We'll help you defend yourself as long as you don't defend yourself." I can't believe they think anybody but a hardcore, uninformed left-winger would even consider it. Now if they wanted to cooperate in ADDITION to the system going in in CR and Poland that's another thing altogether. Cooperation is great. Defense based souly on Putin's hoped-for generosity would be sheer insanity.
All Russian offers should be examined seriously - the fact they are talking about working jointly is evidence enough that they are very concerned by the Czech radar site. We would spiting nails if they decided to work within and talk directly to NATO members ... unlike Bush's attempt to `do an end round the NATO-Russia Council' and do a separate deal with Poland and the Czech Republic. Kolokol's eventual analysis is probably where this will head if the Bush White House ignores alternatives over the next 18 months.
"All Russian offers should be examined seriously - the fact they are talking about working jointly is evidence enough that they are very concerned by the Czech radar site. "
They aren't talking joint though. You DID see the part where they said the conditions are that the US doesn't do anything right? What's "joint" about that? Joint is what the US and Japan are doing with missile defense.
As for an "end run around NATO" since when does any NATO country need permission to work out a defense agreement with another country? The program is with Poland and the Czech Republic and concerns the defense of the US from Iranian missiles. Has nothing to do with NATO as a whole. That would be like expecting the UK, Germany, Italy, and Spain to get permission from the US to produce Typhoons.
Defense of the US from Iranian missiles in Europe is not the issue - there are currently `no ICBMs from Iran' nor will there be in a decade or more (if they pursue the tech with 10Xs today's expenditures) ... any encounter there is likely to be almost completely conventional in the `near term.' The NATO-Russia Council was set-up to address these matters and the US/Bush White House is not interested in that mechanism - just like the application of attitude they also share for the `Geneva Conventions' - Postol's analysis and Op-ED are right on the money. We did not occupy Russia as we did Japan after WW2 - they helped defeat fascism with us (let us hope we in the US have the common sense to realize this!)
"Defense of the US from Iranian missiles in Europe is not the issue - there are currently `no ICBMs from Iran' nor will there be in a decade or more (if they pursue the tech with 10Xs today's expenditures) .."
I would think most would have given up this particularly weak arguement. 1. Just because there are none today doesn't mean it will stay that way forever. (Particularly since they are busting their butts to build up their long-range missile capability.) 2. If the US, Poland, and CR come to an agreement today do you think the missile defense site and radar will start operation tomorrow? It will be years before the thing is operational. 3. What difference does it make whether we occupied a country or not? Are you saying that since we didn't occupy Russia we should let them dictate whether or not we can defend ourselves? No doubt you will also say it's the US's fault Russia has now announced it's withdrawing from the CFE treaty. Because, you know ten defensive ABMs with non-exploding warheads have such an effect on conventional forces in Europe.
Where are the WMDs in Iraq ??? ... gone, where ... we don't know, spirited away by aliens ... maybe made up ... could be??? Iran hyped-up scenario ... same scenario ... make up an enemy and the Military Industrial Complex will come to the rescue! CFE is a separate issue and more to do with getting NATO to the NATO-Russia Council and preventing the build-up of NATO bases in old Warsaw Pact countries according to
the CFE which everyone signed in 1990 ... I guess except GWB and Dick. That aside the rebalancing of strategic and tactical forces in Europe will now take place. Is this good for the US and the world ... maybe or it just may keep us at home more often ... until Jeb runs for office - ask Mr. Kissinger why he is in Moscow and not Condi Rice trying to work out a deal to stop the collapse of the CFE with part 1, 2 and 3!