Pavel:

It’s an election year in Russia, and while President Putin isn’t a candidate, he is certainly “campaigning” for his agenda. It appears that “agenda” will only be continued by his hand-picked successor. In the world of politics, all this is normal and expected. The most interesting question for me is, what does the Kremlin really believe? On one hand you have the silo & road mobile SS-27 Topol-M with the quickest boosting launch of any ICBM in history and is equipped with a maneuverable, high-yield warhead that will be impervious to any present or future ABM system. If America wants to waste its dollars on such a “missile defense system”, let them. Or is it, the American ABM system is so good now that it is a real threat to our ability to launch ballistic missiles today and will only improve in time. Ten missiles in Poland could grow into 100 even more capable interceptors in the future if not politically checked. So does the Kremlin look at all this with a yawn or with panic? That’s the question.

Frank Shuler
USA

> Ten missiles in Poland could grow into 100 even more capable interceptors in the future if not politically checked.

That's it, - the rhetoric mentioned above, raised from Kremlin's tendency 'not to allow a political precedent' of US' EuroABM deployment.

Pavel i would disagree with you.

How is it iresponsible behaviour whem someone is only reacting to other country moves.
If someone points a gun at me so i would be irresponsible if i point my gun back at the other and said to him no to do this in first place.

Frank Shuler.

I believe that the major problem isn´t the ABM missiles or its capabilities ( it is also a problem but not the first one).

The problem is the message that it brings from USA.
The message to Russia and China is that the two must give up their multi-polar world views.
The message says that USA and Europe can achieve nuclear supremacy over Russia and China.
That a first strike option will be an option for USA/NATO.

It is a fact for one reason.
USA/NATO knows that Russia can´t sustain two arms races with them at the same time.
Russia has no enough money to follow USA NMD arms race and at the same time be on a par in the conventional arms race.
If URSS coudn´t do this (keep these two arms races at the same time)
certainly Russia can´t do this.

So it puts Russia against the wall.
Russia would have to chose between getting a modern conventional forces in parity with the West or
Having a nuclear second strike capabilitie in any scenario.

Russia can´t afford to don´t have modern conventional weapons anymore because it need them to keep security in low level conflict and even to witstand western pressure.

Russia also coudn´t give up its nuclear parity because it is the only way be independent of Western/NATO interference.

So that is the name of the game. Put Russia against the Wall by making it to face an impossible choice and by that, given up its nuclear parity and deterrence.

Vladimir Putin isn´t a fool and is very aware of that political game and its reaction is very correct with the confrontation game that the West is applyng.

Why NATO has expanding at Russian borders.
Why West is accusing Russia and accusing Putin of been a dictatorship and it was elected.
Why is NATO countrys financing colour revolutions in Russia frontiers?

No friend, there is no foolish from Putin in this scenario, but only reaction to an orchestrated confrontation.
If it was any other political coward in Russia presincy it would give up Russia nuclear deterrent.

Why would Russia give up its nuclear deterrence whem no one do this.
IF the West give up its nuclear deterrent so Russia could do this too.

I think people tend to mystify the First Strike policy.

The first strike policy is also a way of nuclear missile defence don´t.

The first strike would be used to destroy the other country missiles, in the case of war, in the purpose of protecting agains a counter strike of the enemy.
If USA is building a missile defence and if a war starts wouldn´t USA do prefer to destroy Russian missiles instead of risking a second strike in the case of Russia losing the war.
People consider this an impossible scenario but that is exactly what nuclear weapons do, to stop the impossible scenario to happen since russia keeps that deterrence.

To think 10 ABMs in Poland might enable the US to have first strike capability is demonstrating a lack of facts. First the US (and Russia) already has first strike capabilty in the form of the D-5 and B-2. Secondly 10 ABMs would be pretty much inconsequential in a Russian response. They're worthless against SLBMs because of their location and against Russian ICBMs for the same reason. The best geometry ABMs in Poland could hope for against a Russian ICBM is a crossing shot and that's if they launched at the same time which borders on the impossible. Which means the best they could hope for is a tail chase with GBI being several hundred miles in tail. Ain't gonna happen.

Also, people tend to say that Russia will not lose to much if USA has some limited NMD capability.

Really?
People have noted the difference of treatement that USA give
to Russia Chechenya or Georgia problem
and the treatment that USA gives
to China Taiwan strait.

Have you noted that USA says openly that ir will go to War with China in any event of war between China and Taiwan.

Would USA says that it will go to War with China, at any moment if they have a war with Taiwan,
if
China have the same number of ICBM and SLBM missiles that Russias has.

If China have the same capabliity of Russia in nuclear deterrent would USA dare to challenge China territorial integrity.

So you will have a clear vision of what will happen if Russia loses its nuclear parity with the USA/NATO military force.

Sferring you said that:
"Russian response. They're (NMD) worthless against SLBMs because of their location and against Russian ICBMs for the same reason"

If your facts are correct why USA is building a global missile defence and most important why it want to build it in Poland and Chez Republic if you say that they are worthless.

Alopes:

It is a multi-polar world. The United States does not fear an attack from Russia because there is no reason for one. However, the United States does fear an attack from non-peer rivals in the future. Realistically, that attack may be nuclear and be delivered by ballistic missiles (in the future). The US is only developing a national defense & strategy to deal with this issue. This only involves Russia directly if Russia intends in the future to attack America with ICBMs over the North Pole. And, even in that scenario, the interceptors in Poland would not play a factor. My friend, there is no “nuclear supremacy”; never has. Any exchange of nuclear weapons between Russia and the United States will result in the end of our countries. The people that talk about a “winner” in such a war are fools. What issue between Russia and the United States is worth “in victory” the destruction of 20 American cities? None. I know this; you know this. With end of the Cold War, Russia and the United States are struggling to understand their place in this New World. There will be frustrations and misunderstandings but with dialog resolutions are always possible. I hope for the continuing of the START Agreement post 2009 as a sign such dialogs continue.

Frank Shuler
USA

Anonymous:

“Sferring” is absolutely right. Polish interceptors couldn't reach a SS-27 launch against America with any degree of confidence. A SLBM strike on the US launched from the Arctic would be untouchable. It is just mathematically impossible.

Why then build such a global defense system to “protect” America? You answered the question yourself, it doesn't have any thing to do with Russia.

Frank Shuler
USA

So, just only Russia launch "Irresponsible rhetoric"? How about the "evil empire", the "axis of evil" or "democracy in Russia is dead" (just bacause Russia started to worry about its national security). Men, this issue of the "shield" is another stage of a long and consistet chain of actions not very friendly to Russia.

I said that I believe that the U.S. is mostly responsible for the current situation - missile defense is a wrong idea. But this is not an excuse for the kind of statements Putin made.

Kolokol:

It seems every “friendly act” between the United States and any other country is at someone's expense. Russia is a world power and her interests are always going to clash with America on some issues. It seems inevitable. However, clashing interest do not enemies make. Witness our relationship with the French.

Frank Shuler
USA

Pavel, what reasons do you have for labelling missile defence a "wrong idea"? What alternative solution do you propose to the threat of missile attack on the United States or its interests abroad by rogue entities?
You are not writing as a responsible individual, but as a person clinging to a political dogma.

Peter Sansom: Your call for an "alternative solution" implies that missile defense is some kind of solution. Well, this is exactly my point - it is not. And will never be. What reasons do you have to believe that it is a "right idea"?

u are forgeting the fact that the US has already deployed ABM units in alaska and hawaii and I would bet even money that soon they will deploy anti-missiles in Canada, to prevent an attack via the north-pole, so sooner or later they will be able to protect themselves from all angles of attack (at least to some degree) except for the south (but venezuela and mexico aren't axis of evil yet)

The fact that some ABM interceptors are deployed in Alaska (they are not in Hawaii and I haven't heard about any plans to deploy them in Canada) does not mean that they would be able to protect anyone. Neither they would be useful in any real-world crisis situation.

Pavel:

There were those that said trying to build a surface-to-air missile capable of knocking down a high flying jet aircraft was impossible. Nothing more than folly; one big pipe dream. However on May 1, 1960, Francis Gary Powers became a believer.

The whole concept of ballistic missile defense is in its infancy. We’re twenty-five years away from knowing if any of this has merits. At this point, the entire American ABM effort is only a big research & development project.

Frank Shuler
USA

It depends on what you want from missile defense. Intercepting a missile is not such a big problem - the Soviet Union did it in 1961. The problem is building a missile defense system that could provide protection of population from some kind of "rogue entities". That is, I believe, impossible. Missile defense may be somewhat useful in purely military setting, when a certain level of losses is expected to be tolerated, but that's not the goal of the current system.

Pavel:

Seems to me the “goal” of the current American GBI system is really to prevent an attack. It’s kinda like MAD taken to a different level. Hypothetical situation - The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) in the future perfects its long range ICBM and has a nuclear warhead to go with it. With an inventory of only half-a-dozen mobile launchers, Pyongyang could launch a strike on Chicago, for example. The US is faced with launching a total retaliatory attack on North Korea but it doing so knows it could face the loss of five more American cities. Mobile launchers would almost be impossible to track and individually attack in this situation. Do we launch such a devastating counter nuclear attack on the DPRK or do we negotiate to save our cities? Same situation – What happens if North Korea launches its ICBM and it is intercepted? Where is the future threat holding the remaining five American cities hostage? It doesn’t exist. In fact, if there is even the least military doubt an ICBM strike on the US might not be “successful”, why would you launch in the first place? That’s the American ABM argument.

However, this whole line of reasoning only applies to nuclear ballistic missiles attacking the United States from the northern hemisphere. Sounds like the Maginot Line, doesn’t it?

Frank Shuler
USA

By Frank Shuler

"The whole concept of ballistic missile defense is in its infancy. We’re twenty-five years away from knowing if any of this has merits. At this point, the entire American ABM effort is only a big research & development project."

Now you came to my point Frank, this military project may be still a research one, but USA is already wanting to put a prototype facing Russia strategic forces.
The system can´t intercept Russian ICBM yet.
But there is the intention under this project to have a global missile defence system, so Russia is also a target of this project.

If USA has no second intentions with this facilities why
USA don´t put the interceptors in England instead of Poland.

I took this text telling the intentions of the system:

"All elements of the MD system will work together to respond to a limited ballistic missile attack directed against the United States. The U.S. Early Warning System, consisting of Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites, and its follow-on capability, the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) satellites, will detect the launch of enemy missiles and then track these missiles while simultaneously gathering critical data. After confirmation, this information will be passed to the Battle Management/ Command, Control, and Communications (BM/C3) system while ground-based radars acquire and track the incoming missile. This information will then be used to make an engagement decision. When defense engagement authority is granted, one or more interceptors will be launched on command to engage the threat. The BM/C3 system will continue to process radar and other system data in order to provide more information to the interceptor so it, in turn, can better discriminate between debris, false objects (penetration aids), and real warheads. The interceptor will use its on-board sensor to acquire the threat, select the target warhead, and guide itself to a direct, high-speed collision using on-board computers and divert propulsion systems. During and after the engagement, the radars continue to collect data and observe the intercept results in order to provide “kill assessment” information which evaluates the interceptor’s success or failure."
from - http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/missiledefense/nmd.html

I also have found this in wikipedia.

I know it isn´t reliabe but anyway

" Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), formerly Theater High Altitude Area Defense, is a United States Army project to develop a system to shoot down short- and medium-range ballistic missiles over a theater or region by ramming them with interceptor missiles. THAAD was designed to hit Scuds and similar weapons, but has a limited capability against ICBMs."

If THAAD interceptors evolve to been capable of hitting ICBMS how Russia would have to look at that possible threat coming from NATO.

If USA wants to prevent from a possible Threat from Iran that don´t have ICBMs or IRBMs that could target Western Europe.

Why woudn´t Russia want to prevent from a more real possible threat from USA missile defence system.

There stays the question.
Why these interceptors are planned to be in Poland instead of England so to not engage Russia in an Arms Race.

The only answer, i could find, with my little knowledge about the matter, is that the USA Republicans have secundary intentions in regards to Russia despite what they keep sayng in the press.

Alopes:

The decision to base the American GBI system in Poland is a mystery to me. I can only infer the reason must be this specific location offers the best possible defense of American military bases in Europe as it would prove to be a poor choice for missile defense of the US east coast. Perhaps, the US asked the British and they refused? It was very controversial in British politics to have the RAF radar installation at Fylingdales updated to support the US National Missile Defense (NMD) system. We just don’t know the political intrigues at work here.

Remember, the THAAD system is designed to attack launching ballistic missile in boost (launching) phase. It is a regional anti-ballistic missile defense at best.

However, if Russia would agree to the joint-posting of American boost-phase interceptors like THAAD in Russian territory north of Iran and Korea, perhaps that might end the need for the GBI system in Poland?

Frank Shuler
USA

In my view the delivery of a "rogue" nuclear device is not going to be by ballistic missile (certainly not by any "terrorist" with an ICBM). Why would a country with only a handful(if that) of nuclear tipped ICBM's take a shot at the US or NATO and risk massive retaliation? It doesn't make sense to me at all. If the GBI interceptors in Poland and C. clearly serve no purpose to that end, what else would the point of them other than to pressure Russia, or possibly get Russia used to the idea of ABM systems on their borders so that the US can add to their numbers and eventually threaten Russia's deterrent capability?

Jon:

Completely agree. The Untied States’ effort in NMD is a potential military solution to only one security situation facing America. Today, the United States faces more risk from a nuclear bomb carried in a truck than we do from an ICBM attack. When the “policy makers” brought the need to construct such a future missile defense system to President Clinton one always wonders the original justification. More important, one wonders if the original justification still has merit.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler:

The reason for putting GBI in Poland is that missiles aimed at the East Coast will fly almost directly over Poland. Granted it might have been better to put them further along the flight path (and give you more time to track)but it might have been more hassle getting them stationed there. Also keep in mind the talk of possibly using KEI to replace GBI. Could be they'd just swap them out rather than have two kinds in place. One other thing is that THAAD is a midcourse/terminal phase missile to deal with MRBMs. It's ability against ICBMs is virtually zero.

From my understanding the British did not refuse GMD and when London learnt of the Czech/Polish tri-lateral system asked Washington to be a part of it. Washington responded by stating it would study the matter. Also, Poland reportedly has indicated that it wants a THAAD system in Poland as an entry price for GMD; whatever we think about GMD a THAAD system in Poland is clearly a Russia thing. The US is lukewarm on the Warsaw idea though.

Marko:

“Financial Times” article yesterday referred to your remarks. It seems the Polish government is looking for Patriot missile batteries to provide enhanced security when/if the American GBI system is installed. It wasn’t clear to me if the Polish were taking about American-manned PACIII missiles or older PACII that would be “given” to the Polish military.

Frank Shuler
USA

If KEI and Patriots are to be deployed in Poland, then the site is showing its “true face”. Anyway, irrespective of its claimed purpose (the virtual Iranian ICBM force or the real Russian ICBM force), if this site represents a threat to the Russian Strategic Forces, then it must be targeted. The best way to suppress it is just a technical issue. It could be suppressed by supersonic CM or IRBM missiles or ICBM on depressed trajectories. It is all subject to a technical-economic analysis, but the strategic decision precedes the technical studies and it seems that the decision had been taken.

Kolokol:

Here is the part I never seem to understand. How does Russia targeting kinetic interceptors or surface-to-air missile systems in Poland with “supersonic CM or IRBM missiles or ICBM on depressed trajectories” (all nuclear payloads I assume), solve its problem? How is the untouchable, unstoppable SS-27 Topol-M threatened?

Frank Shuler
USA

I don’t think the Topol-m are threatened so far. But if this site is classified as “threatening” it must be targeted. That’s all. That is part of strategic planning. The question is, if NATO decides unilaterally to build these sited irrespectively of Russian concerns, then Russia must target them irrespectively of NATO concerns. National security come first. I think a technical solution is feasible.

Kolokol:

Your explanation and rationale I completely understand. This installation in Poland, if it is to ever be built and I have my doubts, is no more a military target to Russia than an existing army base or airfield and should be so targeted in any “strategic” Russian planning. By “technical solution” in your post, I’m assuming you mean a conventional (non-nuclear) response?

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank, I don't know. If Russia “freezed” the CFE, this might indicate a “conventional targeting” (clearly the preferable option) but we are not sure (May be we should ask Baluyevsky). To get more answers we must wait and see.

European countries are planning to join their efforts to form Europe's own and unified satellite system, including military satellites, instead of relying on separate national satellites. The most common explanation for such a unified system is that no single State in the EU can afford their own separate system in the future. However, there is also another explanation: the EU is slowly preparing to build up its own defense. Therefore it might be possible that the planned U.S. missile defense system in Europe is also a smart way of consolidating the U.S. power to participate in the possible anti-satellite warfare in the European Theatre.

Jouni Pulli
Finland

Jouni Pulli:

After the Soviet A-35 and American Safeguard systems were deployed and the future development of ABM systems regulated by treaty, the world settled down to indifference. The American system was only activated for less than four months. With President Regan’s speech calling for a “Star Wars” project to build a system capable of defending the United States money began to flood technology research programs to see what was possible. Under President Clinton, the decision was made to build a comprehensive ABM system to protect the entire United States. The previously selected Safeguard site in North Dakota, USA was to host the new system. By the time President Bush arrived the Pentagon realized the old Safeguard site could not defend the entire country as some parts of western Hawaii and Alaska would be out the system's range. Politically this was impossible, so the results are what we have today. America decided to legally end compliance in the ABM Treaty and build testing facilities in the Pacific and operational bases in Alaska and California. The European site has been the most contentious. The decision to base radar systems in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland is a “national decision” and made outside of NATO. France led the chorus of protest from both within NATO and the European Union to the American plan. Then interestingly the French arguments ended. Why? The French government made the decision to begin its own ABM program so as not to be left dependent on any American solution. Germany and Italy are interested in the “French Initiative”. While the Soviet Union (and now Russia; with its A-135 system) and the United States began this process, every nation on the earth that has a peer rival armed with ballistic missiles is interested in such defenses. ABM systems are here to stay. I agree with your conclusions. Any European ABM system will probably be under the European Union banner and not NATO’s. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is an anachronism of the Cold War and a “military organization” in name only.

Frank Shuler
USA

It’s quite obvious that installation of MD in Poland/Czech Republic is an anticipated political and physiological move against Russia. Poland and Czech Republic did not agree to place MD because they fear an attack form nonexistent Iranian or North Korean long range missile. Russia’s sphere of influence is degrading and US took an initiative to further diminish Russia’s political and economic capabilities by distorting her national priorities, and forcing upon her yet another Arm Race. Reagan’s Star Wars greatly contributed to deterioration of the Soviet Union, so it is safe to assume that similar principal ruthlessly applies here- to spend hard earned petrodollars on the weapon systems to maintain a “strategic balance”. In other words, worst move for Russia is to unilaterally pull out from ABM treaty

Alex, I agree with you. The “installation of MD in Poland/Czech Republic is an anticipated political and physiological move against Russia”. Right. Consequently, such a movement deserves a political and physiological answer in order to degrade the security of those who are interested in coerce Russia. The best answer must be “asymmetrical” (pulling out some treaties, re-targeting some places and deployment of some sort of missiles). Russia in not in position to run another arms race but an “asymmetrical answer” will made feel the heat somewhere in the West. Furthermore USA is not in the best position to start a massive build-up. They run in chronic deficits, the oil cost continue in high levels and they are bleeding in Iraq. A self-confident Russia is emerging from this and Russia can handle the threats.

Russia will not remain idle

http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/127196

Alex Goncharov:
Kolokol:

While I agree the decision to base components of the GBI system in Poland and the Czech Republic is political, I don’t necessarily think Russia is the intended “victim”. The Soviet (Russian) view of the world, security wise, has had the United States is chief rival for the last 62 years. I think you would both have to agree that Russia today feels the US is its chief rival now. Interestingly, we don’t feel the same way here in America. That feeling has also gained strength by the events of September 11th. If Russia wants to abort the CEF treaty, we don’t care. If Russia wants to put multiple warheads on its SS-27 Topol-M ICBMs after 2009, we don’t care. Build all the Borey-class submarines you want, we don’t care. At this point, if there is no follow up agreement after the SORT (Moscow) Agreement, I don’t think it matters. We just don’t think of Russia as an enemy. It’s that simple.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank,

I would agree with you, but there is a slight problem. Actions speak louder then words. Either US administration is ignorant and disregards entire world history and the status-quo of international relations – a real-time processes, not an idle situation that exists in an ultra nationalistic vacuum, or they do consider Russia as a future “rough state”. Friends do become enemies and vise versa. In Russia this is viewed as a mere provocation.

Alex Goncharov:

America is like Winston Churchill's famous quote, “an enigma surrounded by a mystery”. Trying to “figure out” the United States is futile. America has no enemies; no friends. In some situations we have allies, nations that share common interest or common foes. In other situations, we have adversaries. In fact, you can be allied to America on some issues and have an adversarial relationship on others, all at the same time. American’s relationship with the world is complex. The United States is trying to make military decisions today that will influence its security twenty years from now. NMD is at least that far away from truly being a “weapon system” and missile defense is only one of the mired of security issues facing America in the future. The United States just isn’t a “status-quo” country. America is all about change and culturally we have a very short attention span. New threats; new solutions. If certainly remains to be seen if Nation Missile Defense (NMD) is a “solution” to anything. I guess we’ll see.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank, if these thinks don’t matters, Russia is totally free to design, adjust and deploy its Strategic Forces considering deployments around, irrespectively of foreign opinions.
Therefore if CFE and INF constraint the Russian planning, they may be killed. Anyway the are becoming obsolete irrespective of NATO behaviour. I think the only rational behind the building of nuclear forces must be technical-economic. As you say, it don’t care, so the only important thing is to have a highly efficient force in terms of the potential/cost ratio.

Kolokol:

Any current restrictions on the Russian nuclear arsenal will be removed in 2009 when the START agreement expires. Russia is required to have only 2200 or less operational weapons by December 31, 2012 by terms of the SORT (Moscow) Agreement with no limit on how many non-operational weapons are stored in inventory. After December 31, 2012, there are no agreements at all. Certainly, if the CFE or INF treaties “constrain” Russia, she has a legally defined way in those agreements to end compliance. However, does Russia actually think these agreements “constrain” her? Or does the Kremlin think these arms agreements are necessary to keep “equality with the West”? That’s an intriguing question.

I think the most important thing is not how many nuclear weapons you have but how safe those weapons keep your country. Isn’t that really the interesting debate?

Frank Shuler
USA

The “equality with the West” is already lost, is un-reachable and is nor necessary anymore. Russia simply doesn’t have the means to reach it. Therefore, to avert coactive movements Russia must fully optimize its nuclear forces, and if these treaties are behave like constraint to the optimization, well, let them die. The size of the force can well go down but the deterrent potential can go up. In the end it is all a technical-economical problem. Like i.e., what’s the best option, given a finite quantity of money? a missiles forces of 120 Topol-m, or 100 Topol-m plus 40 Skorost? If BrahMos range can be extended well beyond 400 km, why not exploit this feature of the missile? MIRV warheads, a MARV warhead or a mix? What mix?
One thing is sure. If Russia want to avoid “Kosovo-like-scenarios” in its own land it must maintain a potent and survivable nuclear force. Off course this force must be economical, effective and multi-functional.

Both START treaties, the INF and SORT are no longer in the national interest of the Russian Federation and CSTO. This is the direct result of the US unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 ABM treaty and its unilateral decision outside of NATO to deploy its own elements of an active ABM system on European Russia's border (Poland, the Czech Republic and possibly Georgia and the Ukraine)... Russia will never allow this and will respond unilaterally. It is Mr. Bush and his naive foreign policy that has caused a new nuclear arms race between major powers again and Russian strategic forces will once again be a greenlit priority under Putin and/or Ivanov ... along with a slow conventional forces rebuild that will be designed to overwhelm, slice and dice Eastern and Southeastern Europe - not to mention the Baltics.

http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/0/0.html?id_issue=11728998
VLASIKHA (Moscow region). May 7 (Interfax-AVN) - Topol-M missile systems will be equipped with splitting warheads and anti-missile defense gadgets within the next two or three years, Strategic Rocket Forces Commander Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov said on Monday.

"The goal of equipping [Topol-M] with splitting warheads will be achieved in the near future," he said.

Yes, I have seen that. I cannot possibly write something every time they promise to MIRV Topol-M.

Ozyy:
Gradient:

Today, Russia has more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined. What will it take to make Russia “secure”?

Frank Shuler
USA

It's official TOPOL-M WILL GO MIRV,Topol-M rocks !!!

Yep, but after 2009 (START I deadline). Seems to be the right decision.

I hope a "mixed fleet" of single warheads and MIRV to maximise flexibility.

Kolokol:

I suspect if Russia will continue to deploy single warheads on its silo Topol-M missiles and only MIRV the mobile ones, the US will download the entire Minuteman III ICBM fleet (and its successor in the 2020’s) to a single warhead configuration as well. Whether this is important to the Kremlin will be interesting to watch.

Frank Shuler
USA

Pavel:

As Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov recently stated the deployment of silo SS-27 Topol-M ICBM would cease in 2010, any best guess how many will ultimately be in inventory? Do we think this decision was made to concentrate resources on the mobile version of the Topol-M or does this suggest a new, different ICBM may be in future development?

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank:

As I understand, here is the plan:

By 2010 the Rocket Forces expect to bring the number of silo-based Topol-Ms in Tatishchevo to 60 from the current 42.

Pavel:

[previous quotation: When all 60 missiles are in Tatishchevo, the Rocket Forces will begin deployment of silo-based Topol-Ms in former SS-18 silos in Uzhur.]

Solovtsov’s comments were the first I’ve read that stated the silo deployments of the Topol-M would end in 2010, perhaps all at Tatishchevo (???). It sounds like there are no future silo plans for the SS-27. Just curious…

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank. I doesn’t think changes in the Minuteman III fleet (up or down) would affect the current tendencies in the shaping of the Russian strategic arsenal (at least in the number of launchers). I tend to agree whit those that was stated several times here: The “stable” number of Topol-m will be around 120 with a half silo-based and another half mobile.
Also, it seems that the silo-based version will be deployed just in Tatischevo.
The still unanswered question is: the MIRV warhead will be deployed in silo based Topol-m or in the mobile ones? Or in both of them.
Long term questions are: Bulava will also be land deployed? A new IRBM? What about a new liquid fuel ICBM? But I think these questions will be answered after 2010. No big news in the next years. Furthermore the answer YES will correspond to just ONE of the above questions.

Kolokol:

I think the American thinking runs only silo-based multiple warhead ICBMs have the power and accuracy to strike Minuteman III in their silos. If such a first strike weapon is removed from the Russian arsenal, the Minuteman fleet goes to a single warhead configuration. If the Russian SRF puts MIRV RVs on the Topol-M silo missiles, some of the Minuteman fleet will retain two warheads in response.

The new Minuteman III RV apparently will support both the W-78 and the newer Peacekeeper W-87 warheads that are now is storage. However, while the previous MMIII RV could support either three W-78 or three W-62 warheads, this new one is configured to support only one or two warheads.

Frank Shuler
USA

Pavel,
I have quoted your 'plain irresponsible' comment in this article (http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2372145).
But I am still wondering about the 2+2 format sort of proposed by the State Dep.

> Do we think this decision was made to concentrate resources on the mobile version of the Topol-M or does this suggest a new, different ICBM may be in future development?

Frank:

Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov declare officially in December 15, 2006:

"After 2010 we expect a decision about the development of new LIQUID-FUELLED ICBM".

Citation from ArmsTASS.Ru (December 15, 2006).

I think this ICBM should be a replacement for UR-100N UTTH (payload 4 tons), or even to R-36M2 (payload 8 tons).

> I hope a "mixed fleet" of single warheads and MIRV to maximise flexibility.

Kolokol:

Correction: the 'mixed fleet' of single MANOEUVRABLE warheads and MIRVs...

;-)

Russian:

Timely article today in RIA Novodti today quoting Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov:

[quote]

[…He said the forces will complete the deployment of silo-based Topol-M systems in the Saratov Region in southern Russia and mobile systems in the Ivanovo Region in central Russia in 2010.

The forces' press service said silo-based systems on duty would total 48 by late 2007. As of December 2006, the Strategic Missile Forces operated 44 silo-based and three mobile systems.

Solovtsov also said that new kinds of equipment were being developed for mobile systems and that 12 test-launches would be conducted from different ballistic systems in 2007.]

[end of quote]

Perhaps 2010 will see the end of all Topol-M installations both silo and road mobile? A mobile version of Bulava? Interesting…

Frank Shuler
USA

Interesting news:

"US Congress' Commitee Refuse to Fund the ABM Base in Poland":

http://top.rbc.ru/index.shtml?/news/daythemes/2007/05/10/10093808_bod.shtml

US Democrats still trying to hit the Bush?

Russian:

Actually, Congress refused to fund any “new” money for this project pending “consultations” with Russia and NATO. The Pentagon has dollars already committed to the project and can begin construction with Poland and the Czech Republic’s approval. This amendment to the 2008 Defense Budget may still be deleted when the full appropriations bill is approved sometime this fall. It’s all about American politics in an election season.

Frank Shuler
USA

Topol-m will be deployed up to 2015 (at least). The plan to produce and deploy 69 missiles up to this year had been taken. I think if Bulava are land-deployed, the will be like a “XXI-century Pionner” with similar missions but larger range (8000 km) and a small (1.15 tn) but more powerful payload. Coincidentally (?) the mass are quite similar for bath systems (36 tn).
Furthermore, given the current economic realities, the SRF will have to choose between a “land Bulava” or a liquid-fuel ICBM.

Kolokol:

The Topol-M system by all accounts is an excellent ICBM and the Topol-M “program” well established. It seems to have firm governmental and Kremlin support. Why would you switch to a different land based missile when resources are so scarce? I can understand politics would lead you to develop a “liquid-fuelled” ICBM from a rival Design Bureau. Multiple-warhead silo missiles are more of a target than a deterrent but such a decision I understand. However, unless there is something technically wrong with the mobile SS-27 version, why would you move to Bulava? At a time the Topol-M ICBM should have finally been in series production and being procured in numbers, it seems to be coming to an end. Any thoughts?

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank Shuler:

There has been some discussion about Bulava being more "stealthy" than SS-27s. Maybe this could be one reason to move to Bulava.

Jouni Pulli
Finland

Jouni Pulli:

There is just so much expense in trying to retrofit a sea-based ballistic missile for land use. Just rebuilding the electronics to withstand the effects of electromagnetic pulse (EMP) alone is staggering. Would you think the Bulava is “more stealthy” in ground launch mode or do you mean in flight? I appreciate your thoughts.

Frank Shuler
USA

I think I've figured out the exact number of Topol-Ms it's gonna be 152 in total of which 72 will be road-mobile and 80 silo-based,why am I saying that ?In July if you remember well then MoD Ivanov was in Volgograd at the "Barricades" heavy-machinery plant which among others produces critical parts for the road-mobile Topols and he explicitly said that from 2007 through 2015 the SRFs will get 69 Topol-Ms he actually meant road-mobile versions and to this you add the 3 that were delivered in december 2006.
As to the silo-based ones they plan to get 36
Topol-Ms in addition to the 44 already deployed.

Look Frank ... I am American; I think we are crazy for stirring up the Russian MIC - the capabilities are mind-boggling what could happen over the next four years. The departure of the Bush White House … who unilaterally withdrew form the 1972 ABM treaty and the ratification of the CFE Treaty by the US, NATO and former Warsaw Pact nations (which has been sitting around for at least 15 years blowing in the wind) would go a long way to stabilize the situation and tone down the rhetoric. I am looking at it as a political scientist and Russian Studies major - Russia will respond unilaterally NOW in response to the perceived threat of NATO encirclement and ABM emplacements in Eastern Europe. We all know Iran and North Korea are 5-15 years away from deliverable Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles that work and ICBMs in general and are we all so naive to think the Russian Military would unilaterally allow them to continue such strategic missile development. Let’s remember they are playing the capitalist game and have a lot at stake as far as integration with the G8 economies - it is high time the West realizes Russia as a true equal partner, not a junior player to be dictated to as becoming undemocratic - we can’t even get the ballots counted accurately in OHIO and FLORIDA.

Ozzy:

As a Russian Studies Major, I know you understand the history of the Russian people and the effects of Russian political culture on the world. Today, Russia is the greatest nuclear power on earth with more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined. Russia is a nation sitting on a trillion dollar “Energy Empire” that will give it great opportunities in the future to provide a better way of life for the Russian people and influence economies far from its borders. Today, Russia’s influence spreads across her great span of geography from Europe to the Near and Far East. Russia is also alone. She has no friends and few, if any, allies. Don’t suggest Venezuela or India is an ally. Forget about Syria or China. Iran? No. These countries are only arms buyers who need Russia’s political influence for the moment against the United States. Cuba came as close to being an ally to the Soviet Union as possible but certainly has less a relationship with Russia and even that relationship won’t survive post-Castro. Serbia will join NATO with or without Kosovo. Belarus came as close as any country, sharing a common border with Russia, in being a friend but I don’t think Russia’s energy policies of late made many friends in Minsk. Interestingly, the one nation on the face of this earth that has the most in common and shared values with Russia is the United States. Perhaps the paranoia of the past can one day be ended and a true partnership between Russia and the United States achieved.

[your quote]
[We all know Iran and North Korea are 5-15 years away from deliverable Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles that work and ICBMs in general and are we all so naive to think the Russian Military would unilaterally allow them to continue such strategic missile development.]
[end of quote]

I wonder what Russia intends to do about this future threat?

Frank Shuler
USA

> I wonder what Russia intends to do about this future threat?

Frank, I tnink Russia JUST KNOW that these (future and hypothetical!!!) 'North Korean' or 'Iranian IRBMs' won't be targeted on Russia...

If this presumption is wrong, the fifth generation of Russian Anti-Aircraft / ABM systems, based on S-300BM 'Antei-2500' and S-400 'Triumph' (SA-20) successor, is in the development now.

Let's call this future AA / ABM defence system 'S-500'... ;-)

MOST IMPORTANT: I can't see why Russia or US should consider, for example, North Korean SRBMs or even IRBMs as a serious 'threat' for itself.

Is any sane who can imagine that North Korea will strike, - with or without nukes, - first on US???

Small country with very small amounts of nukes... It just able to make a counterstrike, in response to US 'Iraq-like' act of aggression, - and there's a lot of people in the world who believed that US mistreat the North Korea, only to get a possibility of 'unpunished aggression' against this country.

So, if US wants a 'nuclear disarming' of North Korea, why US don't want to get to NK even an official, i.e. diplomatic, 'warranties of safety'? I really think it will be cheaper that any defensive programs...

Russian:

My comments were only in reference to Ozzy’s statement and, to a certain extent; I was only playing the devil’s advocate. The United States isn’t going to let the future security of America rest in anyone’s hands but our own. To try and anticipate what the world will look like in 15 years, what our security needs will be, is near impossible. Think back where the world was just fifteen years ago; in 1992 “modern” Russia was only months old. Building an ABM system that might one day be viable seems a good investment, it’s a far better idea than building thousands of new nuclear weapons to deter a potential adversary. I don’t think the United States actually fears the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). I don’t think we necessarily trust Pyongyang but we have no fear. However, we do fear the rise of North Korean militarism in the future and what affect that will have on Japan. Make no mistake; the security of Japan is very important to America.

Iran is yet another matter.

Frank Shuler
USA

All and Frank ... remember it is the US, NATO and former Warsaw pact nations that have not ratified the CFE treaty and I will gladly debate the fact that Russia has no natural allies - they are part of Europe, no less ... France and Germany ... what Mr. Rumsfeld referred to as `Old Europe' are friends (maybe not in the same way the Americans and British sleep with each other) - but friends no less with Russia. These NATO countries are willing to engage Russia in good faith ... its high time the US act the same way (Russia is not going to scrap their capabilities based on the assurances of the Bush White House) and I am sure the Russian General Staff has already worked out a scenario to knock down any stray Iranian launch - just on principle - they won't tolerate it ... plain and simple! So there is no need for a `unilateral ABM shield in Polish/Czech territory.' Another `neo-Con pipe dream' to cause international concern and more American taxpayer dollars to flow to Boeing, Raytheon and a few others!

Ozzy:

Where do I begin?

The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE 1989-92) between NATO and the Warsaw Pact isn’t in question here. The issue is ratification of its successor, the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty that replaces the former military alliance quotas with territorial ones. The Adapted Treaty will enter into force when all 30 nations have ratified the agreement. As of today, only Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine have so ratified. Most European nations are waiting on Russia to fulfill its commitments made in the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Summit to remove its military forces from Georgia and Moldova before offering the treaty to their individual governments for ratification. This really isn’t a NATO thing.

Neither side in the ACAFE argument is “right” nor does neither side really seem to care. It just seems this argument has lost its luster with time.

France and Germany are not friends of Russia. France and Germany are friends of France and Germany. They are only willing to engage Russia in “good faith” if it’s in their best interest. It’s that simple.

No doubt the American “military industrial complex” plays a role here. However it’s hard to convince a skeptic US Congress to spend dollars on a project overseas, no matter how it benefits American security. Defense spending means jobs and Congress has always been partial to creating jobs, and thus votes, here in the United States. I’d say the completion of this Polish-Czech site is a long shot. Of course, the more Russia complains the more value there seems to the project. I guess we’ll see.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank ... I won't argue with you on the `friends or allies issue with you' because as you say in earlier dialogue `we don't know what the world will look like in 15 years' ... as you state ... `the United States isn’t going to let the future security of America rest in anyone’s hands but our own. To try and anticipate what the world will look like in 15 years, what our security needs will be, is near impossible ...' your quote ... not mine. It is this same principle that will guide Russia vs. US/NATO/EU or whatever tacit accommodation security exists at that same time. The Istanbul Accords are dead and buried (that was signed by Yeltsin not Putin) - Russia is to be the only country with restrictions on forces in its present and former territory while NATO encircles from former Warsaw Pact countries and the Baltics - I do not think so! As you say lack of understanding on both sides as to the benefit or lack thereof with an ABM system fully deployed in Eastern Europe or not deployed will be left to the future as will the future targeting of those systems or Iranian systems by way of a scrapped INF Treaty that is no longer in the interest of Russian Security as President Putin stated in February 2007 ... be it West of its European borders or South of its Caspian Sea Basin.

Ozzy:

Russia will do whatever is in her best interest to protect herself from enemies today or potential future enemies, as she should do. The United States will do the same.

[Russia is to be the only country with restrictions on forces in its present and former territory while NATO encircles from former Warsaw Pact countries and the Baltics - I do not think so!] Remember, no one forced a single country into NATO. In fact, nations are clamoring to join as we speak. Russia can adjust to this reality or resist. For what it’s worth, her resistance only seems to drive more countries into wanting membership. It’s a paradoxical situation.

Today, Russia is frustrated. She’s a world power with more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world combined and yet gets no respect. (Or at least thinks she gets no respect.) President Putin states he will set aside this treaty or that treaty or unilaterally end provisions in this agreement or that. Russia will MIRV its Topol-M force or build new classes of IRBMs to target Europe. No one seems to care. Russia dictates to the EU and finds no one is listening. He treats the vast energy holding of Russia as a weapon to threaten the EU and then is surprised when the Europeans don’t seem to understand and agree with Russia’s opinions. He is astonished when the Europeans jump to the defense of Estonia or as German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated to him at the Volzhsky Utyos summit, “An attack on one is an attack on all”. These are changing times.

Frank Shuler
USA

You win Frank ... the recent EU `go along gang' at Samara follows lead from the current White House lack of ability to slap back at Russia now, directly (aka … Condoleezza Rice) … not because they have a `mind of their own’ - you seem prepared to defend that posture. Former Warsaw Pact countries joining NATO is not a novel idea - in fact the US turned up the pressure for this to happen and tied it to USAID for their subsidized integration into the EU over the last 15 years. I comment on reality, your comments are guised as asymmetrical response - so we agree to disagree. But again do not be surprised by the coming events of a slow strategic rebuild by Russia of conventional and intermediate nuclear forces for any eventuality. It is Russia who can sell what the world needs ... that is energy and China will gladly take up what Europe rejects. America and the new EU member antagonists’ plan to divide Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan in the energy realm has failed ... all because of Russia-phobia in the Baltics and Poland - plain and simple!

Ozzy:

It’s not so much that I “seem prepared to defend that posture” as I just recognize the reality. You give America too much credit. The time in history, the United States was the “puppet master” of Europe has long ended. The Europeans under the European Union are “world players” and will need to be recognized as such. The United States will have just as many issues with the EU as Russia, different issues but just as many. Again, Russia will build it military capabilities as it seems fit. Again, the United States, the EU, and China will respond with what is its best interest. This is the way of the world.

Frank Shuler
USA

Like I said - you win, I am playing the Russian advocate ... as in `Devil's Advocate!'

Ozzy:

Let me play the Devil's Advocate for the moment. Can you imagine the political and economic dynamics if Russia and the United States ever struck a partnership? A true partnership built on trust and equality. Talk about two countries with synergy. The most amazing thing is what is stopping such a partnership now?

That my friend is a thought.

Frank Shuler
USA

Gentlemen, if the European gang still insists in exploiting Russia like a milk-cow to provide cheap raw materials, it deserve a “stick-strike” in order to wake up. Russia has decided to shape their own economy acording their own interests. They will have to face this like it or not.
Ironically those who claim that Gazprom is “an economical weapon” were the same countries who used the IMF, the WB and other organizations as economical weapons to force many countries to act like “milk-cows”. Now they are afraid of being treated like they treated Russia. Sorry, but the Yeltsin years are gone. The West is not in position to be arrogant anymore.

Synergy exists where you want it to exist - the US right now seems incapabale of viewing Russia as anything but an adversary (forget the so-called `War on Terror' ... it's bogus) - they have what Dick Cheney wants ... that is oil! Mr. Putin was absolutely correct to take back controlling interests for Gazprom and Rosneft. Instead we subsidize our oil companies and expect nothing back except outrageous gas prices due to the lack of our own refinery capacity. And the nonsense about socialism is old - the British did the same thing with BP and National Grid, post WWI - and the US will learn that lesson the hard way. Kolokol is absolutely right in terms of the World Bank and IMF - the West's arrogance is `out of proportion' with respect to it's declining global power. China will be the largest economy within 10 years and the Pacific Rim - who do we synergize with then in their energy reserves?

Kolokol:
Ozzy:

Power politics is an interesting game to follow, isn’t it? Today you have Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran cementing a “strategic partnership” with Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko, extending to Belarus exclusive long-discussed access to the Jofeir oil field. President Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying, “Belarus need never fear economic oil pressure again”. I guess that was a direct reference to Gazprom? Russia? President Putin? Beware of the Persians they are an ambitious lot.

Of course the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are “economic weapons”. We admit it. We just want Russia to be honest and admit Gazprom is too. (smile)

You act like Russia has all the petroleum in the world and has no needs herself. Reform your banking industry and open your country to investment. Edward D. Lozansky’s article in today’s Washington Times stated:

1. Foreign investment in Russia, including $11 billion by American companies, nearly doubled in 2006 to $28.4 billion

2. U.S. exports to Russia climbed by 20 percent last year to $4.7 billion. Russian exports to the United States totaled $19 billion in 2006, a 30 percent increase from the year before.

Sounds like the beginning of a friendship to me.

By the way, Russia and the Central Asian Republics have enough oil and natural gas reserves to feed either the future European or Chinese markets, but not both simultaneously. It will be interesting to see how Russia makes her decisions and what ramifications result.

Frank Shuler
USA

Frank, in the trade sphere, the potencial for the Russia-US interchange is huge and a big rise should be expected. As far as the gas&oil subject, Europeans claim that “Gazprom is a weapon”. But where are the facts? Short cuts to Ukrainia and Belarus caused for siphoning? I give you a point: Gazprom may be used like a “weapon” if some entities become agressive but so far Gazprom behaved like a reliable parthner. Ironically Nations who used these obsolete entities (IMF and so on) as weapons claim for “supply security” but how about “demand security”? As far I know the best security for all is given by market mechanisms (strange, Russia demanding market mechanisms and the West acting like a cartelized and “socialist” market :) ). Russia should sell energy to China, Europe, Japan, USA... many parthners. Off course Europe is free to search por many suppliers too. Sooner or later they will have to give up their hopes of feudalizing the former S.Union to obtaing almost-free energy.

Kolokol:

I agree with everything you’ve said.

I would also conclude an interesting caveat. “The West” as we have known it for the last 62 years, like the Soviet Union, no longer exists. There is NATO. There is the European Union (EU). And there is the United States. All three have agendas, ambitions, and objectives. Many times their interest cross; many times their interests are in conflict. Russia will need to recognize this and adjust her policies forthwith. Understanding this change will provide Moscow a powerful weapon in future relations with all.

Frank Shuler
USA

You are rigth Frank, NATO, EU and USA are different entities. The use as words with the same meaning is quite common in Russia, but off-course they are different.

See it in a Huntington perpective: they are "members of the west" like Russia is a "member" (the bigest but not the only one) of the "slavic-ortodox world".

Sorry about the off-topic. It was the last one of mine.

Kolokol:

My friend, since the original topic was “Irresponsible Rhetoric”, I’d say our conversations were well in topic. (smile)

Frank Shuler
USA

Exactly ... there is the EU, there is the United States/NATO and there is Russia/CSTO. All three have agendas, ambitions, and objectives. Many times their interests will cross; many times their interests are in `complete conflict.' Supporting Russia-phobia via Poland and the Baltics's veto power within the EU-Russia-sphere is a ridiculous way to slap back at `so-called Russian bad manners'. It is these new members who are US proxies in Eastern Europe acting on behalf of the State Department of the US and the current White House … because they will not have their hands `dirtied' ... so as not to `hurt' the `so-called special relationship' that Russia has with the US. It is the US and its Eastern Europe proxies forcibly integrated into early, unqualified NATO/and EU ascension over the last 15 years who will ALSO need to recognize their limitations and adjust their policies forthwith. Understanding this change will provide Washington and Brussels with a thorough, future understanding of a rising Russian-led CIS and CSTO, who could just as quickly become adversaries economically and militarily with the West! Anyone can play capitalism - right, it is just supposed to be done the way the US and the G7 did for years with the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank. That system has bred terrorism and has destroyed 3rd World economies over the last 50 years … the evidence is clear on that – look at Nigeria or Brazil and Argentina … the list goes on my friends!

Well, Brazil and Argentina have jointly paid at all their debts to the IMF and fired their bureaucrats. Lula don't allow even a single office in Brazil.
Mr Ratto was furious, even more because Argentina started a fast economic grow despising the "holy recipes" imposed by the West.

This is indicative of the falling "economical-power-projection" of these mechanims. G-7 will have to accept their declining reality.

It begins my friends ... from Ria Novosti ..Russia Will No Longer Receive Foreign Inspections or Send Notifications on Troops' Movement Under the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty - MOSCOW, May 23 (RIA Novosti) - Russia Will No Longer Receive Foreign Inspections or Send Notifications on Troops' Movement Under the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, a first deputy prime minister said Wednesday.
Russia has ratified the adapted CFE treaty, which replaced an agreement reached at the end of the Cold War between NATO and the Eastern Bloc to curb the arms race, but of the countries that initially signed the pact, no NATO members have yet ratified it.
Sergei Ivanov told journalists in Moscow, "If the CFE comes into force, we will comply with it. If it doesn't, we won't. There will be no more inspections or notifications."
President Vladimir Putin suggested recently that Moscow might suspend its obligations under the accord if talks with NATO countries show no visible progress in its implementation.
Ivanov said Russia has not withdrawn from the CFE, but has imposed a moratorium. "In practical terms, this will mean that we will not fulfill the commitments we took on until others start fulfilling their commitments. In my opinion, this is an honest position, and is understandable for everyone," he said.
The original CFE Treaty, amended in 1999 in Istanbul in line with post-Cold War realities, has so far only been ratified by Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine. The aim of the pact is to force members to reduce their conventional military power.
NATO countries have refused to ratify the adapted version, demanding that Russia first withdraw from Soviet-era bases in Georgia and Moldova under its Istanbul commitments.
Moscow has pointed out that NATO newcomers Slovakia and the three Baltic states have not joined the CFE at all, despite a preliminary agreement that they would do so.
The first deputy premier also said Russia does not intend to return to an arms race. "There will be no return to the arms race, at least on the part of the Russian Federation. Proof of this is in the Defense Ministry's budget, including for the upcoming three-year term," he said.
Ivanov, who served as defense minister from March 2001 to February 2007, said the ministry's budget remains at less than 3% of GDP, compared to the Soviet Union's defense budget of 30% of GDP.
"We are not going to increase the military budget to such an extent that it would exert an unbearable load for our whole economy, and for social policy," he said.
The first deputy prime minister also said Russia was not satisfied with the Pentagon's justifications of its planned deployment of missile defense elements in Central Europe.
The U.S. announced plans in January to deploy interceptor missiles in Poland and a missile defense radar in the Czech Republic as part of its missile shield aimed at countering possible threats from "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea.

"We are not satisfied with this explanation, or as it is termed in certain circles, 'myth' over the anti-missile system installation. Explanations that it is aimed against North Korea and Iran simply don't hold water," he said.

Ozzy:

The United States could care less about NATO’s opinion & approval regarding the missile defense system proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic. I feel certain Russia’s opinions count less. I have no clue if this project will go forward; if the Polish and Czech governments will approve. Remember this however, there are times the United States’ agenda leads NATO, there are times other NATO countries lead and America follows, and then there are time when NATO and the United States are at odds. This is one of those times. In the future, the EU will challenge NATO as the “security organization” for Europe and that change will be interesting to watch.

Frank Shuler
USA

Like I said ... you win, because you win ... the fact remains CFE is done as will be INF, START I and II. I am done arguing about `who leads who?' Facts are facts as you say?

> Irresponsible rhetoric

By the way, Pavel:

'Irresponsible rhetoric' better than 'Irresponsible warfare'.

I mean Iraq, I mean also Vietnam... as well as some others scenarios...

Frank S. ... ceasefire; I am speaking what you seek, just as a protagonist. We are on the same page - but I really feel strongly the US is neglecting its positions with Russia because of this particular idiotic White House and the whacko Iraq Conflict ... (what a drain on our other international back channel diplomacy and foreign policy affairs). When I hear Russia's opinions do not matter - that just seems so naive if we intend on engaging them as a `true global partner' over the next 20 years. As you say the Russian synergy does exist with the US and in the realm of `real global, political and economic security' ... we must avoid downgrading their totally `justified worries' on a proxy basis. 40th B-Day today ... so cheers!

Ozzy:

My friend, there is no argument between us. We both discuss current politics between Russia and the United States from the perspective of citizens and not governmental policy makers. We just want to share information, understand better, and gain a greater perspective. For if we were truly policy makers, the way you and I would conduct foreign policy between the United States and Russia would be far different. We would have that sense of respect so lacking in today’s policies, on both sides.

Happy B-Day! Celebrate you day and please accept well wishes from a friend.

Frank Shuler
USA

> 40th B-Day today...

- Happy birthday, Ozzy; and sincere greetings from Russia!

Russian ... I hope to visit your great land some day - where are the best sites for the visitor. Some say it is in the Southern Volga and Black Sea Region, Sochi, etc. ... of course starting in St. Petro, on to Moscow and then follow the Volga ... Очень хороший камрад плана - не оно? Джон

> where are the best sites for the visitor. Some say it is in the Southern Volga and Black Sea Region, Sochi, etc. ... of course starting in St. Petro, on to Moscow and then follow the Volga...

- It depends on, - what kind of 'site-seeing' you prefer; for example, - if you prefer some 'wild nature', I can recommend to you to visit Kamchatka Peninsula on the Far East, or Southern Ural, somewhere between Bashkortostan Republic and Chelyabinskya oblast'.

- If you prefer some technical museums, I can recommend to you Russian Air Force museum at Monino, near Moscow:

- I also can recommend to you, to use the 'Panoramio Service' at Google Earth, to see at real photos, what places you'll prefer to visit in Russia.

> Then, to compare the current situation in Europe to the one in 1983, when U.S. missiles were deployed, is indeed irresponsible.

- Not so irresponsible, as it seems at first sight... :-) Just look, - what silo-based GBI-PLV is:

- Silo-based missile with 19.5 tonns start weight;
- Max range 5000 km;
- 8.3 km per second max speed (Trident II has 6.6 km per second max speed);
- Payload at least 64 kilograms (now EKV - Exoatmospheric Kinetic Kill Vehicle as a payload; tomorrow, it could be a nuked 'Kill Vehicle').

- Now, replace the 64-kg EKV to the 100-kt range nuclear warhead, and reprogram the missile behaviour... And you'll get a modern IRBM!

- Again, it seems, that the behaviour of GBI could be easily reprogrammed; as it is verymanouvreavle, it can be programmed to hit the targets 'in the sky', as well as it could be programmed to hit the targets 'on the ground', - i.e., it can be used as IRBM.

So, Putin was right - at least formally...