The Bulletin Online
By Pavel Podvig | 23 May 2007
If Marx was right about history repeating itself as a farce the second time around, then missile defense (now in its third or fourth incarnation) must be far beyond the farce stage. The longer the debate goes on, the less and less reasonable it becomes. Russian generals are now threatening to target U.S. missile defense facilities, and Russian President Vladimir Putin is comparing the upcoming deployment of missile interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic to the deployment of U.S. medium-range missiles in Europe during the 1980s.
Meanwhile, the United States is making similar preposterous statements. When asked about Russia's objections to the U.S. missile defense plan, Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. Secretary of State, replied, "The idea that somehow 10 interceptors and a few radars in Eastern Europe are going to threaten the Soviet strategic deterrent is purely ludicrous and everybody knows it."
Most people seem to agree with Rice that a few U.S. interceptors in Eastern Europe will have a limited impact on Russian strategic forces. (Although everyone noticed that she used the word "Soviet" instead of "Russian.") But what is really ludicrous in Rice's words-- and in various Russian statements--is the notion that it's normal for Russia and the United States to base their relationship on nuclear deterrence.
It's even more unfortunate that this notion seems to be universally accepted. Most commentators act as if the Cold War is still ongoing and that the United States and Russia must preserve the capability to destroy each other.
This, of course, is nonsense. Even if we accept that during the Cold War the stakes were high enough to justify an immense nuclear buildup and live with the dangers that buildup entailed, no disagreement between the United States and Russia today would justify a nuclear exchange. The single most powerful incentive for maintaining a "strategic deterrent" anymore is the strategic deterrent itself--the U.S. and Russian nuclear forces are locked in a state of mutual dependence, each providing the rationale for the other's existence.
Russia's public statements notwithstanding, U.S. interceptors in Eastern Europe will never threaten Moscow's strategic deterrent--or anyone else's deterrent, for that matter--since the military and political value of missile defense is essentially zero, just like that of its predecessors. After all, history does repeat itself.
But it's wrong to imply, as Rice did, that U.S. missile defense is harmless because it does not challenge the concept of nuclear deterrence. This is exactly the concept that should be challenged. Instead of praising their ability to attack each other, Russia and the United States should ask themselves why they continue to maintain their nuclear deterrents and how they can move away from that posture.
But as we can see from the current discussion, the plans for missile defense prevent this. Instead, missile defense locks us in confrontational mentality, imposing Cold-War schemes on the U.S.-Russian relationship. This is what Rice should have termed "purely ludicrous."
The book
Comments
> Russian generals are now threatening to target U.S. missile defense facilities...
- So, it's reasonable decision... According to principle 'you get what you deserve'... :-)
Regardless ... the Bush White House move to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM treaty in 2002, the non-ratification of the CFE Treaty other than by the former bull work states of the former Soviet Union (Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus) and the continued NATO encirclement of the `old-Soviet ... aka ... Russia-sphere of influence' set the stage for what is happening. I fear we are entering re-chartered territory because of the absolute ignorance of this White House over the last 7 years and the reality of a resurgent Russia, both economically and militarily. Everyone is at fault here - make no exceptions, Washington, London, Brussels and the Kremlin - but reality is reality!
Dear Mr. Poidvig,
Implicit in your analysis is the assumption that Russia is a country with which the West can come to a compromise. Recent history provides us with clear evidence that this is not the case and will most likely never be the case. Therefore, the relationship between the West and Russia will always be confrontational and thus Russia's opinions have no significance whatsoever.
Remeber Kosovo
Remember Sarajevo.
Two bullets fired from a Belgian Fabrique National (FN) M1910 .32 caliber pistol ended the lives of Franz Ferdinand and his beloved wife, Sophie, plunging the world into the greatest war in history. Before the “Great War” ended in 1918, over 20 million people died with at least half being Russian. That was before the Russian Revolution and its ensuing Civil War led to the death of even millions more Russians. That was before the influenzas epidemic of 1918-22 that sweep across the battlefields of Europe and killed yet millions more. We must never forget the tragedy and senselessness of war. We must never forget the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform; their bravery, their courage. But foremost, we must never let the world forget these mistakes and repeat them.
Frank Shuler
USA
> Therefore, the relationship between the West and Russia will always be confrontational and thus Russia's opinions have no significance whatsoever.
- Karl Schenzig, - remember the Berlin, in the May of 1945? This is the best example, - what's happening with ANYONE who don't want to take into consideration the Russia's opinion...
> Before the “Great War” ended in 1918, over 20 million people died with at least half being Russian.
- Correction: 'great' IMPERIALISTIC war... Insane and senseless slaughter, a massacre.
Gentlemen: Victory Day in Russia, the holiday when the country pauses to remember the Russian defeat of Nazi Germany on the Eastern Front, and with regard to the `supposed Russia's opinions do not matter scenario - point directly to her current problems with the West.' This is why there is understandable debate and confrontation at this snapshot in time ... you talk about WWI ... let's examine WW2 ... most historians now estimate that between 1941 and 1945 the Soviet Union (Russia) lost 8.5 million soldiers killed, wounded or missing in action, and more than 12 million Soviet citizens died from starvation, deportation, and mistreatment. No other allied nation's loss was greater! To put Russia's staggering losses between 1941-45 in perspective for Americans and non-Americans, the equivalent would have been for America to lose New York to a three year siege, to have forcibly evacuated millions of people beyond the Rocky Mountains, followed by the loss of nearly every city east of the Mississippi to the enemy (Nazi Germany) ... until the American army finally stopped the invaders at the decisive battle of St. Louis.
Frank S. makes perfect sense when he says confrontation does not have to be the case: massive trade and direct investment in Russia by US, European, Chinese and Japanese investment firms has jumped about 200% since Yeltsin left office. Their GDP is growing at nearly a 6% clip a year (almost twice of any G8 economy). We must arrive at a recognition of Russian concerns and let their transition to a market economy and politically firm, mostly democratic state occur at their pace - not ours in the West. There is massive corruption in Eastern Europe countries and undemocratic tendencies which run right below the surface all the time - but these nations were allowed to integrate and achieve unqualified ascension into NATO and the EU in a `premature rush by the euphoria of the Western nations' post-Soviet era with Yeltsin. He may have been modern Russia's first President - but he also sold off Soviet assets to Russian oligarchs at bargain basement prices that were illegal, corrupt and not in the interest of Russian National Security-sphere and now we have a `natural resurgent, revanchist reaction' to that period of 1991-2000 lead by Mr. Putin and his team. We must give them some credit at creating a stable economy, achieving a secure strong state and now flexing long, resting `Superpower Status.' It is better for the world to have a `multi-polar' world because it keeps the potential `rogue nation tendencies of the US (aka ... the Bush White House), its Neo-Con allies and others (Iran, North Korea and China) in check by another `resurgent Superpower’ with global intentions. I mean look at in some plain terms ... over the last 6 years they have quite literally kept NASA, ESA and ISS alive and functional. They are designing what might be the next generation `space planes and launch vehicles for themselves and these other space agencies via their growing MIC again as our partner in Space Exploration. We must take note of this! So now we go through a `period of mistrust' ... so be it. It will only last a while - until the US/the EU and NATO triangulate a `true policy of partnership' w/Russia - that's all! So sorry to say that the West's accords with the Yeltsin era are all set to become null and void! Russia-phobia will not achieve the EU's desired state with the Kremlin ... (Poland and the Baltic States) have undo influence with the Russia-EU partnership ... really how much do these four nations account for total EU GDP? They are Bush's and Rice's proxies for what Pavel says ... `it's wrong to imply, as Rice did, that U.S. missile defense is harmless because it does not challenge the concept of nuclear deterrence. This is exactly the concept that should be challenged. Instead of praising their ability to attack each other, Russia and the United States should ask themselves why they continue to maintain their nuclear deterrents and how they can move away from that posture.' `But as we can see from the current discussion, the plans for missile defense prevent this. Instead, missile defense locks us in confrontational mentality, imposing Cold-War schemes on the U.S.-Russian relationship. This is what Rice should have termed `purely ludicrous.'
And she is supposed to be a Russia-area expert in that realm of PoliSci - I'd rather send Mr. Kissinger or his protégés ... (the Bush White House currently has no clout) with the Kremlin power structure!