U.S. and Poland Come to BMD Agreement
August 15, 2008 :: News
Poland announced today that they have come to an agreement with the United States over the basing on Polish territory of ballistic missile defense interceptors. The historic agreement details include the positioning of ten ground based interceptors for the purpose of deterring a Middle Eastern ballistic missile threat, most specifically from Iran. In exchange for the installation, Warsaw has secured a guarantee that Poland will be protected by the United States in a more swift manner than required by NATO. Two aspect of the deal include that for a time American military will man the interceptor installations, and that in the case of attack against Poland the United States would be obliged to defend Poland with greater speed than normally required between NATO members. Both aspects tend to reinforce the security commitment in light of Russian threats.
The timing of the agreement has sparked Russian anger, given U.S. agreements with a former Warsaw Pact country. Russia has repeatedly attacked the project, making both veiled and acute threats to Poland, including nuclear threats. Given the recent Russian invasion of Georgia, the Russian Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Konstantin Kosachyov, has said that the deal deal will only intensify the stress on U.S.-Russian relations. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: European Missile Defenses, NATO, Treaties and Agreements
» Missile system details for: Ground-Based Interceptor (GBI)
Bush: Russia Can Defeat European Missile Defenses
April 2, 2008 :: The White House :: News
Following a meeting with Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, President Bush noted that the missile defense systems proposed for Europe would in no way threaten the free ride Russian missiles have to the American homeland. "Russia could easily overwhelm the missile defense systems that we have envisioned," said Bush. Speaking to reporters, Bush continued:
It's in [Putin's] interests that we participate and share information. After all, a missile from the Middle East can fly north just as easily as it could fly west, and the capacity to be able to share information and share technology to be able to deal with these threats is important for a lot of countries, including Russia.
While optimistic, much work remains, according to Bush.
Obviously we've got work to do to convince [Putin] and the people around him that the missile defense system is not aimed at Russia, or is viewed as a anti-Russian device. Well, it's not, and, therefore, it requires a lot of time, a lot of discussion. That's what Condi Rice and Bob Gates spent time doing when they were in Russia, and that is to defuse any notions that this is aiming something at somebody in Europe. This is all aiming to protect people in Europe.
President Bush noted the difficulties of U.S.-Russian relations: "we're dealing with a lot history and a lot of suspicion...the President and I will try to work through these for our common good. And I'm hopeful we can have some breakthroughs."
Bush is scheduled to meet with Putin in Sochi this week. This will be the last face-to-face meeting between the two before Putin departs his office. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Policy, European Missile Defenses
Joseph and Crouch: Press Ahead with Defenses Despite Russia
March 18, 2008 :: Washington Post :: Analysis
Writing recently in the Washington Post, former Undersecretary of State Robert Joseph and former Deputy National Security Adviser J. D. Crouch discuss on Moscow's opposition to limited missile defense systems in the former Soviet bloc countries of Poland and the Czech Republic. Joseph and Crouch, both now senior scholars at the National Institute for Public Policy, note that the arms race never materialized which missile defense opponents warned of when the United States withdrew from the 1972 ABM Treaty in 2002. Today, one sees Russia vigorously opposing even a limited system of ten ground-based interceptors and radars.
Today, the United States and Russia find themselves in opposition on the issue of deploying 10 missile interceptors and supporting radar to Europe -- an act of much less strategic consequence than abandonment of the ABM Treaty. Bush and his national security team have explained the concept, in considerable detail, to Russia's national security elite. Moscow objects by citing a threat to its own deterrent (an argument it knows has no merit) and the stationing of American forces near its borders (which reminds it of the painful loss of empire) and denies the existence of an Iranian missile threat.
Crouch and Joseph attribute Russia's stubborness to its wish to be a "major player," given that the technical capabilities of the ten interceptors are rather modest, and pose no real threat to Russia's strategic arsenal. Crouch and Joseph note that the Bush administration has tried to persuade Russia with diplomatic efforts over the last seven years, but largely to no avail. They conclude that the growing ballistic missile capabilities of Iran (acknowledged even by Russian military officials) make it imperative that the United States not give Russia a veto on the pursuit of these defensive capabilities.
Instead of trying to persuade Russia to do something that it does not perceive to be in its interest, the United States should redouble its efforts to advance the two initiatives sponsored by Bush and Putin that do enjoy widespread support in both countries. The Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism has grown in a little over a year from 13 partners to more than 60. Russia has been a good partner because it is concerned about this threat. Similarly, Moscow has worked to put in place new approaches to expand the use of nuclear energy in a manner that meets energy and environmental goals and reduces the risk of proliferation. These joint efforts may provide a basis for building cooperation in other areas, perhaps setting a positive tone for the new Russian president.
On missile defense, the United States must move forward, just as Russia does when its vital interests are at stake. We should continue to be respectful and transparent about the need for our deployments but make clear that the United States will proceed without Moscow's cooperation. Going beyond current proposals for cooperation would encourage Russia to be even more intransigent, playing to its instinct to drive wedges between the United States and its allies, and would foster the Kremlin's policy to run out the clock in the hope that the next U.S. administration will abandon the effort in Europe.
Full text of article: (More »»»)
» More stories on: European Missile Defenses, Russia
Dale on Forward Progress
February 6, 2008 :: Washington Times :: Analysis
In today's edition of the Washington Times, Helle Dale writes supporting the U.S. plan to emplace ten Ground Based Interceptors in Poland and an X-band radar facility in the Czech Republic. If constructed, the new Eastern European facilities would buttress current missile defense-related systems in the United Kingdom, Greenland and the United States. Dale discusses that while the plan would shield the U.S. and Europe from limited missile attacks from Iran or any of the other 27 states armed with ballistic missiles, many Europeans have rallied against the plan. The critics argue that the bases would provoke Russia, which fears the interceptors would diminish its strategic nuclear deterrent, and worsen trans-Atlantic relations for a non-existent strategic gain. Dale stresses that the ten interceptors could not shield Europe or the U.S. from a Russian missile attack. Additionally, a missile defenses by definition should not be a threat to anyone. Fortunately, despite the criticisms, Polish and U.S. negotiators have agreed "in principle" to place the interceptors in the Eastern European country. Dale concludes the development is positive, and hopefully points to a speedy conclusion and deployment of the system. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: European Missile Defenses, Analysis
Russian Envoy Threatens Poland on Defense Cooperation with U.S. by Invoking WWII Plight
February 4, 2008 :: News
Moscow's envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, has warned Poland against accepting the basing of American missile defense interceptors. Rogozin threatened possible retaliation, and invoked memories of its World War II plight at the hands of its Soviet conquerers and oppressors. Rogozin is quoted by the Russian Interfax news agency as follows:
The Polish colleagues must be reminded of their recent history, which indicates that attempts to place Poland "on the confrontation line" have always led to tragedies. That way Poland lost nearly one third of its citizens during World War II....I was sure this horrible lesson would not be wasted and Poland would plan its foreign policy relying on friendly relations all along the borderline.
Poland and the U.S. have reportedly agreed "in principle" to the plan to emplace ten Ground Based Interceptors in Poland after assuring Warsaw that the United States would also help develop Poland's short and medium range air and missile defenses. The two sides did not elaborate on the terms of the tentative agreement, and it remained unclear whether the United States had made specific promises to provide air defense systems such as the Patriot. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Allies, European Missile Defenses, Russia
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Expresses Support for European Defenses
January 27, 2008 :: Xinhua :: News
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Petras Vaitiekunas announced his country's support of the United States' plan to station missile defense systems in Eastern Europe. The announcement came while the Foreign Minister was meeting with the Czech Republic's Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg on January 25. Vaitekunas said Lithuania would support incorporating the system with NATO defense. Russia strongly opposes the U.S.'s plan, believing it is intended to blunt Moscow's influence in the region. As a former republic of the Soviet Union, Lithuania's expression of support for the American-sponsored defenses is likely to irritate their Russian former masters. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Allies, NATO, European Missile Defenses
Slovakian Prime Minister Criticizes U.S. Missile Defense Talks with Neighbors
January 22, 2008 :: News
Slovakian Prime Minister, Robert Fico, has criticized the U.S.'s plan to station a ballistic missile defense system in the neighboring countries of Poland and the Czech Republic, while addressing the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly at a meeting in in Strasbourg. The Prime Minister said any plan to place a ballistic missile system in Europe should be conducted within NATO and the European Union, not bilaterally, and rejected the idea that bilateral talks between the United States and neighboring countries were none of Slovakia's business. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Allies, European Missile Defenses
Russia Responds to U.S. Offer on Missile Defense
November 23, 2007 :: News
Recent American proposals have been sent to Russia concerning the Poland and Czech Republic missile defense sites. The American proposals included a "delay[ed] activation of the missile defence system until Washington and Moscow were in agreement on 'definitive proof' of missile threats from Iran or elsewhere...[and] a plan to station Russian liaison officers at proposed US missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, as long as the host countries agreed to this."
Itar Tass reports that Russia is however dissatisfied with these U.S. proposals. An unnamed Foreign Ministry source is quoted as saying, "They have sent concrete proposals. We are continuing to study them, but our first impression is that they do not meet our expectations. This is not what was promised orally [in recent talks with Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates]." The comments contrast sharply with Russian President Vladimir Putin's comments from November 22, in which he said, "our concerns are being listened to." Russia opposes the current U.S. plan to base ten Ground Based Interceptors in Poland and an X-band radar in the Czech Republic. Moscow believes the missile defense system is meant to diminish its nuclear strategic deterrent and not, as the U.S. claims, to defend against possible missile attacks from the Middle East. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: European Missile Defenses, Russia
Franks: Missile Defense Should Be Top Priority
November 12, 2007 :: Defense News :: Analysis
Writing for The Hill, Congressman Trent Franks responds to the recent change of heart on the need to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe by Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, chair of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces subcommittee. Previously, in Washington and on a congressional trip to the Czech Republic, Tauscher had supported the missile defense system in Europe to defend against a limited missile attack from Iran. "The U.S. intelligence community's current estimate is that Iran is five to 10 years away from developing such a capability...plainly, this is a very serious threat about which we must be vigilant... A GMD system deployed in Europe could help deter a potential Iranian long-range ballistic missile threat if one emerges."
While the Strategic Forces subcommittee did cut some of the funds directed to the site, Tauscher was careful to note, "We did not say no. What we said is we have fiscal priorities...We encourage the talks to continue...we are dealing on a margin of weeks and months. Not years." She stated that once Poland and the Czech Republic ratified the agreement, the two countries could expect a receptive and cooperative Congress.
Franks was "disturbed," however, by Tauscher's subsequent and abrupt change on the issue. Writing in the November 8 edition of Defense News, Tauscher called on the U.S. Missile Defense Agency to "work harder at protecting deployed U.S. troops against current missile threats with proven technology and ‘pull-back' from science projects such as the European missile defense site."
From this Franks concludes:
I look forward to seeing the final marks for the defense authorization bill, and in particular, the language associated with the European Site. There is so much at stake here. As I have said before, missile defense is not only our last line of defense for an incoming ballistic missile, it is also our first line of defense to counter missile proliferation because it devalues these weapons as offensive military assets, which may ultimately keep nuclear technology in general out of the hands of terrorist-friendly nations. It is my hope Ms. Tauscher both substantiates her claims to support this critical defense initiative, and helps to lead our colleagues during conference to support our allies in Poland and the Czech Republic.
(Article, Link)
» More stories on: Analysis, European Missile Defenses
Poll: Czech Support for Radar Support Would Grow with Security Guarantees
November 8, 2007 :: News
A Factum Invenio poll of 1018 Czech adults revealed that although 70 percent of Czechs remain opposed to stationing a U.S. X-band radar in the country, 55 percent would support to the plan if the Czech Republic received increased security guarantees and that the system would not have a negative impact on the environment and on people's health. Some 49 percent said they would support the plan if it did not infringe on the Czech Republic's sovereignty and 48 percent said they would support the plan provided the municipalities surrounding the facility received financial compensation. Another 43 percent of respondents said they would support the radar station if it were included in NATO's system. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Allies, European Missile Defenses
 |
| Total Records: 36 |
[1]
2
3
4
»
|
