U.S., Russia on collision course over missile defense

MOSCOW, Sept. 5 (UPI) -- The year 2008 has been the most productive for American missile shield plans since President Ronald Reagan launched his famed Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s.

But the 1980s are also remembered for an unprecedented level of military confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States.

On Aug. 20 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed a U.S.-Polish agreement on a third positioning area for the American missile system in Europe. It looks as if this situation is pushing Russia into another confrontation with the West and could reignite the nuclear missile threat on the European continent.

Today is not an occasion to argue whether Iran's missiles threaten Western Europe, though it is true that an Iranian rocket launched Aug. 18, as part of preparations for orbiting Iran's first satellite, points to a possible threat in the future.

But whether there is a threat from Iran, the Russian military and political establishment is convinced that American anti-missiles in Poland are only part of a plan to build up a U.S. nuclear potential in Europe directed against Russia. Naturally, Moscow is considering retaliatory options.

Russian three-star Col.-Gen. Viktor Yesin, first vice president of the Academy for Security, Defense and Law Enforcement in Moscow, thinks that "in reply, Russia could reinforce its air grouping in the Kaliningrad region to neutralize missile silos in Poland."

Another Russian general, Leonid Ivashov, who heads the Academy of Geopolitical Problems in Moscow, believes that "in response, Russia could site Iskander theater missile systems and high-precision cruise missiles in the Kaliningrad region, western Russia, and Belarus."

The generals are right. All this could be done, and perhaps with a measure of success. But there are two factors that not only reduce the military effect of the proposed measures but also make them very dangerous for Western Europe and European Russia.

Under a clause in the agreement, the United States undertakes to provide Poland with 96 Patriot missile systems to modernize and strengthen its air defenses.

Another clause of the agreement declares that the United States will render Poland military assistance if it is threatened by a third state. Should Russia start acting strongly in the Western sector, Poland at once would remind the United States of that point. The Czech Republic and the Baltic states also would demand more guarantees for their security. That could mean only one thing: an immediate appearance near Russian borders of modern conventional weapons capable of hitting targets within European Russia.

On the other hand, such a buildup in areas bordering on Russia, which could tip the balance of strength in the West's favor, is well capable of burying the main instrument of European security -- the 1987 Treaty on Shorter and Medium Range Missiles. The military, including Russia's former chief of the General Staff, four-star army Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, time and again has paraded reasons for returning these missiles to Russia's arsenal.

If this happens, or rather if Moscow decides to withdraw from the treaty, the United States -- unlike Russia -- will not take long to restart production. The Tomahawk BGM-10G ground-based nuclear cruise missiles that were destroyed under the 1987 IMF Treaty are basically similar to sea- and air-launched cruise missiles currently in service with the U.S. air and naval forces.

Nor do things augur well for a new Russian-American document on strategic weapons limitation. Moreover, any moves to pull out of the treaty will put nuclear non-proliferation on the back burner for a long time.

Does Europe need to be "mined" once again to assuage fears of Iran?

--

(Andrei Kislyakov is a political commentator for RIA Novosti. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.)

--

(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)