Viewpoint: Russia's missile fears
Does Kremlin anger over US plans to site anti-missile facilities close to its borders reflect genuine Russian concerns?
Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of foreign affairs journal Russia in Global Affairs, spoke to the BBC News website from Moscow.
America keeps saying its anti-missile system will not target Russia and to suggest otherwise would be absurd because Russia can overcome it. Well, Russia could overcome it today but what about in 15 years' time, when it is not just two facilities but a global system?
Russia would have nothing to fear if it was just the anti-missile base in Poland and the radar site in the Czech Republic but if the idea of a global anti-missile system becomes a reality, the nuclear capability of Russia, China and other countries will be undermined.
So when the Americans say they are not targeting Russia, they are right, but when Russian generals say that the US is targeting Russia, they are also right. It is two sides of the same coin.
When [Russian President Vladimir] Putin criticises the US aggressively over its anti-missile system plans, I can imagine the faces of China's leaders, sitting quietly in Beijing and happily nodding approval because Putin is fighting for them against a system none of them want. Putin reflects the views of all those who are not US allies.
Beyond electioneering
Were the US planning to build its facilities in Turkey or Italy, I think the Russian reaction would have been slightly more restrained but still negative.
Putin's sharp words today come down to his deep sense of disappointment in the US
The only Russian electioneering [ahead of the parliamentary ballot in December and presidential vote in March 2008] going on here is in the tough style and manner the Kremlin is using.
Not that Putin really needs it - our society could not be more politically consolidated if it tried and everyone backs the president and whoever he puts forward to replace him. Nonetheless, the authorities are always happy to have an extra bit of insurance.
But I do not think the stance on the anti-missile system depends on elections. The rhetoric may change but Russia will continue to view it as a threat.
Let down by Bush
Countries can cooperate on strategic security only if they trust each other and where anti-missile systems and national security are concerned, the trust has to be very high indeed.
Just now, it would be absurd to talk about such trust between Russia and the US.
Theoretically, it was possible five or six years ago, when Russia and the US were united against terrorism, but the trust gradually disappeared and Russia believes that it has been cheated by the US.
In Putin's eyes, Russia has done a great deal for the West and America. Putin removed the military base from Vietnam, he shut down the radar station in Cuba, he did not stand in the way of the US opening bases in Central Asia.
The US believes that Russia had no choice and that it was in Russian interests anyway but Russia believes that all it got for its efforts was the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the dispute with Georgia, Nato expansion and now these anti-missile sites.
Putin's sharp words today come down to his deep sense of disappointment in the US. He feels misused.
Stumping the EU
I can understand how people see this dispute in terms of New Russian arrogance and resurgent Russian imperialism but that is a very facile interpretation.
If we are talking about projecting power here, just look at Poland, for example, which has become the lead EU state in all things regarding Russia and determines how relations with us are conducted.
All the politicians I have spoken to privately in the EU - and I do meet a lot of them - have told me they do not support the anti-missile system. They all say it is a perfectly useless thing that nobody needs.
And many of the people I have talked to in private have told me they believe the anti-missile system is a US tactic to prevent the EU from becoming an independent player in foreign policy.
In my view, the anti-missile system plan spells the end of any attempt to have a common security policy in Europe because East European countries, for very understandable reasons, do not trust Western Europe to look after their security. They believe that America will defend them.
So you can blame everything on Russia, and sadly Russia does much to encourage that position, but the situation really is much more complex.
Capitalist revolutionaries
All former empires, especially the big ones like France and Britain, have gone through the same difficult process.
For Russia it is even harder because it never regarded Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan as colonies but as natural parts of our country.
The USSR's imperialism was based on ideology and confrontation with another side. A Cold War is not possible now because it would mean dividing the world in two.
We might be wrestling with the US or EU but there would be enormous countries on the sidelines, enjoying the spectacle. I mean China, Iran and India, to some extent.
It would be a lose-lose, not win-win, situation because the winners would be China and the others.
Of course, Russia wants to be a great power again but not a superpower.
It wants to be a member of the club which sets the rules and wants to review the rules which were drawn up when it was weak.
Russia's world view today is mainly through the prism of economic interests. It perceives the outside world as an enormous market where every country competes for a share.
It is a young and terribly aggressive, ruthless, unceremonious kind of capitalism but it is guided by profit.
Interview taken by Patrick Jackson, BBC News.
Send us your comments using the form below:
Name
Your E-mail address
Town & Country
Comments
All I see is American Neo-Cons forcing their world view agenda & Russian fascists pushing theirs. All it does is highlight Europe's weakness, even if you're generous it's obvious that economic "soft power" can only get you so far. Europe has common interests with both America and Russia but without Europe-wide co-ordinated miltary procurement, strategy and forces then Europe will always be stepped on by one or the other or both. Until Europe has the military muscle to push it's viewpoint and command some respect then we'll always be sidelined and at risk.
Chas, Manchester, UK
We must do everything in our power not to become dependent on Russian gas and oil. Back track on deals already done or in negotiations. The Americans are playing some long term strategy for their own benefit. Just keep out of it.
Ray Sparrow, Woodley England
I'm an American engineer who earned my living designing missile defense systems for many years, and I agree with Russia. This is the start of a world-wide system of surveillance radars and interceptor missiles. It is part of the Neocon's agenda to establish a lasting American hegemony. Countries who do not wish to live under such a new world order should oppose it now.
George Works, St. Eustatius, Netherlands Antilles
In ascribing to the latest 'defensive' missile plan a diabolically devious long-term plan to ensure US hegemony well into the 21st Century is probably to credit US foreign policy planners with far more intelligence and foresight than history suggests they actually possess. The problem for us all, including Mr Putin, is not that the US is too clever, too sophisticated in its understanding of the world and US global interests: the problem surely is the dangerously unsophisticated world view which permeates all levels of American society, including the higher echelons of the US administration. Shouting at Mr Bush et al from behind the barricades is counter-productive in-so-far as it only serves to further reinforce their simplistic perception of foreign affairs. In school, in life and in the conduct of foreign policy understanding is more usually achieved through reasoned explanation, rather than polemics or confrontation.
Mark, Bristol
Do not think that everyone in America (USA) supports this "shield" for Europe. Most of us in the US do not want this war in Iraq, we do NOT want NATO, we do NOT want our troops in Europe, we do NOT support "FREE TRADE" or "Globilization". Don't just judge us by CNN or "W". He does NOT speak for most of us. Give America some credit. At least we try to pretend to care about others, we raise money for relief efforts, some of us are trying to be good world citizens...so don't give up on America. Please.
Marc Daniel, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
Excellent summary from Fyodor Lukyanov... What I wonder is whether Mr Lukyanov would agree that, from the USA's point of view, the AMS could be perceived as a mechanism for diverting global attention away from US failures/war crimes (depending on your point of view) in the Middle East. This dispute flared up a couple of months ago, when the 4-year anniversary of the Iraq invasion had just been clocked, the Democrat-led Congress was fighting for withdrawal (which it seems to have given up, sadly), and US military strategy was under intense scrutiny and criticism. Suddenly the front page focus is all on Russia, and the EU and USA seem to have succesfully sidelined the issues of the Middle East and other problem areas. The Middle East is no less volatile than before, with Palestine, Lebanon and Turkey/Kurdistan witnessing either mass violence or heightened tensions, Guantanamo is in a legal shambles, Israel's brutal military occupation of Palestine is reaching its landmark 40th anniversary, yet the top international stories have consistently been Putin's rhetoric on the West and the AMS, the Russia-Estonia clashes, and so on. President Putin insists that the AMS is an affront because there is no threat to the US from either Iran or North Korea - apparently Iran have no ICBMs and will not do so for 5-8 years, and as for North Korea - if they were to attack the USA, even in theory, surely they would go over the Pacific, which is much shorter in distance? There are plenty of indicators that the threat countered by the AMS is a fabrication, and recent history has shown that the US (and UK) governments under the present administrations are prepared to lie to the public to get what they want. It is one thing to say that Putin is electioneering, which is a perfectly reasonable theory, but given that both the current US and UK governments may well be on their way out within the next two years, this could be perceived as a last stand to ensure that their neo-conservative, 'New American Century' ways remain embedded in the global political framework. (They really have nothing to fear, for, as Zbigniew Brzezinski shows in his latest book, the Democrats' way of thinking in foreign policy doesn't differ hugely in its imperialist overtones). As for the Czechs and Poles and the East-West Europe divide, it is the USA, still the global superpower despite upsurges from India, China, Russia and others, which has the most to gain from exploiting these disagreements. They continue to "divide and rule", as they always have, all over the world. Putin's Russia is countering the USA's power games by befriending the Middle East (talk of a 'Gas-OPEC' or equivalent "forum" springs to mind straight away) and builiding diplomatic and economic relations with strategic countries including Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Japan, and China.
Simon Lewis, London, UK
Well... I try to look @ it from both sides. The whole plan is useless. If someone wants to fire a nuke, they will. If they do then? Guess we are done as humans. Every single one of us know the consequences. Oh, wait a minute! Someone did drop the bomb, right? Anyway... I hope peace will prevail as usual. Its only going to take all the righteous to bond together and defeat WHATEVER evil that is out there!
Jzen, SF, California
Russia only has to worry about the US anti-missile defence if she plans on firing her nuclear missiles. Does Russia REALLY anticipate doing this? If so then we need the protection of the shield and if not then Russia can laugh as Bush wasting billions.
Peter, Nottingham
The idea of an unopposed and un-opposable US superpower, a power that need not fear anyone else and is able to obtain the 'full spectrum dominance' it craves, is deeply scary. The quiet birth of the kind of global dominance set out in the Project for a New American Century, must be noticed. Or else we may see a kind of global apartheid, where the US gets whatever it wants whenever it wants and howsoever it desires and the only way for any other nation to have its interests even nearly served is to be play lap dog. Just as the US thought it was its manifest destiny to control the continent of North America, at the expense of the natives, it now seems to think it is its manifest destiny to control the globe, at the expense of every other person on the planet. At least the cold war brought balance.
James Waldorf-Nicol, Kent, UK
Mr Lukyanov said: "If the idea of a global anti-missile system becomes a reality, the nuclear capability of Russia, China and other countries will be undermined." And why exactly is this a bad thing? Surely we, in Europe, would be safer if Russia and China were unable to use their nuclear weapons against us? I find it very hard to sympathise with the Russian viewpoint when their President is threatening to point nukes at us...
[no name supplied]
Putin is totally right to be concerned. The US hypocrisy on this is frightening. Why should Russia's reaction to US plans be described as aggressive and unhelpful when it is US plans for domination that give rise to this level of anxiety the globe over. Some are describing this as 'cold peace' - I don't think the US ever ended the cold war...and are now threating a nuclear strike on Iran to stop it developing a defence against US armed Israel! As a US general said long ago - "we fought WW1 in Europe, we fought WW2 in Europe and if you fools let us we'll fight WW3 there too".
grahame, sheffield
I've thought from the start that this all seems like the US causing trouble, and reading more into the background just strengthens my views. Bush isn't trying to protect "The Homeland", he is sending out a message that the US is in charge, and in charge of a lot. I'm sorry, but it's not Russia that needs to be put in it's place, it's the United States.
Miles Hayler, Warwickshire, UK
Wake up people, the US that people looked towards for inspiration is no longer there - it hasn't been since Bush came to power in the questionable elections of 2000. Although Russia isn't a better option, we need a bi-polar world in order to be free and safe - each side will think very carefully before launching wars to impose their wills on the peoples of the world.
Nawaz
The US under the Bush administration invaded Iraq under false pretences so why should the Russian government trust them on anti-missile systems. President Putin is right to resist this plan and it says little for the East Europeans who are allowing anti-missile systems on their territory.
Kenneth Clark, Hemel Hempstead UK
Putin is exactly right to be concerned as should we. Whats going on with the world? Is the EU that useless? Why can't we put our own missile defence system in? By relying on the Americans we are removing any control in world affairs we thought we had. Its pathetic how weak europe is as a power. So weak we don't mind being used by america as a dumping ground for shot down nuclear missiles. Tony Blair's support for Bush in this makes him more than a laptop dog, it makes him a traitor.
Sam
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6726839.stm
Published: 2007/06/07 10:33:24 GMT
© BBC MMVII
