BOĞAZİÇİ UNIVERSITY - TÜSİAD

FOREIGN POLICY FORUM

MISSILE DEFENSE, US-RUSSIAN RELATIONS AND TURKEY

Dovile Pauzaite∗

Current events in Russia–United States relations show an increasing tension between two of
the world’s most important powers. In 1996 USA proclaimed its intention to develop a
missile defense system. However, the program was not activated until 2002, when USA
abrogated the Anti–Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM). Russia responded to this by withdrawing
from another important agreement – the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II). Since
then, USA is devoting large sums of money for the creation of National Missile Defense
System. In January of 2007 USA officially announced the start of negotiations with the
governments of Poland and Czech Republic about the deployment of some parts of a strategic
missile defense system in these countries.1 Subsequently, this move caused a great
controversy in Europe and provoked antagonism in relations with Russia. On the 14th of July
Russia suspended her participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty.

Background

President Ronald Reagan presented the initiative on strategic missile defense in 1983, known
as the Star Wars Project. It was the first project aiming to create a defensive shield that could
protect USA from Soviet’s nuclear weapons. Later, due to the end of the Cold War, this theme
did not gain particular attention. However, in 1998 a bipartisan commission led by Donald
Rumsfeld stated that the threat coming from ballistic missiles has not been overrated and that
after five years Iran and North Korea could be able to attack USA with ballistic missiles.
Accordingly, the necessity of the National Missile Defense was recognized, but such
programs did not received proper financing during Bill Clinton’s presidency. The situation
changed radically after the 11th of September in 2001. President George W. Bush declared
defense from missiles let off by “rogue states” as a national priority. This was followed by the
US withdrawal from Anti–Ballistic Missile Treaty. It had been concluded with Soviet Union
in 1972 and prohibits the deployment of anti–ballistic missile systems and other sorts of
defense mechanisms that could provide a basis for such systems. Two days after the US
decision Russia pulled off the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, as she viewed Anti–Ballistic
Missile Treaty as a corner stone for strategic stability. Yet, the reaction of Moscow was not as

∗
Boğaziçi University – TÜSİAD Foreign Policy Forum, Research Assistant
1
Steven Hildreth, “Ballistic Missile Defense: Historical Overview”, Congressional Research Services”.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS22120.pdf

1
harsh as some experts were expecting. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty had been already
unofficially considered to be not relevant by both – Russia and USA. In 2004 USA installed
four land – based interceptor missiles in Alaska and a radar in California.2 The system works
as such: When an enemy launches the missile, infrared detectors sense the heat from missile
launch place before it clears cloud cover. When it clears cloud cover, radar detects it. Radars
begin tracking the missile; at this phase it is already possible to calculate its speed and size.
Radar information is used to plan where to intercept this missile. The flight path is plotted and
the information is send to interceptor. Then a number of interceptor missiles are readied to
launch. The interceptor missile is fired and guided to the target by the command centre.3

As the missile defense system was developed only in US territory, it has not raised high
criticism from the international community. In contrast, US initiative to deploy an anti–
missile defense system in European countries provoked not only rhetorical opposition, but
also actions clearly showing disagreement.

US strategic missile defense system in Europe

USA claims that creating a national missile defense system in the US territory is not enough
to guarantee a reliable protection. The Ground–Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) interceptors
in Alaska and California are very well planed to operate against attacks from North Korea.
However, they are not sufficient to capture missiles potentially coming from Iran.
Consequently, the proposal to install 10 of the 54 GMD interceptors in Poland and an x - band
radar in Czech Republic was presented to the governments of these states. USA is asserting
that this project would be valuable not only for USA security, but also it could defend
European states from possible attacks.4 On the other hand, the core aim of the USA is to
diminish Russia’s influence in the region – post Soviet Republics. These states are also
considered to be two of the most important US allies in the region.

Controversy in Europe

Poland and Czech Republic are very much favorable to the US proposal. Currently, they are
engaged in diplomatic negotiations on the installation of missile interceptors. These two
countries are regarding closer partnership with the USA as a way to reduce security threats
(military and non – military) coming from Russia.5

Two other countries – United Kingdom and Denmark – also expressed positive attitude
towards the strategic defense system in Europe, though with different motives when compared
to those of Poland and Czech Republic. UK and Denmark are already included in the strategic
missile defense system and currently they gave permissions to the USA to modernize radar
installations in Northern England and Greenland. They are considering the US anti–missile
defense system as a vital part of their national security.6

2
Hildreth, “Ballistic Missile Defense: Historical Overview”.
3
“Guide to Planned US Missile Defense Shield”, BBC News,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5106762.stm
4
Wade Boese, “U.S. Reaffirms Europe Anti-Missile Plan”
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_07-08/EuropeAntiMissile.asp
5
Daniel Mockli, “US Missile Defence: a Strategic Challenge for Europe”, Center of Security Studies.
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/pubs/ph/details.cfm?lng=en&id=29898
6
Ibid.

2
On the contrary, Germany and France – two major powers in the EU – have been more
negative to the suggestion of the USA. Such reaction could be linked to several factors.
Firstly, they are very much troubled by the fact that support for the US plan might spoil their
relations with Russia. Both France and Germany have maintained good relationships with
Russia not only at the official, but also at a personal level – between the leaders – for a quite
long time. This can be explained by the high dependency of France and especially Germany
on Russia’s natural gas and oil resources. Secondly, France and Germany have many doubts
about the fact that Iran can pose a serious threat to strategic stability. They are seeking to
negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program and possibly to end its international isolation.
They expect that such developments could pave the way for more efficient utilization of
Iran’s energy resources. Thirdly and probably the most important, France and Germany are
especially worried about the fact that the strategic missile defense system is not created upon
multilateral, but rather upon bilateral initiative. USA engaged in the bilateral negotiations
with Poland and Czech Republic without starting the talks with EU. Still it remains unclear
how the decisions concerning strategic missile defense would be concluded – will decisions,
regarding European security, be taken unilaterally by USA? There is an ongoing discussion
about how to execute the multilateral decision-making process7 As France and Germany are
the major states advocating the deepening of EU integration, they suspect that the US plan
might override the common EU security policy, which is at the phase of establishment with a
very little progress at the moment. US Anti–Missile Defense System in Europe could impose
US domination on this aspect of European policies.

Russia’s Reactions

The first harsh reaction from Russia was officially expressed in Munich Security Conference
in February 2007. Then President Vladimir Putin stated that USA is trying to establish a
unipolar world system and is starting a new phase of militarization, which could lead to a new
arms race. Russian military officials also stuck to heavy rhetoric. They announced that US
strategic capabilities in Europe would pose a serious threat to Russia’s deterrent power. In
addition, they threatened to include Poland and Czech Republic into the list of possible targets
of Russian missiles, if US plan was to be implemented. Another important declaration was
that Russia would consider the option of unilateral withdrawal from several international arms
treaties, including the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the Conventional
Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty.8 Such proclamations show that Russia is still considering
Central and Eastern Europe as her interests’ area and is not willing to concede it to the US
sphere of influence. On the other hand, US initiative is a good pretext for Russia to justify her
increased spending on military affairs, which has already been noticeable for a short time.
After the end of the Cold War Russia was shutting down her defense and security programs
not only because they were irrelevant, but also because of lack of financial resources. Now
Russia is receiving huge amounts of income from fuel exports, so she wants to reestablish
herself as a military power too.

Accusing statements were followed by several material steps, which complicated the situation
even more. As Putin could not gain anything by his harsh rhetoric (except that Poland and
Czech Republic expressed more willingness to cooperate with USA), at the summit of G8 in
June 2007 he changed his position radically. At the summit he proposed to install the
components of anti–missile defense system in Turkey and Azerbaijan and to work together

7
Ibid.
8
Pavel Podvig, “Missile defense: The Russian reaction”, Global Security News & Analysis.
http://www.thebulletin.org/columns/pavel-podvig/20070226.html

3
with USA in this field. Moreover, he suggested including other countries in the discussion on
missile defense and to expand on this theme within the Russia – NATO Council. At this
summit Putin managed to present himself as a strategically and constructively-oriented leader.
Such proposals were a great surprise for USA, so Bush was not able to respond to them in a
proper way. However, Putin’s suggestion of alternative places was more a way of attracting
attention and increasing personal popularity than a genuine plan, which might be practically
implemented. Turkey option has not been discussed further at all. Azerbaijan answered
positively to such proposal. Gabala radar station (it belongs to Russia) in Azerbaijan was
suggested as a place to install radar for missiles.9 Though, the technical viability of such a
project is very doubtful as many experts point out that it was used for different aims and
cannot guide interceptor missiles. Besides, it needs huge investments, as all equipment is very
old.10 Nevertheless, it is more a political decision than a technical one.

USA is eager to solve these tensions with Russia. Bush invited Russian President to his family
encampment at Kennebunkport in Maine and Putin is the first leader who received such
invitation. It means that US regards the current situation as dangerous for the future of
relationship between two countries. However, during this meeting no decision was reached.11

At the end of June, Russia called an extraordinary meeting on CFE treaty. This treaty was
signed in 1990 between NATO and Warsaw Pact members. This agreement significantly
limited the amount of conventional military equipment in Europe and is frequently deemed as
a cornerstone of European security. Despite of this, disagreements, surrounding this treaty,
have been lasting for several years. In 1999 the participants of Istanbul summit signed the
adapted version of the treaty, but NATO countries never ratified it. The reason for this was
that Russia did not remove her troops from Moldavian and Georgian territory. In contrast,
Russia is arguing that in legal sense treaty does not require this. On the 14th of July Russia
announced about suspending her participation in CFE treaty, “due to extraordinary
circumstances”. Officially, Russia named five reasons to justify her decision. Firstly, three
Baltic States, neighboring Russia, are not included into the treaty. Secondly, overall amount
of NATO military equipment after the expansions in 1999 and 2004 has increased above the
limits of the treaty. Thirdly, the restrictions on the flank of Russian forces (for example, in
Northern Caucasus) should be removed (as a compensation of NATO expansion). Fourthly,
NATO members have not yet ratified the adapted version of the treaty. Besides, it should be
ratified until July of 2008 and then renegotiated one more time.12 However, the US plan to
deploy strategic missile defense system in Europe clearly was the main reason for the
suspension of the treaty at this time. Russia is sending a signal to the USA that she is not
going to give up her position. Many Russian officials and politicians expressed positive
attitude towards this decision. Some of them are arguing that CFE treaty has been useless for
Russia and even that there had never been a reason to concluding it.13 The first President of

9
“Путин предлагает США совместно использовать РЛС в Азербайджане”,
http://grani.ru/War/Arms/p.123159.html
10
“Russian Radar Site Does Not Fit US Missile Shield Needs”, Space War, 16 August, 2007.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian_radar_site_doesnt_fit_US_missile_shield_needs_general_999.html
11
Paul Reynolds, “New Era of Discord for Russia and West”, BBC News, 6 August, 2007.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/6717927.stm
12
“Россия собрала чрезвычайную конференцию по ограничению вооружений”, НГ-Интернет.
http://www.ng.ru/politics/2007-06-08///100_Dovse.html
13
“Караганов: ДОВСЕ России не нужен”, Росбалт.
http://www.rosbalt.ru/2007/07/26/402187.html

4
Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, commenting on the situation, stated that USA, using their
defense program, is seeking to influence over or even to take control of European politics.14

Recently, Russia restarted long–range flights of her bomber aircrafts. This can be considered
as yet another element in the more assertive Russian foreign and security policy. In 1992
Russia ended such flights. However, according to Putin, “this move was not followed by
everyone”. Russian President affirmed that other countries’ flights are creating security
problems for Russia.15 At the moment Russia is trying to modernize her military forces, using
the income from energy resources, and to restore her military potential.

One more manifestation of the deepening confrontation between Russia and USA was the
current summit of Shanghai Cooperation Organization. An important part of the meetings was
devoted for military cooperation between the member states. Iran President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad was participating as a guest in the summit. He expressed support for Russia
against US anti–missile defense system deployment in Europe. Moreover, Russia, Iran and
China concluded a statement warning that USA should avoid interfering with the affairs of
Central Asia.16 China can also be regarded as an opponent of US strategic defense system as
Washington is starting to talk about installing missile interceptors in Asia – Pacific region as
well. Although, US is arguing that such a system would be designed to defend against
possible missile attacks from North Korea, it will also cover Taiwan and in this way will limit
China’s freedom of action. In general, Russia is looking for allies in the clash with USA and
is distancing herself from the West.

Conclusion

US plan to deploy an anti–missile defense system in Poland and Czech Republic caused a
serious tension between Russia and USA. Russia’s suspension of CFE treaty can be
concerned as a protest against US plan. On the other hand, US decision to start a strategic
defense program can be regarded as having gained impetus from certain policies of Moscow
which had been undertaken earlier. Firstly, finding an external enemy helps Putin to take
public’s attention from domestic problems and in such a way to consolidate Russian society
and to gain more popularity. This is especially important on the eve of forthcoming elections
in Russia. Although, Putin is not able to candidate for the presidency, he is intended to remain
in power unofficially. Secondly, US program is a good pretext for Russia to start the revision
of international agreements on European and Euro – Atlantic security. In such a way Moscow
might be willing to increase her influence over its region and to restore her military potential.
Summarizing, the future of these tensions will influence the developments in world politics.

14
“Размещая ПРО в Чехии и Польше, США пытаются повлиять на процессы в Европе`, - считает Михаил
Горбачев”. http://www.gorby.ru/rubrs.asp?art_id=25566&rubr_id=21&page=1
15
“Russia Restarts Cold War Patrols”, BBC News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6950986.stm
16
“Russia, China, Iran warn U.S. at summit”, The Associated Press.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/5059787.html