Back in
November 2008, then Russian president Dmitry Medvedev made a stark warning to NATO: "
Russia
will deploy Iskander missile systems in its enclave in Kaliningrad to
neutralize, if necessary, the anti-ballistic missile system in Europe."
Several years we
followed up with a
report that as Europe was ramping up NATO expansion, Russia may have
followed through on its warning when as Bild then reported, Russia
stationed missiles with a range of about 500 kilometers in its
Kaliningrad enclave and along its border with the Baltic states of
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
There
was not official confirmation at the time however we expect the
European ICBM theater will get hot in the coming days because as
Reuters reports,
the United States' European missile defense shield goes live on
Thursday almost a decade after Washington proposed protecting NATO from
Iranian rockets and despite repeated Russian warnings that the West is
threatening the peace in central Europe.
Amid
high Russia-West tension, U.S. and NATO officials will declare
operational the shield at a remote air base in Deveselu, Romania, after
years of planning, billions of dollars in investment and failed attempts
to assuage Russian concerns that the shield could be used against
Moscow.
As
Robert Bell, a NATO-based envoy of U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter
explained "we now have the capability to protect NATO in Europe. The
Iranians are increasing their capabilities and we have to be ahead of
that. The system is not aimed against Russia," he told reporters, adding that the system will soon be handed over to NATO command.
First
agreed by the U.S. government 2007 and then canceled and relaunched by
the newly-elected U.S. President Barack Obama in 2009, the missile
defense shield's stated aim is to protect North America and Europe from
so-called rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. That is part of a
U.S. strategy that includes missile interceptors in California and
Alaska.
To
be sure the Kremlin was not content with this explanation, which is a
clear defection from the carefully established Game Theory equilibrium
in the aftermath of the nuclear arms race, and one which potentially
removes a Russian first strike threat, thereby pressuring Russia.
As a result, Reuters notes that "Russia
is incensed at such of show of force by its Cold War rival in formerly
communist-ruled eastern Europe where it once held sway.Moscow
says the U.S.-led alliance is trying to encircle it close to the
strategically important Black Sea, home to a Russian naval fleet and
where NATO is also considering increasing patrols."
Worse, the precarious nuclear balance of power in Europe has suddenly shifted, and quite dramatically: despite U.S. assurances, the
Kremlin says the missile shield's real aim is to neutralize Moscow's
nuclear arsenal long enough for the United States to make a first strike
on Russia in the event of war.
The
move will also prompt further escalations on both sides: as a reminder,
the readying of the shield also comes as NATO prepares a new deterrent
in Poland and the Baltics, following Russia's Crimean adventure in 2014.
In response, Russia is reinforcing its western and southern flanks with
three new divisions.
The
missile defense shield relies on radars to detect a ballistic missile
launch into space. Tracking sensors then measure the rocket's trajectory
and intercept and destroy it in space, before it re-enters the earth's
atmosphere. The interceptors can be fired from ships or ground sites. It
is being launched despite repeated Russian warnings that its activation
would prompt an appropriate response.
The Russian ambassador to Denmark warned a year ago that Danish
warships would become targets for Russian nuclear missiles if Denmark
joined the shield project by installing radars on its vessels. Denmark
is upgrading at least one frigate to house a ballistic missile sensor.
"Ballistic
missile defense sites could pose threats to the stability and strategic
assets of the Russian Federation," Russia's ambassador to NATO,
Alexander Grushko, told Reuters last month.
Meanwhile,
Turkey is already hosting a U.S. radar and the Netherlands has equipped
ships with radars. The United States also has four ships in Spain as
part of the defenses, while all NATO nations are contributing funding.
US officials have tried to tone down Russian concerns and dismiss the
Russian view as "strategic paranoia", blaming Moscow for breaking off
talks with NATO in 2013 that were aimed at explaining how the shield
would operate. What is ignored is that at the same time, the US State
Department and the CIA were plotting NATO expansion into Ukraine to
bring the alliance that much closer to Russia.
The
United States says Russia was seeking a treaty limiting the capability
and range of ballistic missile interceptors. "No government could agree
to that," U.S. adviser Bell said.
Russian
officials are concerned about technology that the United States says it
does not have, including a missile defense interceptor capable of
speeds of 10 km (6.2 miles) per second that could destroy Russian
missiles.
Curiously,
the US continues to push the argument that the missile shield is only
there to defend against Iranian agressions, despite a historic deal
between world powers and Tehran to limit Iran's nuclear program. The
West believes Iran's Revolutionary Guards continue to develop ballistic
missile technology, carrying out two tests late last year. "They are
looking for greater distance and accuracy," said Douglas Barrie, an
aerospace defense specialist at the International Institute for
Strategic Studies (IISS). "They can still miss by hundreds of meters,
but that doesn't rule out firing against a city or a very large
airfield."
Which
is strange considering that on Friday the United States will also start
construction on a second site in Poland due to be ready in 2018, giving
NATO a permanent, round-the-clock shield in addition to radars and
ships already in the Mediterranean. Poland, one can argue, is hardly the
target of millitant Iranian clerics, and makes it very clear that this
deterrence step is merely aimed at Russia.
But
what makes this step particuarly dangerous is that Russia will now have
to be forced to retaliate and since it does not have a comparable
defensive technology, Putin will have no choice but to deploy more ICBMs
on Russia's borders, which in turn will exponentially escalate the
threat of an "inadvertent" launch. Although considering how the "market"
responds to newsflow these past few years, this may also be seen as a
bullish catalyst for stocks.
No comments:
Post a Comment