18 March 2013
MOSCOW: The U.S. is developing the fourth stage of global missile defence for retargeting the system to the Far East, said Viktor Kremenyuk, deputy director of the Institute for the USA and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
“Americans are planning their actions irrespective of anything Moscow says or does. They ignore this fact. Moscow can laud or can ignore, or can say yes. But this is done not for Moscow. This is done because the United States decided to specify its strategic priorities and reorient them to the Far East, for example,” Kremenyuk told Itar-Tass on Monday.
“This is the U.S. matter. The American administration voices concern about any real threat to be posed to allies or the U.S. itself,” the Russian expert said.
“As for Europe, Iran was always one of the arguments. But anything [with Iran] has moved and Washington is starting preliminary contacts that can convince Tehran to assume obligations – to create nuclear arms or not but in order not to pose threats to Americans,” Kremenyuk said.
Russia sees US’s decision to cancel 4th
stage of ABM in Europe only as delay
Russia sees the US’s decision to cancel the fourth stage of its anti-missile system in Europe (the so-called European Phased Adaptive Approach) as a technical delay and not as a principal decision. Once the US financial situation improves and counter missiles are technically perfect, this “break” will be over and the US counter-missiles will be deployed in Europe.
On March 15, the US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced that the US had decided to freeze the deployment of its interceptors in Poland. Instead it plans to deploy 14 heavy counter-missiles in Alaska and to set one more radar station in Japan by 2017. Washington is also working on the deployment of silo based counter missiles in the East of the US.
In an interview with the Kommesant daily Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said that Moscow did not consider Washington’s decision to cancel the fourth stage of its anti-missile system in Europe as a concession and does not see any principle changes in the US position in ABM. Most Russian experts agree with him. If such an approach meant that the US gave up its plans Moscow would welcome it. But this is out of the question, Pavel Zolotarev Deputy head of Russia’s Institute of the US and Canada, says.
“This approach does not mean that the US gave up the idea of deploying counter-missiles in Poland. That is why we should not overestimate Washington’s decision. Currently the US is experiencing economic problems. Washington’s European Phased Adaptive Approach implies that interceptors will be deployed once the Iranian threat emerges. So there are no serious changes in the position.”
Moscow thinks that the US has to adjust its plans on ABM in Europe due to the reduction of the Pentagon’s budget by $45 billion. Also the systems the US wanted to deploy in Europe are yet to be improved, Vladimir Yevseev, head of the center of political studies, says.
“As soon as financial problems are solved and the systems are technically perfect the US will get down to the implementation of the plans it announced earlier. Now it concerns only a delay in implementation which does not provide the guarantees Russia is insisting on. Russia considers it a postponement and if so – why should Russia make any concessions to the US?”
Sergey Ryabkov and Deputy State Secretary Rose Gottemoeller are to meet on Monday or on Tuesday in Geneva. It is very likely that they will touch upon this issue. In the current situation we should not expect any new breakthrough in disarmament, Yevseev says.
“Russia’s position is the following – In 2010 Russia and the US signed a new strategic arms reduction treaty in Prague and it is necessary first of all to implement it. Since the moment the agreement was signed it will take 7 years to implement it. Why should we sign a new treaty now?”
Moscow is ready to continue the dialogue on disarmament with the US but it will also continue to insist on signing judicial binding agreements which guarantee that the US anti-missile system is not targeted against Russian strategic nuclear forces.
Moscow Unimpressed by Changes in US
Missile Defense Plans
MOSCOW: Washington’s decision to scrap plans to place missile defense elements in Poland does nothing to address Moscow’s national security concerns and will not affect its stance on the issue, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said in an interview published on Monday.
US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said at a news conference on Friday that plans to place upgraded missile interceptors in Poland are being abandoned and that 14 new interceptors will be placed on the US West Coast instead.
The announcement comes shortly after nuclear-armed North Korea terminated a peace treaty with South Korea, a US ally. Hagel also cited development problems and funding cuts.
Speaking to the Kommersant daily, Ryabkov said there was no connection between Russia’s objections to the deployment of a US missile defense system in Europe and Hagel’s announcement.
“That is not a concession to Russia, nor do we regard it as such,” Ryabkov said.
“All aspects of strategic uncertainty related to the creation of a US and
NATO missile defense system remain. Therefore, our objections also remain.”
Moscow will continue to press for the signing of “legally binding agreements guaranteeing that US missile defense elements are not aimed against Russia’s strategic nuclear forces,” he said.
Commenting on Hagel’s announcement, James Miller, principal deputy undersecretary for policy at the Department of Defense said: “In the fourth phase, in the previous plan, we would have added some additional type of interceptors – the so-called SM-3 IIB…to the mix in Poland. We no longer intend to add them to the mix, but we’ll continue to have the same number of deployed interceptors in Poland that will provide coverage for all of NATO in Europe.”
Hagel also said the US is planning to deploy an additional radar in Japan to provide early warning and tracking of any missile launched from North Korea at the United States or Japan.
Two weeks ago, North Korea threatened to launch a preemptive nuclear attack against Washington when the United Nations voted for new sanctions against North Korea in response to February’s nuclear test.
Russia and NATO initially agreed to cooperate on the so-called European missile defense system at the Lisbon summit in November 2010. However, further talks between Russia and the alliance have floundered over NATO’s refusal to grant Russia legal guarantees that the system would not be aimed against Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent.
NATO and the United States insist the shield is designed to defend NATO members against missiles from emerging threat nations like North Korea and Iran, and would not be directed at Russia. The alliance has vowed to continue developing and deploying its missile defenses, regardless of the status of missile defense cooperation with Russia.
Russia has threatened a range of countermeasures against NATO’s missile defenses, including tactical nuclear missile deployment in its Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad and improvements to its strategic nuclear missile arsenal.
More interceptors on US Pacific Coast will
heighten tension around Korea – Chinese official
The US decision to deploy additional antimissile missiles on its Pacific Coast in response to North Korea’s threats will serve to heighten tension in the area of the Korean Peninsula, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Hong Lei, told a news briefing in Beijing. He urged Washington to be cautious about the problem.
The US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel made public Washington’s plans last week to deploy additional interceptor missiles in California and Alaska.
He also said the US was giving up plans to deploy additional-type interceptor missiles in Poland.
But Moscow sees no reason why it should change its stand on the missile defence system in Europe.
While giving up one stage of deploying this kind of system in Europe, Washington is strengthening its missile defence system in another area, Deputy Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Ryabkov, said in a statement.
Voice of Russia, Interfax
Voice of Russia
‘US anti-missile reshuffle, really, aimed at control over Arctic resources’ – former MI5 intelligence officer
The primary goal of the US plans to bolster missile defense in Alaska isn’t about tackling a North Korean threat, but putting a claim on the natural resources of the Arctic, former MI5 intelligence officer Annie Machon explained.
The Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, said that development and funding problems have forced the US to give up a key part of its Eastern European missile defense plan.
The priority will now be given to efforts aimed at preventing a possible North Korean nuclear attack, which would require adding 14 new interceptors to the 26 already placed in Alaska.
Former intelligence officer for MI5, Annie Machon, believes that the North Korean threat is just as unrealistic for the US as the one from Iran, with control over natural resources once again being Washington’s true aim.
“What we’re looking at – at this point – is North Korea being the ‘useful idiot’, a pretext for America to defend a resource-rich part of the world. When I was in MI5, the one thing we were always taught in terms of assessing the threat from any sort of source or a country: one – do they have the capability; two – do they have the intention. Now, of course, North Korea has very loudly said that they have the intention to try and attack America, but certainly doesn’t have the capability at this point.”
“We all know that Iran isn’t a real threat to America’s interests. So, it’s interesting now that the focus is moving to an overtly aggressive, but very small and incapable country away from Iran. I hope it’s not a feint to make people stop watching Iran, stop watching the US government’s lies trying to find as excuse to attack Iran.”
“North Korea is a patsy, used to put up this new missile defense in Alaska. And the key part is that there’s been this covert war to control the diminishing resources of the world, which is waged across continents – between, certainly, the US and China over the last decade. And what we’re looking at now is, I think, a very careful geopolitical strategy to control and put bases in Alaska because anyone, who has Alaska can control the Arctic area. And, as the arctic area melts more quickly, more countries are going to fight for the resource-rich area as the ice recedes. America, by having these defenses in Alaska, will be very well-placed to protect its economic interest in that area.”
Voice of Russia, RT