MOSCOW, May 1 (RIA Novosti)
- Fifty States to Attend Moscow Missile Defense Conference
- Rogozin Recalled as NATO Missile Defense Envoy
- Russia, U.S. Can’t Agree on Missile Defense yet - Lavrov
- Russia Repeats Iskander Deployment Threat
- U.S. Could Benefit From Russian Radars - Pentagon official
NATO is likely to make new decisions on the further deployment of the European missile defense shield, a stumbling point in Russian-U.S. relations, during the upcoming alliance’s summit in Chicago, Russian Deputy Defense minister Anatoly Antonov said on Tuesday.
In an interview with the Rossiyskaya Gazeta that is due to be published on Wednesday, Antonov said that the NATO states-members were expected to announce “an initial operation readiness” of the European missile defense system.
“There are also new decisions on the further missile defense integration within the European shield expected to be made at the summit,” Antonov said, adding that the third stage of the missile defense shield’s deployment that is due to start in 2017, may trigger a harsh reaction from Russia.
The NATO summit, due to be held in Chicago, is scheduled for May 20-21.
The proposed U.S.-led missile shield in Europe remains a major source of tension between Russia and the United States, and the Kremlin has threatened to deploy tactical weapons close to Europe if it is not made full partner in the scheme.
The U.S.-led NATO alliance and Russia agreed in 2010 to cooperate on building missile defenses in Europe. Russia has however demanded legally-binding, written guarantees that the project would not undermine Russian security, something Washington has declined to provide.
Add to blog
You may place this material on your blog by copying the link.
- arsanlupinThat isn't enough -03:01, 02/05/2012NATO and Russia must be equal partners in a fully inter-operable European missile shield Both can feel fully secure from the other when both are in the control room together, so to speak. "Legally-binding, written guarantees" are inadequate, in my humble opinion - it's too easy to abrogate something on a piece of paper, and some of the Republicans in the US government have been saying some really stupid things about Russia lately. No - only with the two inextricably teammates in the overall missile defense will Russia - and NATO for that matter - be fully protected from rogue states like Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan.
And with all of the elements of the European missile shield in south-east European countries such as Turkey and Romania, the geometry becomes even more obvious that Russia is not feared as the attacker.
- lmWhen will the endless talking end?09:02, 02/05/2012There are also new decisions on the further missile defense integration within the European shield expected to be made at the summit,” Antonov said, adding that the third stage of the missile defense shield’s deployment that is due to start in 2017, may trigger a harsh reaction from Russia the news said.
Again here goes Russia using indecivisive words such as (May) how about using words like definitely will counter attack this shield, make no mistakes we will response decisively, we are resolute and determined to stay the course on an effective response.
Russia has made so many ambiguous statements on this shield and cannot stop it from been deployed, in fact it’s even getting bigger right under the Kremlin nose. When invited to meeting they are left out on important conversations that can threaten Russia.
This procrastinate cancer that plagues the Kremlin has spread far and wide, in ship building, ship repairs, re-commissioning ships, ect, ect.
- jgFalse sense of security19:54, 02/05/2012Apart from the complications in US/NATO/Russian relations and the cost, the missile shield is intended to protect against a potential future missile threat from rogue states. If we take Iran as an example: whilst they may have missiles that can reach anywhere in Turkey, Cyprus, Israel and parts of south west Russia, it would be out of character for Iran to make a direct attack on anyone using missiles. They have traditionally acted through third parties, such as Hezbollah. It seems more likely that rogue states would continue attacks on western countries or Russia indirectly via terrorism. A missile shield is utterly useless against such a threat and diverts attention and resources from the real problems.
- arsanlupinYou make a good point ...22:57, 02/05/2012... although I'm not so sure it's going to be very expensive. The entire system is only going to have 2 or 3 radar installations in southeast Europe and 20 or 30 Standard SM-3 land-based interceptor missiles. Add 1 or 2 AEGIS ships in the eastern Med - who are already there as part of the 6th Fleet. Since the Standard SM-3 has been in service for some time there's no new technology to develop.
The complications of US/NATO/Russian relations will actually be a good experience for all involved; it will provide more interaction that I think will improve relations with all involved. A lot may disagree, but I think just the experience of working together so closely at that level will go a long way towards improving long-term relations among all involved.
You are correct in thinking that terrorism is more Iran's style - but the only certainty about Iran is that they are volatile and unpredictable. They are developing missiles that can reach most of Europe, and they are very probably developing nuclear weapons. They already have chemical weapons used in the 1980 Iran-Iraq war. So the capability is there.
North Korea is just plain nuts, and is likely to do the craziest of things for the craziest of reasons. And I'm also starting to worry about Pakistan - a nuclear nation, ballistic missile capabilities growing with Chinese help, that is becoming increasingly unstable.
Image Galleries: Russia Celebrates Navy Day
Infographics: World War I, 1914-1918
The Brest-Litovsk peace treaty that ended Russia’s part in the war has been the subject of heated debate from the moment it was signed in March 1918. To this day, scholars offer differing interpretations of the circumstances that led to the treaty and its domestic and foreign policy importance.