#3
Moscow Times
December 14, 2001
Going Unilaterally Ballistic
By Pavel Felgenhauer

The war in Afghanistan against the radical Muslim Taliban militia, Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist organization seems to have been won. U.S. forces have established bases inside Afghanistan, and Russian aid in securing bases in Central Asia is no longer essential.

Since the Sept. 11, attacks close relations with Moscow have been considered an issue of paramount importance in Washington. Now the emphasis has clearly shifted and the decision made that it is time to officially announce the United States' unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

"The time is coming when we will need to move beyond the ABM Treaty. The president will let you know. The time is near," National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters this week. Sources in the White House and the Senate say that in January or earlier Washington will give the required official six-month notice of its withdrawal from the ABM Treaty.

Last month, President Vladimir Putin's chief of staff Alexander Voloshin told reporters: "Our military experts have calculated that the existing ABM Treaty allows the United States to continue its missile defense testing program for five to seven years; if there are obstacles, we are ready to discuss how to change the treaty." The only response from Washington has been to scrap ABM unconditionally.

Even a limited missile defense will not be ready for deployment for a decade or so. ABM abrogation by the United States is not a military-strategic move per se, and in Russia many see it as a deliberate slap in the face for Putin.

The Russian military establishment will draw encouragement from seeing Putin's pro-Western foreign policy endeavor rewarded with such a public humiliation. They will surely say, "We warned you never to trust the Americans," and proceed to ask for more weapons procurement money.

The U.S. military will presumably be as glad as their counterparts in the East to see Russia's attempts to integrate into the Euro-Atlantic community of nations discouraged. The U.S. Navy is now lobbying for money to build a new series of nuclear attack submarines; the only possible enemy that could warrant the building of these new submarines is Russia with its nuclear submarine fleet.

If Russia becomes a true ally of the West, large parts of the Pentagon's armed forces will become redundant and may be cut. If a new generation of attack submarines is not procured, the U.S. nuclear submarine-building yards may have to be closed down. In a generation we may all be living in a world where there are virtually no nuclear submarines left at all.

The U.S. and Russian militaries will surely unite in coordinated opposition to such a threat. Last week the Pentagon and its chief, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, did their best to stop NATO countries approving a "NATO at 20" (meaning the 19 members plus Russia) decision-making committee.

"NATO at 20" was in the end approved in principle but stripped of any true decision-making role. Russian military chiefs, in turn, have been stating recently that there is no need for Russia to join NATO, that "NATO at 20" does not add anything new and that it will be unproductive.

It is obvious that there are powerful special interest groups in the West -- maybe even more powerful than anti-Western influence groups in Moscow -- that want to keep Russia out.

At the same time the war in Afghanistan has lost the ability to promote an alliance with Washington. As different former anti-Taliban Afghan factions feud over the spoils of victory -- primarily over control of narcotics production and the heroin trade -- Russia and the United States may also start to squabble, as they find themselves backing opposing warlords.

Russia, however, needs an alliance with the West more than the West needs an alliance with Russia. It's possible that Putin may continue his drive toward the West despite the ABM Treaty. The Kremlin may play down the termination of the treaty, wait for the fallout to settle and continue business as usual, emphasizing there is no imminent threat in a nonexistent missile defense system.

Putin has clearly made a long-term decision to Westernize Russia. The multipolar world concept has been abandoned by the Kremlin, and its author -- former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov -- will effectively be leaving public politics if he is elected president of Russia's Chamber of Commerce and Industry this week, as expected.

Even the maverick leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, has announced that his party is abandoning anti-American and anti-Western elements in its ideology.

If this pro-Western drive is rejected, will there be another chance?

Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst.

BACK TO THE TOP    #184 CONTENTS    NEXT SECTION