#5
RUSSIA-U.S. ABM COOPERATION BUDDING

MOSCOW, JANUARY 9. /From RIA Novosti's military analyst Victor Litovkin/ -- The statement by the American Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow that the United States is seriously bent on cooperation with Russia in the field of antimissile defense has evoked much interest of the Russian mass media. His compliments to the foremost Russian technologies in the creation of the antiaircraft missile systems S-300, S-400 and other military know-how have been cited by several Russian central television channels.

Still, Russian specialists in the field of antimissile and antiaircraft defense, the creators of the famous S-300 and S-400 systems, military chiefs have taken the Vershbow declaration quietly, if not uninterestedly. In a conversation with the RIA Novosti analyst, scientists and designers of military machines said it is not the first American proposal to participate in unfolding the antimissile defense system and get a sidelight on the work of American specialists in the National Missile Defense.

For instance, at a London conference 1.5 months ago US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton said that the Bush administration had invited representatives of the Russian government to be present as observers at the tests of the NMD interceptor rocket. The Pentagon also proposed Russian experts to come to the Fort Bliss military base in Texas to inspect the Patriot antiaircraft missile system, make a visit to Alaska to look at the budding NMD installations near the Fort Grili military base. Why has the Russian side politely rejected these proposals?

The RIA Novosti interlocutors cite different reasons. But at the root of them lies a firm, even subconscious, mistrust of many Russian specialists in the possibility of mutually beneficial and equitable cooperation with the United States in this delicate and sensitive for Russia field - antimissile defense. These apprehensions are well-grounded.

They are not only disgruntled over the United States' unilateral withdrawal from the 1972 ABM treaty, which many in Russia used to call "the cornerstone of strategic stability". Many Russian specialists doubt declarations by American officials that the United States builds up the National Missile Defense system as protection against possible strikes from what is called the rogue countries, which in America's view are North Korea, Iraq, Iran and Libya. This mistrust is caused, in the first place, by none of these countries' missiles being able to reach the United States' territory in the next few decades. Nor are there proofs to be found that such missiles can be created before long.

If so, Russian experts say, why is the United States building, or going to build, early-warning radars in Norway, Great Britain, Alaska, Greenland and even Latvia, instead of in proximity to the rogue countries? Iran and Alaska, North Korea and Latvia lie far apart. Clearly, the effective area of these radars covers the flight tracks of our strategic missiles from the Plesetsk proving ground near Arkhangelsk (Russia's European north) to the Kamchatka proving ground (Russia's Far East), where the strategic missiles' nose cones land.

Russian specialists have also other reasons to doubt the absolute sincerity of the American proposals. Unfair deal is proposed to Russia, Academician Boris Bunkin, creator of the S-300 system, told the RIA Novosti correspondent. Americans offer to study their developments made dozens of years ago in return for our today's developments, know-how and projects which would help the United States make a qualitative breakthrough in its NMD efforts. It is no fact that these new technologies will then be passed to Russia.

Overseas attention to Russia's antimissile and antiaircraft defense strides follows from the United States' repeated attempts to buy S-300V antiaircraft systems (designed mostly for troops protection against air and missile strikes on the battlefield) and the S-300PMU system (for the protection of populated places and industrial facilities against such threats). Although several years ago the Pentagon bought S-300V elements from Moscow through the Rosvooruzhenie state company and several S-300PMU control cabins in Minsk through the Beltekhexport company, Washington has not got such missiles, computers or other sensitive elements. Without them it is impossible to envision the algorithm of the entire system, developers say.

Still, largely speaking, Russia just as the United States is interested in cooperation in the development of the American National Missile Defense and the theater antimissile defense for Europe, or, as it is sometimes called, territorial antimissile defense. Yes, Russia has made good achievements in this field and its defense enterprises and design bureaus would find it very useful to share their developments and get currency to promote their production and create advanced military machines for the Russian army.

The problem is how to separate the technologies and know-how which can be shared without harm to own security from the ideas and strides intended solely for home consumption? It is a major question, which Moscow is thinking over. Maybe this is the reason why at sittings of the Russian-American ABM group, set up on the decision of the two presidents to discuss transparency and further ABM cooperation, Russian specialists, as witnesses say, prefer rather to sit mum than make concrete proposals. Even the nature of questions asked by our interlocutors shows what they know, what they do not know and what they would like to know. Their answers and notes can be suggestive and prompt them to unwelcome decisions, witnesses say.

Alongside natural problems of keeping their technological and military secrets, there are also problems of competition between defense companies, protection of commercial interests of these or other national and international corporations. They say in Moscow that the United States and Europe know well about the Russian achievements in the field of antimissile and antiaircraft defense, would like to agree on orders for concrete products with parameters of interest to the military. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is making such proposals to military-industrial corporations of France, Great Britain, Japan and other countries, except Russia. This is what alerts Russian specialists, cannot make them sure of the possibility of real and mutually beneficial cooperation with Washington in the field of antimissile defense.

Nobody expects that such cooperation can be arranged in a year or two. Too much has been separating us for more than half a century. Too much mistrust has been stockpiled over the past decades of confrontation. But time flies. Common goals and interests have appeared before our two countries and the international community. There is a hope that they will help overcome the amassed differences and mistrust, put Russia and the United States on the road of a closer cooperation. Even in such a delicate sphere for own defense as antiballistic missile defense

BACK TO THE TOP    #239 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE