• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • The Administration Must Not Bend to Russian Missile Defense Demands

    Recently, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov stated that Russia might withdraw from New START—the strategic arms control agreement between the Russian Federation and the United States that entered into force on February 4—if the United States does not provide Moscow with a legally binding guarantee that the European Phased Adaptive Approach (the Obama Administration’s plan for protection of Europe) will not be targeted against Russia.

    This is probably not what Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly, director of the Missile Defense Agency, had in mind when he testified about New START before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: “There are no limitations in the treaty that affect our plans for developing missile defense,” he said. Indeed, Heritage’s research revealed numerous practical limitations of the U.S. missile defense options, including test target missiles and the conversion of ICBM silos into missile defense launchers.

    The Russian approach defies logic. The missile defense system in Europe would intercept and destroy ballistic missiles already launched toward its victims. If the Russians believe that U.S. and allied operation of a missile defense system will pose a threat to them, they likely think they need to threaten both with a missile attack. If this is the basis of Russian thinking, then this negotiation is about anything but cooperation.

    Additionally, the Russian Duma’s New START ratification law contains provisions that are diametrically opposed to those adopted by the United States. The Senate’s resolution of ratification states that the treaty imposes no limits on missile defense deployments (outside a narrow provision in Article V) and that the language on missile defense in the treaty’s preamble is not legally binding. It is clear that there is no meeting of the minds on missile defense between the parties to this treaty.

    The treaty is clearly becoming another means to escalate the tension between the two countries, emphasize the differences between their strategic postures, restrict U.S. ballistic missile defense plans, and prevent further cooperation. The Russian bellicose statements do not give much hope for a “reset” in the relationship.

    It is also essential not to buckle to Russian demands for operational control of the missile defense system. Any agreement to do so would only perpetuate U.S. and allied vulnerability to missile attack, because it appears that the Russians are making this demand in order to block effective operation of the system, not to enhance cooperative missile defense capabilities.

    Genuine cooperation in the realm of missile defense is about the United States, its allies, and Russia standing together to oppose aggression by rogue states through the use of ballistic missiles.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    5 Responses to The Administration Must Not Bend to Russian Missile Defense Demands

    1. Frank, Texas says:

      Sergey Ryabkov is the Deputy Foreign MInister, not the Prime Minister (Vladimir Putin)

    2. Frank, Texas says:

      "The Russian approach defies logic. The missile defense system in Europe would intercept and destroy ballistic missiles already launched toward its victims. If the Russians believe that U.S. and allied operation of a missile defense system will pose a threat to them, they likely think they need to threaten both with a missile attack. If this is the basis of Russian thinking, then this negotiation is about anything but cooperation."

      I think the russians are being paranoid about this missile shield, but I understand where they are coming from. I think their point is that the missile shield could theoretically hamper their ability to launch any missiles in their own defense. This is why I think they're being paranoid; the idea of a war between NATO and Russia is laughable. But currently Russia isn't really considered an ally, just not an enemy. They want to be brought into a community of allies and cooperation before we build a military infrastructure that could hamper their defensive capabilities. The problem is that they haven't been very cooperative themselves…

    3. Mike, Wichita Falls says:

      All most Americans know is that Obama got this great new treaty with the Russians, and everything is fine. When the problems accelerated by this treaty cannot be hidden anymore by the state-controlled media, I'll wager that Obama will blame the treaty's failure on none other than Bush and the GOP.

    4. jdelaney3 says:

      Sadly, this Administration and their clueless, kumbaya minions in the Senate will yield. Afterall, isn't being loved (or laughed at behind our backs) more important than our self-defense. Get with it, you, you…saber-rattling patriots!

    5. Frank, Texas says:

      State controlled media? Isn't the biggest media outlet Fox News right now?

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×