The flap over a US anti-missile shield

Once again Pundita has been driven to her Ouija board; this time in the effort to see through the fog of arguments about the US plan to base parts of a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The plan has touched off strong protests from Russia, and could lead to a full-scale diplomatic crisis. The chief of the Russian military's general staff has stated that if the US carries out the plan, Russia will abandon the 1987 Soviet-American treaty that banned medium-range nuclear missiles. And Russia's generals also threaten to aim missiles at the US antimissile sites if the plan is carried out.

From their side, the US is expressing confusion about why the Russians are bent out of shape about the plan:

Tom Casey, the State Department's deputy spokesman and deputy assistant secretary for public affairs, said [...] "The system that's being put in place is designed to counter threats from the Middle East or from other potential rogue states out there, and it's something that we're sharing with our European friends and allies and, frankly, with the entire international community," he said.

He said the system "is not physically capable of threatening Russia, or threatening any other country for that matter. It's for defensive purposes," adding that the first briefings on the issue began for the Russians in 2004 and 2005 through the U.S.-Russia Missile Defense Working Group.

He said that was then replaced by another series of senior-level meetings in 2006, and that "since March of 2006, at which point Under Secretary of Defense Edeleman briefed his Russian counterparts, there have been more than 10 instances where we've had senior level officials get together to discuss the details of our missile defense plan, including meeting with the head of the Missile Defense Agency and their respective Russian counterparts."

"So, frankly, there's been a lot of information shared back and forth on this issue and again, for that reason I'm having a hard time understanding how those comments are reflective of that broader discussion. Certainly, those weren't the reactions of Russian officials who heard these briefings," he said.(1)

Russia's military advisors don't agree that the antimissile sites would pose no threat to Russia:

"There is a technical aspect to this problem, because according to some reports the third missile defense ring in Poland will have missile silos that are similar to those built for launches of ballistic missiles," [Foreign Minister Sergei] Lavrov said, adding that it is wrong to ensure one's own security while threatening the security of other countries.

Russia's top military officials earlier issued strong warnings to the U.S. regarding its plans to deploy elements of its anti-missile defense system in Central Europe.

The chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Yury Baluyevsky, said in an interview with the Rossiiskaya Gazeta daily that the unilateral U.S. actions could damage the balance of power in Europe and undermine Russia's nuclear deterrence potential.

"Knowing the potential technical characteristics of fire support and weapons systems, we can confirm that despite numerous assurances that these systems are not targeted at Russia, they could still affect our deterrence capability under certain circumstances," the general said.

Baluyevsky reiterated that Russia is strictly adhering to its nuclear disarmament obligations while the U.S. is driving to base missile shield elements in Europe, which coincides with NATO expansion closer to Russian borders.(1)

The big question is whether the plan makes military sense. Would placing parts of a US missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic protect the United States against a long-range attack from Iran or North Korea? Putin's military advisors say that launching North Korean ballistic missiles against the U.S. across western Europe would be in conflict with the laws of ballistics. "Or, as we say in Russia, it's like trying to reach your left ear with your right hand," said President Putin.

But -- this minute at least -- the US claims that the shield would be to protect America's eastern seaboard from a missile shot from the Middle East (read "Iran") and that it would also protect Poland and the Czech Republic -- from what, it's not entirely clear.

Here is Ouija's fix on how to avert the diplomatic crisis:

RUSSIA ASK VENEZUELA TO PLACE MISSILE SHIELD IN CASE OF ESKIMOS.

When I tried for clarification on why Eskimos might want to lob a missile at Russia and whether a Venezuela site would make ballistic sense, Ouija lapsed into archaic Upper Croatian, which it does whenever I pose a question that could remotely connect with oil politics.

Okay. Let's assume for the sake of argument that it makes good ballistic and military sense for the US to place a missile shield somewhere in the region. According to the Financial Times:

The proposed interceptor sites in Poland, near the Baltic Sea, are on a direct line drawn between northern Iran and New York or Washington.

The proposed siting near Jince in the Czech Republic of the powerful X-Band radar that would home the interceptors on to the US-bound missiles is, according to some scientists, to the west of its ideal location. Other suitable radar locations, from a geographical standpoint, would include Lithuania, Belarus, Russia, Ukraine and Georgia.

Philip Coyle, a missile defence expert with the Center for Defense Information in the US, says in practical terms the system poses no threat to Russia since it could not cope with either the number of Russian missiles or their sophisticated decoys and countermeasures. He said the system "has not demonstrated the capability to defend the United States under likely battlefield conditions".

One question is whether the countries concerned have increased risks to themselves by agreeing to site these missiles there. Theodore Postol, a scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has argued that the curvature of the earth would prevent the US early warning radar at Fylingdales in the UK from seeing missiles from Iran aimed at the Czech or Polish sites. Mr Coyle says that, for this reason, US statements that the system would protect people in the Czech Republic and Poland from Iranian missiles are "misleading".

Is there a road out of the impasse -- again, assuming the antimissile plan is sound?

The road could be labeled "technology transfer." Washington has signaled Moscow that the US might abolish the Soviet-era Jackson-Vannick law, which still limits technology exchanges between Russia and the US.

1) RIA Novosti.