Wednesday, November 23, 2011 - 12:29 PM

The U.S.-Russian talks to cooperate on missile defense have apparently failed, as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced a series of retaliatory measures today aimed at giving Russia the ability to destroy the American-led system in Eastern Europe.
In a statement to the "citizens of Russia" on Wednesday, Medvedev announced that the year-long negotiations between the President Barack Obama's administration and its Russian counterparts to find a way to work together on what's known as the European Phased Adaptive Approach to ballistic missile defense were over. Medvedev said Russia was unable to attain written assurances from the United States that the system would not and could not be used to counter Russia's ballistic missile force. Medvedev announced several aggressive Russian moves to counter the U.S. system, and also threatened to withdraw from the New START nuclear reductions treaty in retaliation.
"We are to replace the friction and confrontation in our relations with the principles of equality, indivisible security, mutual trust, and predictability. Regrettably, the USA and other NATO partners have not showed enough willingness to move in this direction," Medvedev said.
Medvedev implied that the U.S. Congress was one of the primary obstacles in the negotiations, because some GOP senators are opposed to giving Russia any written assurances that could be seen as "limits" on U.S. missile defense and other GOP senators have called for the system to be directed at Russia.
"Rather than showing themselves
willing to hear and understand our concerns over the European missile defense
system at this stage, [U.S. officials] simply repeat that these plans are not
directed against Russia and that there is no point for us to be concerned. That
is the position of the executive authorities, but legislators in some countries
openly state the whole system is against Russia," Medvedev said.
He promised Russia would immediately move to put the missile attack early-warning radar station in Kaliningrad on combat alert, deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, equip Russia's strategic ballistic missiles with advanced missile-defense penetration systems and new highly-effective warheads, design measures to disable U.S. missile defenses, and deploy modern offensive weapon systems able to "take out any part of the US missile defense system in Europe."
If the situation continues to
deteriorate, Medvedev threatened to go further and withdraw from the New START
treaty, which the White House fought so hard to ratify last year.
"If the situation continues to develop not to Russia's favor, we reserve the right to discontinue further disarmament and arms control measures," he said. "Besides, given the intrinsic link between strategic offensive and defensive arms, conditions for our withdrawal from the New START Treaty could also arise, and this option is enshrined in the treaty."
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher was a key official in the development of the European missile defense scheme, and also led the negotiations on missile defense cooperation with Russia. When the system was announced in 2009, the Obama administration took criticism for abandoning former President George W. Bush's approach, which had focused on placing ground-based interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Critics accused the administration of pandering to Russia by abandoning the Polish and Czech sites for the new approach, which had a greater focus on Aegis ships operating at sea and mobile systems in countries including Romania and Bulgaria. The administration proudly announced a new radar site in Turkey in September.
Russia has always objected to the plans, arguing that the system has an inherent capability to counter Russian missiles. The Obama administration has always countered that the system was directed at Iran, not Russia. The cooperation being discussed was aimed at giving Russia enough access to data and operations to reassure them the system was not aimed at them. Some saw the effort as naïve.
"The notion that Moscow would politely accept the EPAA after New START was never realistic," a senior GOP Senate aide told The Cable today. "They seek to limit U.S. missile defenses by any and all means."
The aide argued that since the Obama administration secured NATO endorsement for the missile defense scheme, Russia's retaliatory moves must be considered a threat to the entire alliance and prompt the administration to fully fund all four phases of the missile defense plan.
"These Russian systems threaten NATO allies, and we have to respond with both robust defense and credible nuclear reassurance in Europe."
Today's announcement by Medvedev is the second backwards step in the U.S.-Russia reset in two days. On Tuesday, the Obama administration announced that it would stop honoring its obligations under the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty with regard to Russia. That was retaliation for Russia's complete disregard for the CFE treaty since 2007.
Nobody should be surprised by this development, but it shows that the U.S.-Russian reset policy may not survive the current round of U.S. and Russian talks, the aide said.
"This was long expected and it's a test for the durability of the personal policies of the President --the Russian reset and nuclear zero. Here we indeed see a reset, to something circa 1986."
National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor responded to Medvedev's comments by pledging the U.S. would continue to build the system.
"The United States has been open and transparent with Russia on our plans for missile defense in Europe, which reflect a growing threat to our allies from Iran that we are committed to deterring. In multiple channels, we have explained to Russian officials that the missile defense systems planned for deployment in Europe do not and cannot threaten Russia's strategic deterrent. Implementation of the New START treaty is going well and we see no basis for threats to withdraw from it," he said. "We continue to believe that cooperation with Russia on missile defense can enhance the security of the United States, our allies in Europe, and Russia, and we will continue to work with Russia to define the parameters of possible cooperation. However, in pursuing this cooperation, we will not in any way limit or change our deployment plans in Europe."
Read Medvedev's full statement after the jump:
Statement by Dmitry Medvedev in
connection with the situation concerning the NATO countries' missile defense
system in Europe
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Citizens of Russia,
I address you today in connection with the situation concerning the NATO
countries' missile defence system in Europe.
Russia's relations with the USA and NATO in the missile defence area have a
long and complicated history. I remember that when US President Barack Obama
revised his predecessor's plans to build a missile defence system in Europe in
September 2009, we welcomed this as a positive step.
This decision paved the way to our being able to conclude the important New
START Treaty which was signed not too long ago and which clearly states the
intrinsic link between strategic offensive weapons and missile defence. Let me
state that again, this was a major achievement.
Subsequently, however, the USA began carrying out a new missile defence plan
that foresaw the creation of a missile defence system in stages. This
specifically raises concerns in Russia. It would eventually see the deployment
of US missiles and military capability in close proximity to Russia's borders
and in the neighbouring waters.
At the NATO-Russia Council summit in Lisbon a year ago, I proposed developing a
joint sector-based missile defence system in Europe where every country would
be responsible for a particular sector.
Furthermore, we were ready to discuss additional modifications to the system,
taking into account our NATO partners' views. Our only goal was to preserve the
basic principle that Europe does not need new dividing lines, but rather, a
common security perimeter with Russia's equal and legally enshrined
participation.
It is my conviction that this approach would create unique opportunities for
Russia and NATO to build a genuine strategic partnership. We are to replace the
friction and confrontation in our relations with the principles of equality,
indivisible security, mutual trust, and predictability.
Regrettably, the USA and other NATO partners have not showed enough willingness
to move in this direction. Rather than showing themselves willing to hear and
understand our concerns over the European missile defence system at this stage,
they simply repeat that these plans are not directed against Russia and that
there is no point for us to be concerned. That is the position of the executive
authorities, but legislators in some countries openly state, the whole system
is against Russia.
But our requests that they set this out on paper in the form of clear legal
obligations are firmly rejected. We do hold a reasonable position. We are
willing to discuss the status and content of these obligations, but our
colleagues should understand that these obligations must have substance and not
be just empty words. They must be worded not as promises and reassurances, but
as specific military-technical criteria that will enable Russia to judge to
what extent US and NATO action in the missile defence area correspond to their
declarations and steps, whether our interests are being impinged on, and to
what extent the strategic nuclear balance is still intact. This is the
foundation of the present-day security.
We will not agree to take part in a programme that in a short while, in some 6
to 8 years' time could weaken our nuclear deterrent capability. The European
missile defence programme is already underway and work on it is, regrettably,
moving rapidly in Poland, Turkey, Romania, and Spain. We find ourselves facing
a fait accompli.
Of course we will continue the dialogue with the USA and NATO on this issue. I
agreed on this with US President Barack Obama when we met recently, and on that
occasion again stated our concerns very clearly. There is still time to reach
an understanding. Russia has the political will to reach the agreements needed
in this area, agreements that would open a new chapter in our relations with
the USA and NATO.
If our partners show an honest and responsible attitude towards taking into
account Russia's legitimate security interests, I am sure we can come to an
agreement. But if we are asked to ‘cooperate' or in fact act against our own
interests it will be difficult to establish common ground. In such a case we
would be forced to take a different response. We will decide our actions in
accordance with the actual developments in events at each stage of the missile
defence programme's implementation.
In this connection, I have made the following decisions:
1. I am instructing the Defence Ministry to immediately put the missile attack
early warning radar station in Kaliningrad on combat alert.
2. Protective cover of Russia's strategic nuclear weapons will be reinforced as
a priority measure under the programme to develop our air and space defences.
3. The new strategic ballistic missiles commissioned by the Strategic Nuclear
Forces and the Navy will be equipped with advanced missile defence penetration
systems and new highly-effective warheads.
4. I have instructed the Armed Forces to draw up measures for disabling missile
defence system data and guidance systems if need be. These measures will be
adequate, effective, and low-cost.
5. If the above measures prove insufficient, the Russian Federation will deploy
modern offensive weapon systems in the west and south of the country, ensuring
our ability to take out any part of the US missile defence system in Europe.
One step in this process will be to deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad
Region.
Other measures to counter the European missile defence system will be drawn up
and implemented as necessary.
Furthermore,
If the situation continues to develop not to Russia's favour, we reserve the
right to discontinue further disarmament and arms control measures.
Besides, given the intrinsic link between strategic offensive and defensive
arms, conditions for our withdrawal from the New START Treaty could also arise,
and this option is enshrined in the treaty.
But let me stress the point that we are not closing the door on continued
dialogue with the USA and NATO on missile defence and on practical cooperation
in this area. We are ready for that.
However, this can be achieved only through establishing a clear legal base for
cooperation that would guarantee that our legitimate interests and concerns are
taken into account. We are open to a dialogue and we hope for a reasonable and
constructive approach from our Western partners.
Can't you just hear the clamors....?? They started again last night at the Neo-Nut debate on the TeeVee machine with clowns like Wolforama and Addington and the rest of Chimpy and Cheeeeeeney's team back to crank up the banging on the drums for MORE WAR !!!!
This announcement from the Russians plays right into their hands. They can now crank on the monster LIE MACHINE and get the country ready for WW III - the Nuclear version started in the Middle-East by Israel and joined by the US and Russia to blow the planet up... Marvelous guys.. you're doing such a service to the globe...
$40-50 TRILLION this time and 3-4 BILLION lives.... what a deal....
I dont think that they can do any thing.
I dont think so that they can do any thing with this. They dont have enogh power to face these problems...!!
Would the Senate rule changes fix this? Not necessarily, but they would enable the majority to clear the calendar more easily, and give the minority less tools to endlessly obstruct progress for the American people.
UPDATE: Just to add, the proper response to this is “Make my day.” Unlike other measures, new START is one where the Republicans actually will get called out by the media for their obstruction. Too many Very Serious GOP Daddies support it. I don’t think blocking it because another bill passed would actually hold, if Democrats pressed the issue.
UPDATE II: John McCain, who DID vote to proceed to new START, is taking the Corker line on this, just now on the Senate floor. Imagine that, John McCain is dishonorable.
Senator John Kerry (D-MA), who has been shepherding the debate on the Senate floor, has become visibly frustrated by the delay tactics. Kerry has made clear that Senate Democrats are ready to vote for the treaty and to vote on amendments. He has repeatedly asked for Republican Senators to come forward and offer amendments. Here is a snapshot of Senator Kerry throughout the day yesterday asking Republicans to bring Travel agency forth their amendments and growing increasingly outraged at their stalling.
10:30 am: “We don’t have any amendments, we are prepared to vote.”
11:30 am: “The sooner we can get to some of these amendments… we can discover if something is a flaw or not a flaw.”
11:45 am: “We are now almost at lunch time and we don’t have an amendment.”
1:25 pm: “I would ask the senator if he has an amendment that he is prepared to offer?”
2:00 pm: “They say we don’t have time, who haven’t brought an amendment to the floor. I clearly smell the self-fulfilling prophecy strategy going on here.”
3:30 pm: “They just delay, delay, and delay… We’ve been here for a day and we still haven’t had an amendment.”
This is why Corker is turning to a separate measure to try and derail the bill. The segregationists did this with civil rights bills all the time
Why are we building a missile defense system for Europe?
I am a supporter of missile defense -- for the homeland. But I ask why are we building a system to defend someone else.
Yes, the Russians are playing for the home crowd here -- the URP is down in the polls and while they will won of course, a smaller mandate on a lower turnout will be a bit of an embarrassment for Putin. The number of proposed interceptors is to small to effectively upset the balance of power in Europe.
But still, why exactly are we doing this?
NATO has become the ultimate government program -- the reason for existance disappeared 20 years ago, but still it goes on.
US and Russia ? In a squabble?
So, let me ask a seemingly minor question. WHY is no one in the media or anyone that has a voice that garners public reaction, not screaming at the top of their lungs about this? This has implications that affects every person on the planet!!
. . . another reason for a missile defense system for Europe, which would be to thwart the insane nuke lobbing in all directions that some Israeli fanatics promise will come as israel goes down -- the "Samson" threat.
Why US builds defense shield for Europe? Spends a huge amount of money? US doesn't care about Europe.
Being a Russian citizen i can say that Russia has got all capabilities to defend itself. When US and their friends invade and destroy whole countries and nations why Russia should sit down and see how it is being surrounded by foreign military capabilities. It has got huge territory and wealth, why should US establish its hegemony even on Russia, it already invaded many countries, so Russia is one of the few countries who can challenge American hegemony. I think all borders of Russia should be equipped so that it can deter all threats coming outside and Russia has got all rights for it. We don't want to be one the US puppets. That's all. We have no choice but to prepare for all scenarios.
very good web: === http://www.plzzshop.com
The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike, jordan, prada, also including the jeans, shirts, bags, hat and the decorations.
All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment., After the payment, can ship within short time.
We will give you a discount
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
=== http://www.plzzshop.com
thank you!!!
Believe you will love it.
We have good reputation, fashion products,
come here quickly== http://www.plzzshop.com
Opportunity knocks but once
(8)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE