Security. I reiterate: most nation don't have nuclear weapons and it works quite fine for them. The French, Chinese, Indians, Israel, Pakistan do quite nicely without doing a nuclear arms race with the US. Why should they.
Because they generally do not have regional interests that directly conflict with the USA. Most do not have aspirations to be a world power. China by the way is trying to close the gap in nuclear weapons, they're just doing it gradually. However their SSBM program is pretty clearly aimed against the USA. Pakistan is a pro-American sattelite state, with an unstable government and tribal leaders that are trying to destabilize the country further. Israel is for the most part far too dependent on US military aid to be an truly independent power. The French are part of NATO and are practically shutting down their nuclear capabilities. India is a strange case, but the truth is that they have very few geopolitical aspirations. Perhaps in the future they will come into conflict, at least diplomatically with the USA, especially if they continue to have relations with Iran, Russia.... etc.
And in the future everybody will have a BMD - Europe, US, China, India... The Russian have had extensive BMD around Moscow and introducing S-400...
And why should the US restrain itself out of hurt Russian feelings? Do they care about Danish hurt feelings? French? German?
It's got nothing to do with hurt feelings and everything with national security. Let me remind you that the USA has launched more interventions in the past century, then Russia, by a factor of 10 if not more. Given such an aggressive foreign policy, as well as funding of opposition parties within Russia, and within other countries (just imagine if Russia was funding the democratic party...... the scandal and accusations of meddling in American business would be huge), it's only natural that Russia is distrustful of the USA and as such needs a guarantee that the USA won't invade. Naturally your word isn't good enough. But a few hunderd ICBMs pointed at your cities probably is.
The BMD is directed at "non-integrated gap" states. Unstable and often dirt poor countries tempted to build WMD for prestige and other influence reasons.
This BMD is directed at just that. But the capabilities that are being developed, as well as the development of other BMD components, makes future prospects highly problematic. Finally it sets a pretty simple precedent. In the future, if the Russian nuclear arsenal continues to shrink, and America deploys BMD sites in Greenland, and Norway, as well as enhancing the BMD in Alaska and California, the situation could arise where the Russian nuclear arsenal is useless.
And then one day, when George Bush the 3rd, or the 14532462346th, doesn't really matter, decides that Russian weapon sales to Hezbollah, or Iran, or North Korea, are supporting terrorism (or communism, or whatever) and decides to invade and make Russia a "democratic" country, what will Russia be left with in terms of options?
Translation. I gathered it to be a "large farm" - perhaps "hamlet". I don't read Russian.
I guess we'll have to wait in the news to see if anything comes of it.
