Russia Wants 'Red Button' Rights

[Feanor]

Depends if the threats outside of Russia are far more convincing that those from Russia herself. I don't mean Russia nuking the west, I mean Russia playing games to gain upper hand or create headaches.

That depends on whose perspective we're using. If it's the US one, then you raise a very valid point. But the Europeans (who don't have quiet the geo-political reach or unity) don't particularly care about Russian games in Latin American, or Central Asia. Even the North Caucus is remote for them.

A lot of trust needs to be built up. Do they really trust Putin and do they trust once hes gone that things will be stable. Will they put money into the system or will the west pay to develop russian technology etc.

Putin is effectively gone already. Medvedev has displaced him in most capacities. I will be very surprised if Putin remains relevant past 2012.

But NK, Iran or China (?? by proxy? dissimular interests) turn err, threatening then it may allow a partnership to develop.

However I could imagine the US/Russia teaming up on a ground based european missile shield. The US could still retain ship based and western europe/US territory based intereception systems. It might be enough of a compromise.

By retain you mean retain full control?

Since 25 Dec 1991.

It's still 2nd world for practical purposes.

 

[StingrayOZ]

That depends on whose perspective we're using. If it's the US one, then you raise a very valid point. But the Europeans (who don't have quiet the geo-political reach or unity) don't particularly care about Russian games in Latin American, or Central Asia. Even the North Caucus is remote for them

Well in the end the US is the global superpower, and when it comes to global stategic issues, thats where they are supreme. Europe is a hole lot of complex bits, I couldn't imagine what the politics will result in. It again depends precisely on the circumstances. The US can be pretty convincing, or can do things and

Putin is effectively gone already. Medvedev has displaced him in most capacities. I will be very surprised if Putin remains relevant past 2012.

Well its not tied up to the man himself, but the ideas and policies. I would believe Medvedev will play Putins successor very well with the same tricks Putin uses. Russia can't be seen to be passive and subservant to the US.

By retain you mean retain full control?

Yes, full independant control.

 

[kazinau]

This story with the future joint ABM system seemed purely politics and populism from the very beginning. There is a number of reasons why creation of such a shield shall be impossible within 10-20 years even if there was strong will to build it up from both sides. First of all those are technical challenges - any joint system requires full or almost full unification of technologies, research and so on. And today there are still legal limitations on technologies exchange between Russia and the US.

No joint, integrated, associated or just cooperative or whatever ABM system is possible between Russia and the US/NATO.

 

[Feros Ferio]

This story with the future joint ABM system seemed purely politics and populism from the very beginning. There is a number of reasons why creation of such a shield shall be impossible within 10-20 years even if there was strong will to build it up from both sides. First of all those are technical challenges - any joint system requires full or almost full unification of technologies, research and so on. And today there are still legal limitations on technologies exchange between Russia and the US.

No joint, integrated, associated or just cooperative or whatever ABM system is possible between Russia and the US/NATO.

Wrong. It is absolutely possible in terms of the technological side of things. On the political side of things, thats where it gets a little tricky, but is still far from impossible. Russia and the rest of the West have some work to do in terms of building up the necessary trust required, but I believe it will be achieved sooner or later as there is much historical precedent which suggests so. Read some history. Russia and her Western neighbors have been allies, on and off, for a long time. :flame

 

[kazinau]

It is possible only in case if the following conditions are met:
1. Common threats identification, therefore ability to rebuild national ABMD systems to respond to those threats.
2. Integration and unification of comand and control procedures.
3. Common strategic ABMD architecture. Russia currently does operate tactical ABMs - mobile ground/naval SAMs. We don't have anti-ballistic missiles that are able to intercept post-boost phase ICBMs flying from Asia into Europe/US over Russian territory.
4. Free technologies exchange - the most delicate and sensitive ones.
5. Clear interrelation between offensive and defensive weapons in context of nuclear disarmament.

The only thing that they can start to work on today is online NORAD-SPRN (Russian strategic EW system) data exchange.

It's possible, yes, but how long shall it take?

 

[Twinblade]

The integration would only be necessary at the highest level, in the form of a joint command node with data from all Russian, and NATO/EU BMD radars integrated into a single picture, and from that command node access to interceptors both in Russia and across Europe. You wouldn't need to integrate Russian interceptors with US comms gear. Just make sure there is a central facility compatible with both.

That IMO, would only be the first phase. If Russia is included as an equal partner and US-Russia relations improve, you might see joint development of BMD (like Arrow 2 with Israel), systems that might have the ability to communicate either in both Russian and NATO protocols, or a third party intermediate protocol linking both systems at the command level. Given the size of Russia, it has the ability to track airspace over Iran, Northern China and North Korea. There is no doubt Russians have a lot to offer on BMD, both in terms of geographic locations and technical ability. If the question is, is it worth it? then i say it totally is, for two nations paranoid of each other will be finally shedding the last bit of paranoia that grips them.:nutkick

 

[Feanor]

What you describe requires a level of cooperation that does not exist today, and will not exist within a 5 year time frame. It isn't impossible, in the future, but I don't see it as a likely direction for things to move in. Though I suppose some sort of A-135 follow-on as a joint project with multiple EU NATO states is possible.

 

[Feanor]

NATO has just turned down the option of a joint BMD. Russia is meanwhile threatening to withdraw from the new START if the BMD is built in its currently anticipated format. It appears that the interceptor missiles will be able to intercept ICBM launches from most of the European territory of Russia, which is where a large part of the ICBMs are located.

http://newsru.com/world/07jun2011/rasmussen.html

Rasmussen tried to frame this statement as nicely as possible, talking about cooperation on two separate BMD systems, data exchange, etc. but overall this is not a good sign, and will not be interpreted well in Moscow.

It comes shortly after Russia awarded the contract for a new heavy ICBM to replace the SS-18 Satan, to the Makeyev Bureau with involvement from NPOmash. This is likely to put considerable political momentum behind the decision to go ahead with a new heavy ICBM deployment, and possibly the production of tactical nuclear munitions for the Iskander which so far do not seem to have been produced.

 

[T.C.P]

Russia isn't fooling around with the joint shield idea any more it seems-


Russia will counter any NATO missile defense - Russian envoy | Russia | RIA Novosti

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20110607/164499336.html

 

[Feanor]

This part here is key:

The diplomat reiterated that nuclear deterrent was the only guarantor of Russia's sovereignty, and Moscow would never allow it to be put under threat.

This is a real perspective in Moscow. They think that if they have a major case of internal instability in the North-Caucus and decide to deal with it in a violent and decisive manner, the west could conceivably interfere (be it for human rights, politics, or both) and the only way to prevent it is by maintaining a nuclear deterrent. They also believe that nuclear weapons gives them a certain freedom of action, in that the west will be very careful to avoid direct military confrontation.

EDIT: Serdyukov just stated that all Russian suggestions on joint-BMD have been turned down by NATO, and at this point the MoD believes that current Euro-BMD plans could damage if not effectively neutralize the Russian nuclear deterrent by 2020. He says that in this case Russia will work to create means of defeating this BMD.

NATO at the same time says that they can not have NATO member states relying on Russia for their BMD, which means that Russia can participate, but certainly can't provide any vital components to the system. Rasmussen suggests that Russia and NATO develop two separate BMD systems, that would then cooperate, exchange data, etc.

http://newsru.com/world/08jun2011/serdukov.html

 

[wormhole]

I think NATO should just go ahead and put in place whatever ABM shield it feels is necessary to protect the interests of its member states. Let Russia do what it wants.. if it thinks threats and a new arms race is in its interest, so be it. Putting up a shield that may or may not be used because of a possible Russian veto at a critical juncture is self-defeating.

 

[Beatmaster]

Ok let me get this straight here, US/NATO is planning to build a missile shield from the beginning regarded as a defense against dangers from the east.
Which includes Russia that after the collapse came more into the western idea but still its regarded as a rival right?
Now i understand that it would be beneficial for both US/NATO and Russia to work on this project as each side has its own unique knowledge in certain aspects of the system itself correct? And that each side can learn from each other as each of them has loads of field data to tap into.
But does that not kill the purpose of the shield itself? as it would be build to guard EU from "nukes" and such while if lets say for example Russia (As it is still a kinda rival) could Nuke EU twice even with the missile defense operational.
As from my understanding this shield would be able to "catch" the more mobile shorter range Nukes but would have a hard time to "catch" the real deal.
The defense minister of Russia (Forgot his name) said some time ago they could if they wanted to bypass the system or just destroy it and there is nothing much that the EU or US could do to stop it as Russia's main nukes (The really big ones) would have no difficulties hitting their target regardless if this shield is operational or not.

True judging from everything i have read so far the more mobile ones and smaller nukes would be alot less effective knowing that this shield might be able to "catch" a few right?

I personally believe that the danger to Russia would not be the fact that their nuclear deterrence would be "made" less effective as i personally believe that they have more then enough left to light up our skies any time at any day if they wanted to.
But i believe that the true danger comes from what the system can do more other then shooting nukes down.
Keep in mind that this shield must have a incredible accurate and long range radar system (with all its high tech parts and hardware) to be effective and some seriously good and accurate missile launch system. Which imo could be made effective against aircraft as well (obviously there need to be some tweaking and adjustments but hey its just a thought) and it could also be used as some form of early warning system against ground and air dangers as i said the radar and all its supporting sister systems must be "Top Notch" So theoretical speaking this shield would be alot more capable and alot more use full if the US and NATO wants its to be.
So maybe i am totally wrong and out of line here but does that not present Russia with a bigger problem than knowing that a few nukes never make it to their target? Knowing that the system would be theoretical able to "spy" on Russia's Ground and Air Movements and knowing that the system would probably be able to detect heat and such? Which is in war time very valuable data.
Take a look at a standard radar and you would be amazed what it can detect and what it can show you on a monitor so i can only imagine what this system might be capable off and i think that this is exactly what Russia fears.

I know that the days of big bad-ass Russia are somewhat over and i know that todays dangers come from different corners of the world but with all respect this missile defense system is aimed against anything NOT US/EU so having a "potential" Rival, Aggressor, Rogue State or whatever you wanna call a future enemy helping build the system that is initially designed to keep that former bad guy out.
(Ps not saying Russia is a bad nation or rogue state but its just a example as it use to be a arch rival)

And yes i understand that having Russia lend a hand in building this system might open doors to talk about cutting down their stockpiles but still i find it rather amusing to see US, EU and Russia walking hand in hand on such a sensitive project.

* Side note: This defense system what would it be capable off for real? i mean is there any (facts) data available?
Cheers guys

 

[My2Cents]

The purpose of the system is not to stop Russian missiles (they have way to many) but to stop Iran from using the threat of nuclear weapons targeted on European cities to deter action by the west powers in the Middle East. While the system is far from leak proof it injects a large element of uncertainty in Iran’s strategic calculations. The worst possible outcome for Iran would be that their bluff gets called, then all the missiles they launch are intercepted. At that point they will have pissed off all the major powers (China will go along to avoid losing trading partners) and can expect war with no terms acceptable other than unconditional surrender.

Russia's objections to the ‘missile shield’ are solely for the purpose of securing diplomatic payoffs. They know that they can easily overwhelm, over run, or go under, the proposed system. There is no way that anyone is going to allow them veto rights on its operation.

 

[Feanor]

Russia's objections to the ‘missile shield’ are solely for the purpose of securing diplomatic payoffs. They know that they can easily overwhelm, over run, or go under, the proposed system. There is no way that anyone is going to allow them veto rights on its operation.

There is a long term paradigm being formed right now in terms of the offense-defense balance. Russia's threat of a new arms race, and of leaving arms-control treaties is more or less real. To be more precise they will attempt to do one or both if BMD development persists, because in the long run with shrinking nuclear arsenals and proliferation of modern BMD nuclear deterrence can be undermined.

 

[Beatmaster]

There is a long term paradigm being formed right now in terms of the offense-defense balance. Russia's threat of a new arms race, and of leaving arms-control treaties is more or less real. To be more precise they will attempt to do one or both if BMD development persists, because in the long run with shrinking nuclear arsenals and proliferation of modern BMD nuclear deterrence can be undermined.

I see but question why is russia giving the US and EU such a hard time over this shield anyway? i mean what are the risks for Russia to allow this shield?
And what benefits would they gain if they where allowed red button rights? pratical speaking.
Also what does the US and EU gain if you turn the questions around?
Because from what i have seen on the news and what i did read here and there is that Russia aint joking around when it comes to this shield and they seem to have serious problems with it so i was kinda wondering what is going on.

Cheers

 

[My2Cents]

I see but question why is russia giving the US and EU such a hard time over this shield anyway? i mean what are the risks for Russia to allow this shield?
And what benefits would they gain if they where allowed red button rights? pratical speaking.
Also what does the US and EU gain if you turn the questions around?
Because from what i have seen on the news and what i did read here and there is that Russia aint joking around when it comes to this shield and they seem to have serious problems with it so i was kinda wondering what is going on.

What ‘red button rights’ for Russia means is that you cannot use the system to intercept a missile without their explicit authorization. I think you can see the problem this would pose if the missile in question was from Iran targeting Europe, which is what the system if for, and you only had a few minutes to make the launch in.

Frankly the blackmail possibilities would be significant any time that Russia is having a tiff with NATO.

 

[geff]

I ask myself the following questions: why does Russia feature every single NATO military strategy/doctrine since its establishment? Is Russia the only country that can potentially be hit by the European missile defence system? if not why is Russia the major player to be considered prior, during and after the erection of the system? where are the locations of the rest of such shields around the world and if I pulled out my map what can I gleanse from such locations visavis russia? (Japan, Canada, Poland/Eastern Europe)..........Am no military strategist but now i understand why states behave the way they do in the field of defence!

 

[Feanor]

I see but question why is russia giving the US and EU such a hard time over this shield anyway? i mean what are the risks for Russia to allow this shield?

They want written guarantees that the shield won't be used against them. If this is put down on paper, they can then attempt to negotiate the deployment of interceptors and radars that don't directly defend against third party capabilities but could conceivably be used against Russian ICBMs.

And what benefits would they gain if they where allowed red button rights? pratical speaking.

Their practical offer was a sector-based BMD where NATO would be responsible for certain directions of attack, and Russia for others. Each would intercept missiles launched at the other, through their sector.

Also what does the US and EU gain if you turn the questions around?
Because from what i have seen on the news and what i did read here and there is that Russia aint joking around when it comes to this shield and they seem to have serious problems with it so i was kinda wondering what is going on.

Cheers

US and EU gains cost savings, and closer ties with Russia.

 

[Feanor]

I ask myself the following questions: why does Russia feature every single NATO military strategy/doctrine since its establishment? Is Russia the only country that can potentially be hit by the European missile defence system? if not why is Russia the major player to be considered prior, during and after the erection of the system? where are the locations of the rest of such shields around the world and if I pulled out my map what can I gleanse from such locations visavis russia? (Japan, Canada, Poland/Eastern Europe)..........Am no military strategist but now i understand why states behave the way they do in the field of defence!

There are no other such shields, with the exception of the A-135 around Moscow. The reason Russia is the one objecting is because it's the only one affect by the system and with the diplomatic leverage to attempt an objection. Obviously Iran can't object to the system. India and China wouldn't care. India has no desire to target the west with ICBMs, and Chinese missiles would fly well clear of the Euro-BMD.

 

[Deterrence Wonk]

Russian-Iranian Diplomatic Links

...Is Russia the only country that can potentially be hit by the European missile defense system? if not why is Russia the major player to be considered prior, during and after the erection of the system?...

Russia also has much stronger diplomatic ties to Iran than most other non-Muslim countries. In roughly the same way that the US defends Saudiia Arabia, Russia defends Iran. And for the same reasons...

The missile shield is targeted against Iran, and Russia wants to continue doing business in Iran. In exchange for Russia's political coverage against the missile shield, Iran will continue to allow Russia access to its oil and nuclear power industries.