Sashan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2012
- Messages
- 4,289
- Reaction score
- 1
MOSCOW A senior Russian general threatened on Wednesday pre-emptive attacks on missile defense sites in Poland and elsewhere in Eastern Europe in the event of a crisis, underscoring the Kremlins opposition to the Obama administrations plans and further undermining relations between the countries.
While Russian officials have said previously that the antimissile sites could become targets in the event of war, the threat of a pre-emptive attack was new.
The remarks from the general, Nikolai Makarov, the chief of the general staff, coming just days before Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin is set to assume the presidency for the second time, might signal a shift to a more muscular foreign policy than that pursued by the outgoing president, Dmitri A. Medvedev.
They also seem likely to further inflame an already tense relationship. In recent months, the Kremlin has resisted Washingtons entreaties to pressure the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria and given a cold shoulder to the new American ambassador, Michael A. McFaul, with prominent commentators and politicians accusing him of trying to foment revolution in Russia.
General Makarov was speaking at a conference in Moscow on antiballistic missile policy, hosted by the Russian Ministry of Defense. In his speech, one of many spelling out opposition to the plan, he went on to specify the type of Russian short-range missiles that might target locations in Eastern Europe.
Taking into account a missile defense systems destabilizing nature, that is, the creation of an illusion that a disarming strike can be launched with impunity, a decision on pre-emptive employment of the attack weapons available could be made when the situation worsens, General Makarov said, according to the Interfax news agency.
Alexander Vershbow, NATOs deputy secretary general, played down the generals speech. He said NATO was trying to resolve what he called differences in perception regarding the capability of the NATO shield and hopes to find grounds for cooperation with Moscow.
I think a lot of the countermeasures described by General Makarov were familiar ones, but Id have to go back and do research, he said at a news conference in Moscow. Clearly it is not something we welcome, by any means. We think the system we are developing poses no threat to Russia, so the whole notion of retaliation or countermeasures has no foundation.
Mr. Vershbow said NATO interceptors would not be able to launch quickly enough to intercept a Russian intercontinental ballistic missile as it traveled toward the United States, calling it a question of science and geography. He noted that some Russian scientists and policy experts agree with this assessment.
President George W. Bush proposed the system for Eastern Europe after withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty over Russias objections. President Obama first stalled the Eastern European program as part of the reset and then revived it in a new format, called the Phased Adaptive approach.
Russian generals floated a number of objections to the revised plan. General Makarov, in his speech, said the United States was refusing to offer written guarantees that the interceptor missiles directed at Iran will not have the capacity to hit a Russian ICBM in flight as it streaks toward the United States with a nuclear bomb. American officials have said the proposed system will not have that capability.
Ellen Tauscher, the American special envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile Defense, who is attending the conference, told journalists in a briefing Wednesday that the American delegation would hear out the Russian objections but was unlikely to make concessions. Paradoxically, in an election year the Obama administration might welcome the generals remarks, to insulate it from Republican criticisms that it is going soft on Russia.
The Russian concerns are concerns that were willing to listen to.
But at the same time they cannot be concerns that we will mitigate by offering any kind of limitations, Ms. Tauscher said. Theres nothing I can imagine that will stop us making these deployments on time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/w...tacks-on-missile-defense-sites.html?ref=world
While Russian officials have said previously that the antimissile sites could become targets in the event of war, the threat of a pre-emptive attack was new.
The remarks from the general, Nikolai Makarov, the chief of the general staff, coming just days before Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin is set to assume the presidency for the second time, might signal a shift to a more muscular foreign policy than that pursued by the outgoing president, Dmitri A. Medvedev.
They also seem likely to further inflame an already tense relationship. In recent months, the Kremlin has resisted Washingtons entreaties to pressure the government of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria and given a cold shoulder to the new American ambassador, Michael A. McFaul, with prominent commentators and politicians accusing him of trying to foment revolution in Russia.
General Makarov was speaking at a conference in Moscow on antiballistic missile policy, hosted by the Russian Ministry of Defense. In his speech, one of many spelling out opposition to the plan, he went on to specify the type of Russian short-range missiles that might target locations in Eastern Europe.
Taking into account a missile defense systems destabilizing nature, that is, the creation of an illusion that a disarming strike can be launched with impunity, a decision on pre-emptive employment of the attack weapons available could be made when the situation worsens, General Makarov said, according to the Interfax news agency.
Alexander Vershbow, NATOs deputy secretary general, played down the generals speech. He said NATO was trying to resolve what he called differences in perception regarding the capability of the NATO shield and hopes to find grounds for cooperation with Moscow.
I think a lot of the countermeasures described by General Makarov were familiar ones, but Id have to go back and do research, he said at a news conference in Moscow. Clearly it is not something we welcome, by any means. We think the system we are developing poses no threat to Russia, so the whole notion of retaliation or countermeasures has no foundation.
Mr. Vershbow said NATO interceptors would not be able to launch quickly enough to intercept a Russian intercontinental ballistic missile as it traveled toward the United States, calling it a question of science and geography. He noted that some Russian scientists and policy experts agree with this assessment.
President George W. Bush proposed the system for Eastern Europe after withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty over Russias objections. President Obama first stalled the Eastern European program as part of the reset and then revived it in a new format, called the Phased Adaptive approach.
Russian generals floated a number of objections to the revised plan. General Makarov, in his speech, said the United States was refusing to offer written guarantees that the interceptor missiles directed at Iran will not have the capacity to hit a Russian ICBM in flight as it streaks toward the United States with a nuclear bomb. American officials have said the proposed system will not have that capability.
Ellen Tauscher, the American special envoy for Strategic Stability and Missile Defense, who is attending the conference, told journalists in a briefing Wednesday that the American delegation would hear out the Russian objections but was unlikely to make concessions. Paradoxically, in an election year the Obama administration might welcome the generals remarks, to insulate it from Republican criticisms that it is going soft on Russia.
The Russian concerns are concerns that were willing to listen to.
But at the same time they cannot be concerns that we will mitigate by offering any kind of limitations, Ms. Tauscher said. Theres nothing I can imagine that will stop us making these deployments on time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/04/w...tacks-on-missile-defense-sites.html?ref=world
have to agree they aren't the sharpest tool in the box
