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:
First, I am instructing the Defence Ministry to immediately put the missile attack early warning radar station in Kaliningrad on combat alert.
Second, 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.
Third, the new strategic ballistic missiles commissioned by the Strategic Missile Forces and the Navy will be equipped with advanced missile defence penetration systems and new highly-effective warheads.
Fourth, 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.
Fifth, 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.
Hi Saker,
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MK24Ak01.html
Will Russia draw a red line with Syria? How does your military experience analyze this? Although Russia has sold out in the far-abroad, how close does the Syria situation impact on the near-abroad for Russia?
Pepe brings up serious geopolitical considerations and this atimes piece
This may even be worth headlining/posting on your blog for discussion; “military dictatorship of the mullahtariat” hyperbole notwithstanding ….
Peace
@Ishamid: Will Russia draw a red line with Syria?
No. Russia will only draw a red line if it really means it, if it is willing to accept the consequences of the US/NATO crossing that line. So far, the only situation in which Russia drew the line was with the war against Georgia. When its peacekeepers were attacked, the Russians not only told the Americans that if they get involved they will be militarily engaged, but they actually back up their threats with some very real military actions. Interestingly, the US Navy was very fast to feel that this time the Russians were really serious, and it backed down. I would make the case that in the case of the missile defense system in Europe, Russia is, for the second time, clearly drawing a red line. But in the case of Syria, Russia will do what it did with Kosovo, oppose the Imperial project on principle, but Russia will not pretend like it is willing to have a military confrontation with the USA and NATO over this. Frankly, just as the US and NATO did not have the means to fight Russia in the Caucasus (Georgia/Ossetia), Russia does not have the military means to fight the US or NATO in Syria, the Mediterranean or the Middle-East. One could deplore that – I don’t – but that is a fact which the Russian government cannot ignore.
I like Pepe Escobar a lot, some of his analysis is excellent, but he is a typical journalist, a “generalist” who does not really specialize in one field (just look how he totally misread the Gucci Revolution in Iran”). Pepe does not understand the military implications of a standoff over Syria. He thinks that deploying S-300 (or even S-400, where did he get that idea?!) would fundamentally alter the equation. He is wrong, it would not.
Check out this interview of Pepe at the Corrbett Report:
http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-412-pepe-escobar/
Now that is really interesting stuff which I am sure you will like.
Cheers,
The Saker
Dear Saker;
Syria has a mutual defense agreement with Russia…, do you maintain your views on Russia’s stand-down in the Syria situation despite that so-called mutual defense pact…?
Most pundits who favor Syria in our neck of the woods confirm otherwise…and pretend that Russia is defending the motherland…against MB Islamists, by defending Syria and the ASSADS in Syria, because it is in effect Russia’s southern border and a rampart against the Wahhabi MB thugs….???
Best,
Joe
@Joe: I believe that you are referring to a Soviet era defense agreement, and much has changed since then. Besides, the one thing which Russia cannot afford are empty threats. So even if Russia decided to protect Syria from a US/NATO aggression, the reality is that Russia does not have the military means to do so. That is something which we can regret, but not something we can ignore or deny. Most pundits simply do not take that into account, but the folks in the Kremlin are acutely aware of this.
Look at the rather brilliant operation of the Russian paratroopers to move a unit from Bosnia to Pristina, Kosovo, right under the nose of NATO. These paratroopers were, I assure you, quite ready to die to protect the Serbs from the KLA-NATO forces. And, really, for all the posturing of the East Europeans, if the Russian military had decided to send in reinforcements by air (say an Airborne Regiment) there is nothing they could have done. But this entire concept was torpedoed by the civilian leaders in the Kremlin who, at that time, were themselves NATO puppets (the Eltsin regime). But let me ask you this: if NATO had decided not to back down, if they had given an ultimatum to the Russian paratroopers, and it they had then acted on it, do you think that Russia did have the means of defending either Pristina, the Serbs or even their own paratroopers?
The sad reality is that they did not.
Bluffing in military matters is a very, VERY, dangerous thing. What if your enemy calls your bluff?
No, Joe, Russia should not and can not get militarily involved in Syria or, for that matter, anywhere else, unless it is fully ready to escalate as high as needed if its threats/warnings are ignored.
Lastly, I am personally not at all that sure that the Assad regime deserves being helped in the first place (unlike the Kosovo Serbs).
Russia will oppose any US/NATO military intervention which does not have a UNSC resolution authorizing it, and Russia will veto any such resolutions in the UNSC, but Russia will not militarily protect any third party, of that I am sure.
King regards,
The Saker
Dear Saker;
I fully agree with the gist of your response and I thank you for that.
I certainly did not imply that it is my view that Russia should Help keep the Assad Mafia in power in Syria…militarily or otherwise….
But, What is implied and expected by the ME pundits I referred to, is that at least they are fully expecting Russia to keep footing in their Veto at the UNSC in the very least.
I certainly did not and the pundits do not imply nor expect Russia to defend anybody militarily in Syria…, but they are absolutely adamant that Russia will keep pounding their VETO at the UNSC….?
Now, my view based on some latest pronouncements by some Russian officials yesterday, is that Russia, for the right price…., will let go of Syria, because NATO/US thugs are so adamant in their desperate gambit to break the Iranian/Syrian/Iraq/Hezbollah logjam….and that Russia will look favorably at the diminishing “posturing” of IRAN….
There is also some talk that the Tartous base/port for the Russian Navy could be moved to Libya…?
What’s your take on this whole scenario???
Warmest Regards and Happy Thanksgiving,
Joe
@Joe: I don’t think that Russia will ever let a UNSC resolution to pass which would allow for the use of force against Syria. Especially not in an election year. Now, I have to tell you that I am not 100% sure here. Some circles in Russia might be interested in letting the USA over-extend itself as much as possible and be stuck into as many hornet’s nests as possible. But I doubt it, as the public opinion in Russia is now vehemently, vociferously anti-US and anti-NATO.
As for the Tartus naval base, I don’t believe that the current Russian military strategy requires bases in Syria, Libya or, even much less so, Venezuela. All this talk about distant Russian military bases is really what is called “showing the flag”, which is nice, of course, but not something crucial, in particular not for a country like Russia which, unlike the Soviet Union, as no imperial or global ambitions whatsoever.
Russia’s current security strategy is to slowly, step by step, built up its position in Central Asia, to strengthen its cooperation with China, increase the EU’s dependence on its gas, increase its role in the energy sector in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Iran, and to keep its economy safe from the current crisis (in particular by rebuilding its internal market).
I think that this low-key but crucial policy is fundamentally sound and I would hope that Russia would leave “grand” imperial policies (like sending Marines to Australia, LOL!) to Obama and his collapsing empire :-)
Cheers,
The Saker
Saker;
I appreciate what you are saying here and most likely you are right on target….[ especially on the over-extension of the criminal Hubris…that’s a clever tactic ] But the Russians are clever enough to exact a price for turning a blind eye to such NATO/US shenanigans in MENA, one way or another…, Hence I think that their support of Syria will not be rock solid, even as far as the Veto at the UNSC is concerned…? That’s what Alain Juppe, Erdogan, Merkel, KSA, Obama and others are hoping at the end of the day.!
What is the Price that will be demanded by Russia in return for an abstention? and Where is China in all of this saga?
Do you totally disagree on this premise and do you think that there will be No military intervention in Syria at all?
Best,
Joe
@Joe:I think that their support of Syria will not be rock solid, even as far as the Veto at the UNSC is concerned…? That’s what Alain Juppe, Erdogan, Merkel, KSA, Obama and others are hoping at the end of the day.!
What is the Price that will be demanded by Russia in return for an abstention?
You know, I really don’t know. It’s possible. After all, it just happened with Libya. But considering the mood in Russia, I don’t see this as likely, although who really knows?
Also, consider this: a smart policy towards Russia would be a combination of carrot and stick, but all the USA has been giving Russia since 1991 was stick, stick, stick and more stick. Every single carrot that Russia owns today was earned by hard Russian efforts *against* the USA. So I am not at all sure that the USA has any carrots to offer any more, nor do I believe that Russia needs any such carrots. As for the sticks, they don’t really concern Russia too much either.
For all practical purposes the relations between the two countries are at a polite but nonetheless rock bottom low. Russia is holding a really BIG stick behind its back (cutting the NATO supply routes through Russia), but it will only wave that stick if seriously threatened.
Also, consider this: since the USA is basically blindly serving Israel in all its policies in the Middle-East, why should Russia prevent that? After all, leaders like Medvedev and Putin remember lectures on dialectical materialism and Hegel and they are fully aware of the anti-US reaction this is creating not only in the Middle-East, but even worldwide.
The US Empire is slowly destroying itself, why should anybody attempt to prevent that?
Lastly, what do you think? Are you confident that if the Assad regime is toppled in Syria the country will turn into a pro-US pro-Israel puppet a la Hariri & Co.?
I am not so sure at all…
@Joe: one more thing, and this is off-topic, but I want to mention it here. I have always considered the Syrian regime as a liability for the Hezbollah-Iran alliance. Yes, they were useful to Hezbollah, but at what price? Furthermore, I have always suspected that elements in the Syrian regime were Israeli agents and that they, for example, played a key role in the murder of Imad Mughniyeh (his widow, by the way, agrees with this version). What you think? In the short term the collapse of the Assad regime might be a real problem, but in the mid/long-term? What kind of regime do you see succeeding it?
Saker,
Fully agree with you on ALL points.
YES, Asef SHAWKAT did assassinate Imad F. MOUGHNIEH in Damascus on behalf of CIA-MOSSAD-DGSE, you can take that to the Bank.
Syria’s future is a big question mark, although Syrians are very nationalistic and pro-Arab causes in essence…What Wahhabi money can do is a different question all together. Remains to be seen?
YES, there is a chance that Syria could turn a la Hariri and Co. but i doubt it very much, given the dynamics within Syria’s multi-ethnic, multi-religious gambit.
Mind you, Iran has already started meetings with the “Opposition” to Assad’s rule…They invented Chess after-all…LOL
Best,
Joe