The leaders of NATO members made another statement about missile defense during the Summit in Chicago: "The European missile defense of NATO is not directed against Russia and would not undermine Russia's strategic deterrent force."
They said that the main purpose of NATO is still clear - it is Persian rockets yet to be created (incidentally, in the foreseeable future, Iran's strategic delivery is not expected as the technology is not available) and the notorious Korean "nuclear slingshot." Allegedly, they are the principal adversaries of NATO and Russia was just at the wrong time and wrong place.
The story is hard to believe. If everything is so rosy, then why only "political guarantees" are provided? After all, Russia has insisted, and continues to insist on legal safeguards. In principle, they do not provide much of the immunity either. For example, the USSR and Germany had a similar document, but when Hitler made a decision, the paper did not help to protect Russia.
Now the European missile defense does not threaten Russia technically. Only the first and second echelons of the defense will be implemented by 2015 that will not be able to "get" Russian ballistic missiles and especially submarines. The third and fourth ones, however, present a threat.
Incidentally, Germany that signed a nonaggression pact, for many reasons did not have enough forces for a "quick win" in the east, but two years later, the strengthened Reich did dare. Nevertheless, in 1939 the two countries legally agreed not to touch each other.
It is unclear what would prevent NATO from doing the same today. If they want to put pressure on Russia (and they will), no piece of paper will stop them. But now, there is a great opportunity to lull the vigilance of Moscow, pushing the problem to the back burner.
"Regretting the repeated statements by Russia on possible measures against the missile defense system, we welcome Russia's willingness to continue the dialogue to reach an agreement on future cooperation on missile defense," another "fresh" idea from the same summit in Chicago.
Probably the biggest "regret" over there is caused by the May revelation of Chief of General Staff Nikolai Makarov who said that in case of an exacerbation of the situation Russia will be ready to make a preemptive strike on the missile defense system in Europe. The US is far across the ocean, so Bulgaria and Romania will have to deal with it first. However, for now "the dialogue to reach an agreement" is continued.
It is believed that it would be great to unite different countries, including Russia, under one large "umbrella" to work together to fend off the "unruly neighbors" when they start misbehaving. Yet, this is not going to work. The global missile defense system is only possible when creating a unified command post (guess where?). Otherwise, it is not a common strategic system but rather a patchwork of tactical "conversations."
The shield will have so many holes (with several staffs, the coordination and synchronization would take too many precious seconds) that it would be easier for each state to defend itself than to maintain the current status quo. It is clear that the countries that do not have their own effective means of defense agree to the U.S. terms.
For Russia, the adherence to the general (read - U.S.) "umbrella" means a loss of at least part of the defense sovereignty. And for what? According to public data from 30 states with missile capabilities, 17 have obsolete models with a range of 300 kilometers. In addition, a number of countries are considering opting out of the development of missiles as it is troublesome and expensive.
In a weary world of endless US military interventions, sanctions, trade tariffs and chaos, let’s pause and take stock of the shining house on the hill