U.S.-RUSSIA FRICTION NOTED; MOSCOW AS NEXUS OF MISSILE DEFENSE DEBATE

Office of Research
Issue Focus
Foreign Media Reaction

Commentary from ...
Europe
Middle East
East Asia
South Asia
Africa
Western Hemisphere

22 February 2001

U.S.-Russia Friction Noted; Moscow As Nexus Of Missile Defense Debate

Russia was the nexus of foreign press coverage on missile defense this past week, prompted in part by Moscow's presenting its version of an "anti-missile shield" to NATO Secretary General Robertson during his recent visit to Moscow. Viewed as a "counterproposal" to U.S. Missile Defense (MD) plans, the Kremlin scheme was viewed by many--including some Russian papers--as an ill-fated effort to "create a rift" in the Atlantic Alliance by capitalizing on anti-U.S. missile defense sentiment in Europe. A number of Western European commentators judged the so-far sketchy plan to be a non-starter from a military perspective. Some writers, however, argued that the plan--insofar as it reflects legitimate Russian concerns about the future of nuclear deterrence and the ABM Treaty--should be accorded a reasonable hearing. A few German and Belgian observers went a step further, holding that "Russia's offer" may signal "a willingness to make concessions" and negotiate with the U.S. on ABM. Media attention to U.S-Russian friction over missile defense also cropped up in another setting: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's televised remarks last week alleging that Russia is an "active proliferator" of missile technologies and, as such, "part of the problem" that MD is meant to address. Rumsfeld's "broadside" drew fire from media in both Russia and Western Europe. Highlights follow:

A 'EUROPEAN ANTI-MISSILE SHIELD': Milan's centrist Corriere della Sera opined that the Russian proposal was meant to play on "suspicion in Europe that it has been left outside the door." According to the paper, "The American version was aimed at defending only the U.S.... It is not by chance that it is called national missile defense." Nevertheless, most European media agreed with Paris's right-of-center Le Figaro that "the Russian initiative has very little chance of becoming reality, considering Washington's determination to go ahead with NMD and its recent open dialogue attitude" vis-a-vis Europe's concerns about the plan. The Russian reformist press, meanwhile, was downbeat about the proposal's prospects. Izvestiya surmised that "the last hopes that Russia can lure NATO's Europeans are all but dead," while Vremya MN contended that this last-ditch attempt "to save the ABM Treaty" was "doomed."

RUMSFELD'S 'BROADSIDE': Moscow papers seized on Rumsfeld's comments as an indication that the U.S. administration's views on Russia ("ex-evil empire under fire again") are a throwback to the Cold War and, as such, don't further "constructive dialogue" on arms control or other issues. "You get the weird feeling," claimed centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta, that "Washington wants to go back to the era of confrontation." This sentiment was matched by German, Italian and Belgian dailies, which scored Rumsfeld's "blame Moscow" statements as an unhelpful "provocation." According to Munich's centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung, "If the U.S. really is in possession of information on Russian missile sales to rogue states, it should present it and focus on persuasive work in Moscow instead of research work in NMD laboratories."

EDITOR: Katherine Starr

EDITOR'S NOTE: This survey is based on 61 reports from 13 countries, February 9-22, 2001. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.

EUROPE

RUSSIA: "Bad Timing"

Reformist weekly Obshchaya Gazeta observed on page-one (2/22): "Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev handed over to NATO's Secretary General George Robertson in Moscow proposals on a non-strategic missile defense. Clearly, the idea is to have the Europeans reject the U.S. missile defense model in favor of the Russian. It is not so clear about the timing. Moscow has virtually lost its battle for the U.S.' major military allies, Britain and Germany. London has already supported the American ABM, and Berlin is likely to follow. Our government's belated foreign policy moves stem from its being chronically deaf to the voice of common sense inside the country."

"Technical Details Are Of No Interest"

Oleg Odnokolenko said in reformist Segodnya (2/22): "Western analysts have hinted all along that Russia's missile defense initiative will hardly come to pass, since it aims at splitting the Alliance. Obviously, seeing things this way makes technical details of no interest. Even in Moscow, in the army's General Staff, some question the practicality of the proposed European ABM, 'Why in God's name should we defend their sky? And from whom?' The nice words George Robertson and his Russian hosts exchanged in Moscow did not at all remove the existing contradictions."

"Engaging Russia To Build Defense Against Russia"

Dmitry Gornostayev remarked in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2/21): "The Americans must have a far better idea of how to build NMD than about how to cooperate with the Russians in this area. It would be like working with Russia to build a joint defense against its own offensive potential."

"Last Hopes Dashed"

Dmitry Koptev stated in reformist Izvestiya (2/21): "The last hopes that Russia can lure NATO's Europeans with a European missile defense are all but dead. Russia will have to look for an 'appropriate response.' A source in the Kremlin said, 'We must react at once. This means that we have to find the money for a new arms race.'"

"Bush Bluffs"

Valeriya Sycheva of reformist Segodnya (2/21) cited Dmitry Rogozin, chairman of the Duma's foreign relations committee: "Washington is not ready yet for substantive talks with Russia on ABM. There is an 'element of bluff' in the statement by Congressman Kurt Weldon that he has brought Putin a proposal from Bush on joint development of NMD--had Bush had serious proposals, he would have sent Secretary of State Colin Powell or National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice here."

"Robertson Wouldn't Listen"

Reformist youth-oriented Komsomolskaya Pravda (2/21) ran this by Yelena Ovcharenko, Yevgeny Umerenkov and Igor Yavlyansky: "At the talks, Robertson was not particularly inclined to listen, and pushed Washington's arguments in favor of NMD instead. The secretary general was acting more as an advocate of U.S.-British interests than as a spokesman for all members of the Alliance, including those who are increasingly concerned over the (U.S.) plans."

"Attempts To Save ABM Treaty Doomed"

Vladimir Petrovsky said in reformist Vremya MN (2/21): "Debates on the (ABM) Treaty have shown convincingly that the things the Europeans and Americans share are far more numerous than the things that divide them. Therefore, using perceived contradictions within NATO to save the ABM Treaty is pointless."

"Ex-Evil Empire Under Fire Again"

Maksim Yusin wrote in reformist Izvestiya (2/16): "U.S Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has come up with 'unprecedentedly strong criticism' against Russia. So far, no one in the Bush administration has been so harsh with reference to the former 'evil empire.' General Leonid Ivashov, chief of the international military cooperation department of Russia's Defense Ministry, commented, 'Russia has an impeccable record of honoring its international commitments, including in the area of the non-proliferation of nuclear technology. Not even America's allies believe the tales about a missile threat from the countries mentioned by Rumsfeld. That is evidenced by the UN vote on the ABM treaty."

"U.S. Scares World With Russian Missiles"

Leonid Gankin asserted in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant (2/16): "Nobody doubted that the new administration in Washington will push its NMD plans.... Rumsfeld ended his statement, the toughest since the new administration took over, on an optimistic note. He said that he was confident that the Russians will have to put up with the United States' plans, and its Western European allies will even support them fully. Moscow, particularly the military, is outraged, of course. Russian officials admit that 'uncontrolled leaks' of sensitive technologies do happen, but Russia is working to stop them, and expects the United States to cooperate. Accusations like yesterday's, it is said in Moscow, do not help a constructive dialogue."

"U.S.' Broadside Unexpected"

Dmitry Gornostayev said on page one of centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2/16): "Although it was well in the cards long before the Bush inauguration that, with the new Administration, the United States will toughen its foreign policy, one could hardly expect Washington to mount such an attack on Moscow. Strong accusations, unheard-of probably since Reagan's times in the pre-Gorbachev era, keep coming every day from top-ranking U.S. officials. It is as if the United States is really out to discredit Russia.... You get the weird feeling that Washington wants to go back to the era of confrontation and recriminations. Russia certainly has lots of contradictions with the United States--we had them in the years of the Democratic administration, too. The language and tone used by high-ranking members of the current U.S. leadership, however, indicate that they are unwilling to develop relations with Russia or conduct a constructive dialogue."

"Thank You, Donald! U.S. Administration Gives Us An Enemy"

Yevgeny Antonov held on page one of reformist Vremya Novostei (2/16): "Today it is easy to accuse Russia of proliferation. Russia's ties with Iran, still unproven, cause lots of complaints in the United States. North Korea's Kim Jong Il is going to visit Moscow in April--the Western press is sure to speculate a lot on his meeting with Putin. India, which comes third on Rumsfeld's list, has signed several big contracts, including in the nuclear area, with Russia, as a result of Putin's visit to that country late last year. No doubt, the Americans will keep trying to enlist support from their allies in Western Europe. Under the circumstances, Russia, experts say, should stand its ground. 'If the Americans want so much to build ABM, let them withdraw from the ABM treaty unilaterally,' Ivan Safronhcuk of the PIR-Center says.... The worse the attacks by U.S. officials, the more reason for our arms manufacturers to demand funds for nuclear weapons. The Republicans in Washington and our 'great-power' advocates, in effect, are playing into the same hand--the more dangerous Russia looks to Rumsfeld, the richer the Russian military-industrial complex gets. So he may prove right in the end."

"A Dialogue Of The Deaf"

Aleksandr Golts, referring to the Wehrkunde Conference, said in reformist weekly Itogi (2/15): "Frankly, the battle of Munich between Cold War veterans from the Bush team and their [Russian] opponents...was easily won by the former.... While in theory, the Kremlin advocates a multipolar world, in practice, it regards ties with the United States as its topmost priority. The new (U.S.) administration, however, pays no attention to Russia's complexes. Aware that the Kremlin does not like the role they have assigned it, the Americans have decided not to enter into polemics, pretending that Russia does not exist at all. Hopefully, it is not a strategy but a negotiating tactic to make the partners in Moscow cool off and take a sober look at contemporary reality. It does not look like a reasonable tactic, though.... There will be no return to the Cold War, of course--Russia can't afford it. But it can well mire in self-isolation, becoming the largest of rogue states, something neither Russians nor Americans want.... After all, with a country occupying half Eurasia, you can't really pretend it does not exist."

"Does America Need Russia?"

Dmitry Gornostayev noted in a supplement of centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2/15): "It has been announced that Secretary Powell will meet with Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov in Cairo on February 24. And about time, too, given the host of problems in Russo-American relations. Evidently, Washington was in no hurry.... With the Texan in the White House, America may be tempted to do risky things, not thinking of the dangers involved. Unlike the ambivalent Democrats, the new administration feels quite confident about NMD. Even Colin Powell, who ought not to be too categorical ex-officio, speaks of it as a postulate rather than a hypothesis.... So far, we have only been hearing anti-Russian pronouncements from Washington. Official Moscow must have noticed that, but it prefers to avoid polemics, pointing only to positive tendencies it may no longer trust very much itself."

"Russo-U.S. Ties: Wipe Slate Clean"

Andrei Piontkovsky, director of an independent center for strategic studies, and Vitaly Tsygichko, a member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, referring to the recent Wehrkunde Conference in Munich, stated in reformist Segodnya (2/14): "It was made clear that from now on the White House is not going to reckon with Russia (on NMD). That is a direct result of Moscow's being hardheaded on modifying the ABM Treaty and inexplicably persistent in pursuing an anti-American policy in general. Practically all serious experts agree that NMD will not violate strategic stability, since Russia will retain its capability to overcome any of the proposed missile defense systems.... So confrontation with America over a modified ABM Treaty is pointless and at variance with this country's interests. Conversely, an active dialogue with the United States on ABM would bring Russia considerable political and economic dividends.... In the first year of Putin's presidency, our foreign policy has developed a pronounced anti-American accent. Our statement on arms sales to Iran, the (president's) show-off visit to Cuba, attempts to set up an anti-American coalition with China and India, not to speak of our rabid foreign-policy propaganda, all point to that tendency. That could not but cause the United States to change its policy toward Russia.... China, India and the Islamic world are not ready, nor do they intend to try to offset U.S. influence. Quite the contrary, they will seek cooperation with the Americans.... Even at the risk of losing face, we should overhaul our policy toward America and agree to talks on updating the ABM Treaty.... But to do that, our

diplomacy should think more of Russia's long-term interests, instead of wasting its limited resources on the 'multipolar world' chimera."

"Talks Inevitable"

Sergei Rogov, Director of the U.S. and Canada Institute, wrote in centrist army Krasnaya Zvezda (2/14): "I believe the new (U.S.) administration will have its position on START and strategic defense formulated by mid-summer. In the meantime, we should carefully examine ours. Indeed, it would be in our best interest to retain the ABM Treaty, as is. But it is very hard to make the United States keep within its parameters.... If we refuse to hold talks, as we did in the early 1980s...the Americans may decide to go it alone. They may also persuade their allies to support them.... Talks with the Bush administration are inevitable. Our goal is to keep up restrictions on strategic offensive and defensive weapons for the next 10 to 20 years. We can do this if we are firm and don't give up on what matters most, limitations on strategic ABM. At the same time, we should be flexible on specific methods of limiting strategic ABM."

"ABM Treaty Not Subject To Modernization"

Official government Rossiyskaya Gazeta (2/14) quoted First Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Army Valery Manilov: "As we deal with our American partners, we will use every opportunity to explain Russia's principled stand, which is that the ABM Treaty is not subject to modernization. Any modernization, however slight, will castrate and destroy it as a system which ensures a balance between offensive and defensive weapons.... If the United States withdraws from the ABM Treaty and starts to deploy a missile defense system, it will not be our choice. We have intellectual and technological resources to parry such a danger. Hopefully, it will not come to that."

"Moscow Counts On Western Europe"

Gennady Sysoyev commented in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant (2/13): "Moscow, no doubt, counts on support from Germany and other Western European countries in the upcoming dialogue with the United States on ABM. The French, German and Swedish defense ministers, visiting Moscow recently, said they were not sure that the new U.S. (defense) system will be effective or useful for Europe. Still, as shown by talks between Joschka Fischer and Igor Ivanov (in Moscow) yesterday, Russia can hardly expect Western Europe to side with it fully."

"U.S. Bluffs"

Sergei Rogov, Director of the U.S. and Canada Institute, held in reformist, youth-oriented Moskovskii Komsomolets (2/13): "The [Bush] administration, still unsure what kind of ABM system to build, has been bluffing, ostensibly aggressive. The Americans may try to put the screws on Russia, say, by refusing to allow the restructuring of Russia's foreign debts.... Let's not delude ourselves.... We will lose a lot unless we talk to the Americans. With the arms control system destroyed, Washington will blame Moscow and enlist Europe's support in a new arms race."

"NMD Is New Threat To U.S."

Reformist, youth-oriented Komsomolskaya Pravda (2/10) pointed out editorially: "The CIA's Director, apparently, does not tell the whole truth, as his list of 'threats' does not include the United States' missile defense project, which is sure to split the world into zones of suspicion and mistrust. Moscow does not at all bluff when it says that it has arguments, including technical ones, that will shake Washington's confidence regarding a nuclear umbrella in space."

"Why Be Hostile To U.S.?"

Georgy Shakhnazarov asserted in reformist weekly Vek (2/9): "There is no serious reason, ideological or geopolitical, for Russia to be hostile to the United States. Their rivalry as superpowers was due to both claiming global hegemony. Now with the United States as the only surviving superpower...one thing is clear: Russia cannot, nor does it need to, maintain the military parity the Soviet Union had with the United States. That calls for a new approach to the ABM Treaty.... Besides Russia, there are other countries that want, possibly even more than Russia does, to uphold the ABM Treaty. Western European governments are attempting to persuade their chief partner in NATO not to muck things up. That, however, does not stop their efforts to safeguard the ABM Treaty from being seen, even represented, as support for Russia, not as a global concern. Why must Russia and America train its missiles on each other? It is in Russia's interest not to try to shield the world from the United States' nuclear might and not to threaten America."

FRANCE: "Putin Challenges NATO"

Piotr Smolar held in right-of-center Le Figaro (2/21): "The smiles were as wide as the differences of opinion as Robertson and Putin met.... The U.S. arguments regarding potential attacks from North Korea or Iran have not been convincing. Even Great Britain, America's traditional ally, is asking itself questions on the pertinence of such a program. While in Moscow, Robertson was offered a counterproposal: a European anti-missile shield.... But the Russian initiative has very little chance of becoming reality, considering Washington's determination to go ahead with NMD and its recent open dialogue attitude toward Europe."

GERMANY: "Russian Willingness To Make Concessions"

Washington correspondent Siegfried Buschschlueter argued in a commentary for national radio station DeutschlandRadio of Berlin (2/22): "With respect to the NMD system, the Europeans must now try to prevent a new arms race. This arms race is threatening mainly in the Pacific area. If the Chinese fear that their deterrent potential will be invalidated with a U.S. defensive shield, they will build more and bigger missiles. Such a move could threaten India, which could then feel forced to modernize its arms, a move which could prompt Pakistan to enter this race, too. This is a precarious scenario. And the United States should talk with China exactly about that. The first official Sino-American talks already took place, but thus far to no avail. With the Russians, however, we can see a kind of willingness to make concessions. They no longer rule out the threat against which a missile shield is intended to work. The U.S. secretary of state again gave assurances that not only the allies, but also China and Russia will be consulted. Hopefully, this will take place soon in order to replace the propagandistic bickering with a realistic and sober discussion."

"Is NMD More Stupid Than The Strategy Of MAD?"

Dieter Schroeder opined in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (2/22): "If Russia and the United States were alone, they would quickly reach agreement. The NMD project doesn't threaten the balance between them as long as it isn't directed against intercontinental missiles in space. Moscow must also have an interest in a protective shield directed against 'rogue' states which are situated closer to Russia than to any other nation. But Russia does not want to be under an umbrella with the United States, something the Chinese would not like. The Chinese are currently the biggest problem, because they feel their missiles to be threatened by NMD.... Washington cannot ignore this danger. If growing arms modernization among the new nuclear powers, caused by NMD, is to be avoided, Secretary of State Colin Powell must realize his promise to talk with all sides involved--Russians, Chinese and Europeans. Only if it is really clear what NMD really means and how negative implications can be avoided, will it be possible to assess whether a new 'stupid' strategy will follow this MAD strategy."

"A Certain Logic"

Left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau opined (2/21): "In contrast to the plans of the Bush government, the Russian proposal of a mobile, non-strategic missile defense system can at least reclaim a certain logic to itself. First, there will be a debate about the analysis of threats and only at the end, would there be the development of a missile system that can be applied to all other threatening scenarios. But the problem is that Washington does not want to hear this, since it is now a program in the United States to ignore the no-longer-global Russian power. In between are the Europeans, torn between transatlantic obedience and cautious resistance to the U.S. policy of faites accomplits. Now it is coming back to haunt them that they failed to present their own independent threatening scenarios and to discuss their implications together [with the Europeans]."

"Between Moscow And Washington"

Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger argued on the front page of right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (2/21): "The reluctance of the German government to take a clear stance on the question of missile defense is slowly becoming an embarrassment. As previously in Moscow, Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer seems to avoid committing the government in Berlin to a course of action concerning the new U.S. plans and commit [to setting up NMD]. But the administration in Washington will certainly form its own opinion of a Germany so unsure of its own interests, perspectives and duties in security policy that it prefers to remain completely uncommitted.... The debate over the sense and the purpose of the missile defense system is about to shake off the thinking of the Cold War. Finally neither side pretends that the doctrine of 'mutually assured destruction' and its logical extension, the ABM Treaty, should remain a sacred cow of security policy.... It is now high time for the German government to make up its mind of whether or not the United States has presented sound arguments for the establishment of the NMD system. If it does not, others will do--without German involvement."

"Beyond Upper Volta"

Moscow correspondent Tomas Avenarius judged in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (2/21): "President Vladimir Putin can considerably disrupt U.S. dominance. But all threatened countermeasures against this dominance are counterproductive. Re-equipping Russian missiles with multiple warheads would only cost money without yielding anything. A nuclear conflict between Russia and the United States can currently be ruled out. Moscow could also try to take advantage of the disagreement in the West on NMD, and try to drive a wedge between the Americans and their allies. One attempt became visible on Tuesday, when the Russians handed over plans for a 'European missile protection shield' to NATO's Secretary-General Robertson. But, in the end, this will not yield anything either. Neither the French nor the Germans would give up their close relations with the United States. And if Moscow even shipped weapons to 'terror regimes,' it would threaten itself, because the radical Islamic states are located much closer to Russia than to the United States. The same problem exists with respect to NATO's enlargement to the East. If NATO accepted the Baltic states, Russia will rattle its saber. But what kind of profit could Russia draw from transferring nuclear weapons to Belarus?"

"A Path To Greater Security"

Right-of-center Rheinische Post of Duesseldorf (2/21) judged: "We must certainly discuss the right path to greater security. This takes place in the Alliance, and it will happen together with Russia. The United States offered at an earlier stage the participation of other nations in the development of its NMD project. If the United States and Russia cooperate in the development of the International Space Station, why should the situation be different concerning threats that are a danger to all of us? The only thing is that Moscow should finally give up its export of missile technology to trouble spots."

"Not To Be Taken Seriously"

Regional radio station Suedwestrundfunk of Stuttgart aired this commentary by S. Bohne (2/20): "The Russians are now mobilizing their forces in the propaganda sector. The Russian proposal to the Europeans to develop together a joint missile defense system cannot be taken seriously militarily. It aims at stirring up the European unease about NMD, since the European NATO partners are afraid of two things: the revival of an arms race and the development of zones of different security in the North Atlantic Alliance.... In the end, such zones will result in the disintegration of transatlantic cooperation. This means that NMD has not much to do with military necessity and political reason, but with the United States striving to safeguard its status as the only superpower, even if it results in a new era of confrontation."

"Russia's Offer"

B. Adler argued on national radio station DeutschlandRadio of Berlin (2/20): "Russia is worried about NATO's enlargement...and about U.S. NMD plans.... The West must answer the question who is among the 'rogue' states. Does it include Russia, because it sells weapons to Iraq, Iran, and many other countries, because it condemns air strikes against Baghdad and acquits Iraq from any guilt? It must also be clarified what Russia means for NATO, enemy or friend? Only then can we judge whether [Russian] fears of a NATO enlargement are well-based and only then can a discussion about the possible NATO membership of Russia begin. Until then, Russia's offer is nothing but a friendly, but not seriously, meant offer."

"Putin Offer For European Missile Defense System"

Hans-Juergen Milhan said in a commentary on regional radio stations Norddeutscher Rundfunk of Hamburg (2/20) and Westdeutscher Rundfunk of Cologne (2/20): "If NATO were an organization in which the majority decided, a majority would probably vote against the U.S. NMD plans.... Like Moscow, they raise the question of whether there is really a threat emanating from states such as North Korea, Iraq, or Iran. The Europeans are also worried about the implications of such a policy... The suggestion presented by Russia's President Putin for the establishment of a joint mobile missile defense has the advantage that it would not build up new hostilities toward Moscow.... This proposal could even be characterized as the expression of a security partnership. Military experts in NATO, however, reject such move.... The Americans plan to protect themselves with a defense shield against missiles. And if they are determined to do so, then the European governments think they are unable to prevent it. This is also true for Moscow's possibilities to influence the U.S. government."

"Not Sword, Not Shield"

Stefan Kornelius said in an editorial in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (2/18): "Washington has recognized the contradiction in its chain of arguments: Those who want to protect themselves and their soldiers from terrorist attacks must mainly protect Europe (and the soldiers deployed there). Those who do not protect Europe, will establish zones of different security in the Alliance, thus contributing to a division of Europe. And the reverse argument is also true: Those who want to offer Europe a credible protection, must integrate Russia which has the longest borderline with the unstable regions in the world. The practical value of the ABM Treaty is very low. But its unilateral cancellation by the United States would be a signal for arms policy indifference. The treaty harbors a spirit of trust, understanding, and mutual control. Those who wantonly withdraw from the arms control network are destroying this spirit. But it is also true that countries such as Russia cannot expect any consideration if they proliferate missile technology and ship arms, thus turning into a catalyst for new threats.... NMD is an ambitious and highly complex arms project that can increase security in the world if it is accompanied by the right policy. NMD even offers the chance for trans-Alliance cooperation which would result in additional stability and security. But NMD can also be the opposite, the breeding ground for new distrust, for a new escalation in arms modernization and for confrontation and the formation of new camps. George W. Bush and his team now have the chance to get rid of their tough election campaign rhetoric and enter into a serious discussion about the missile shield. This shield will be effective only if it is built on convictions and supported by like-minded allies. If not, it will have the effect of a sword."

"Friends Of Enemy Thinking"

Centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich opined (2/16): "When George W. Bush moved into the White House a month ago, the communists in Moscow were pleased since the Republican Bush would represent a clear policy toward Russia. Seen from this angle, the words of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld certainly hit the right tone for Russia's communists when he said that Russia 'is part of the problem' and sells missile technology to countries such as Iran, North Korea, and India. The Russian answer was also clear. This vigorous exchange of words was not very informative but, nevertheless, highly revealing. Americans and Russians no longer stick to silent diplomacy; loud words are now the weapon they have chosen. Supporters of a clear friend-foe scheme from bad old times may like this, but it will not help reach a solution in the missile controversy. If the United States really is in possession of information on Russian missile sales to rogue states, it should present it and focus on persuasive work in Moscow instead of research work in the NMD laboratories."

"Old Thinking In Missiles"

Karl Grobe judged in an editorial in left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (2/16): "The new defense secretary in Washington knows right from the start: If the issue is the proliferation of bad arms technology, then Russia is 'part of the problem.' General Leonid Ivashov, who is responsible for international affairs in Moscow's Defense Ministry knows right from the start: The United States is only interested in scrapping the ABM Treaty.... Both messieurs are harping on the same old string. They sing the songs that people sang during the Cold War. The refrain of the song is: Be suspicious."

"Blame Moscow"

Roland Heine argued in an editorial in left-of-center Berliner Zeitung (2/16): "Whatever Rumsfeld's reasons were, from an objective point of view, his statement was a provocation. To blame the Russians for the fact that the United States continues to stick to NMD is not only brazen but also puts in question possible negotiations between both sides about the issue right from the start. The biggest exporter of arms is the United States and missile technology was exported not only to NATO partners over the past few years. Apart from these fact, it was Russia that suggested only a few days ago creating an international control system against the proliferation of missile technology, including the establishment of a joint data exchange center on missile bases. But thus far, the American side has ignored this important security policy suggestion. The previous position of the Bush government does not give too much reason to hope that things develop in the direction of such a system. It rather looks as if the exchange of views between Rumsfeld and Ivanov was only the foreplay for further disputes."

"Moscow Shows Its Instruments"

Moscow correspondent Tomas Avenarius filed the following editorial for centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (2/14): "Foreign Minister Fischer is surprisingly optimistic that Moscow can be urged to accept the NMD project. But this will take a tormentingly long time. That is why the Kremlin can now use the missile shield, which only exists as a blueprint, to keep the Atlantic Alliance on tenterhooks. Germany, for instance will not allow Moscow to drive a wedge between Berlin and Washington. But Germany also attaches great significance to good relations with Russia. Moscow will also take advantage of China's opposition to NMD, since Beijing is as anti-NMD as Moscow. This does not make it easy for the Germans, who must get along with all of them, and for a chief diplomat who does not want to be an involuntary mediator between Moscow and Washington. It should be surprising if Putin does not take advantage of these possibilities."

"Berlin As Mediator"

T. Streier commented on regional radio station Westdeutscher Rundfunk of Cologne (2/13): "Foreign Minister Fischer said Germany will not play a mediating role in the NMD controversy between Russia and the United States. But if he did not want to play this role, what was then the purpose of his trip? Fischer wanted to improve the atmosphere, away from confrontation to cooperation. These were the catchphrases that sum up Fischer's visit to Moscow. This is honorable, but Fischer could achieve more. If he does not want to mediate, his trip to Moscow was no more than the trip of a messenger.... Of course, Fischer is right when he describes Moscow's hope for a European-Russian alliance against the United States on the NMD question as an illusion. But why did he not use a single word to present the German position in press talks and emphasized instead the priority of the United States in NATO and Europe?"

"Virtual Diplomacy"

Nico Fried opined in an editorial in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (2/13): "The task of the German foreign minister in Moscow is thankless. Russia rejects the NMD system by referring to the ABM Treaty of 1972. The German government also has a reluctant position towards the project. But there will not be a real anti-missile alliance between Germany and Russia, because the German government does not want to create any irritation in Washington. Thus there is nothing else for Fischer to do but to ask for a [Russian] willingness to enter into talks without knowing whether the Americans will really search for such talks."

"Antiquated Thinking"

Dieter Opitz had this to say in an editorial in right-of-center Berliner Morgenpost (2/12): "The sole superpower does not feel impressed by the broad rejection front [of the NMD system]. Are Moscow and Washington heading for a new arms race, and Berlin and Washington for a confrontation in kid gloves? All governments involved seem to talk at cross purposes. While Washington centers on the protection from missile attacks from third states, Moscow considers its strategic security to be in jeopardy, and Berlin is afraid of a new cold war between the two with negative implications for Europe.... It seems that Russia's opposition is in reality a nostalgic struggle for its lost superpower prestige. If this is the case, the Russian-U.S. dispute will not result in a unilateral cancellation of the treaty by Washington but in amendments allowing Russia to save face."

"Disarmament Spiral"

Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger opined in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (2/12): "The Pentagon should now review the U.S. nuclear arsenal to find out whether it can be drastically reduced. The new president could approve a drastic downsizing of U.S. arsenals, whether Russia is integrated or not. If not, it would be a unilateral U.S. disarmament initiative. Bush is now proving wrong his critics who have accused him of starting an arms modernization spiral. It may be possible that Bush is reversing this spiral. This will then help allay concern over the planned U.S. missile shield."

"Old Pattern"

Guenter Nonnenmacher had this to say in right-of-center Frankfurter Allgemeine (2/12): "Currently it appears that the debate over U.S. plans for an anti-missile defense system is conducted according to the model of 'Europe against the United States.'... Even in the military ranks of the NATO allies, the interest in the U.S. project will increase to the extent to which its technical feasibility increases. At that time, one will also realize that Russian resistance to NMD is not built on rock but is determined by negotiating tactics. A generous U.S. offer for nuclear disarmament would soften Russia's rejection. In the end, France, whose nuclear deterrence will continue to lose significance with this new defense system, could be the only power that persists in its uncompromising rejection. That would be a pattern of political conflict that is well known: Gaullists against Atlanticists."

"First Signals"

Wolf Bell concluded in centrist General-Anzeiger of Bonn (2/10): "President Bush's decision not to increase the defense budget made us prick up our ears. He already announced a unilateral reduction of nuclear warheads in the election campaign. And this move should also help improve the conditions for a dialogue with Russia and the allies about the anti-missile defense system."

ITALY: "The Kremlin Offers Its Own Space Shield To Europe"

Fabrizio Dragosei filed from Moscow in centrist, top-circulation Corriere della Sera (2/21): "Leave the Americans alone, stop NATO expansion toward our borders, and Russia will protect you from any missiles possibly launched by a rogue state.... This is, more or less, the message that Vladimir Putin and his generals have tried to send out, loud and clear, to European leaders during yesterday's visit to Moscow by NATO Secretary General Robertson.... Moscow plays its European card in order to exploit the hostility of many European allies toward the American project for a space shield. The American version, of course, was aimed at defending only the United States from possible missile attacks by terrorist states. It is not by chance that it is called national missile defense. Once they realized the 'gaffe,' Washington officials hastened to explain that by 'national' they mean also friends on the other side of the Atlantic and the friends of the friends. But there is strong suspicion in Europe that it has been left outside the door. Hence the Russian proposal.... Moscow's plan could suit a few European countries fine. Certainly, however, it will not make the Americans, who had already received a similar proposal from Moscow, change their minds."

"The Kremlin's Alternative To The Shield"

Anna Zafesova observed from Moscow in centrist, influential La Stampa (2/21): "As the new U.S. administration adopts increasingly colder language toward Russia, Vladimir Putin seeks a compromise and presents NATO Secretary General Robertson with an alternative anti-missile defense plan: Russia's response to the U.S. decision to provide itself with a 'space shield.'"

"Another Attack On Russia By The Bush Government"

Under the subhead, "Head Of The Pentagon: Moscow Contributes To Nuclear Proliferation," Andrea di Robilant observed in centrist, influential La Stampa (2/16): "A violent dispute has occurred between Washington and Moscow over nuclear weapons.... The relations between the world's major military powers are at the center of the international stage again, this time involving Europe, as well. The new U.S. administration...was the first to attack. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, during an interview about...the controversial U.S. missile defense project...launched a strong broadside against Moscow.... Rumsfeld said: 'it is clear that Moscow has all its interest in opposing (our plan), but let's put things straight: the Russians are part of the problem. They are active "proliferators" of nuclear weapons.'... The Kremlin reacted with indignation to the...attack. 'Those words will weigh on Rumsfeld's conscience,' Russian Deputy Chief of Staff Valery Manilov said."

"The '89 Armed Truce Is Over"

An editorial in provocative, classical liberal Il Foglio asserted (2/15): "A return to the past: This is how the Bush administration's foreign policy is seen by the Russian foreign minister.... George W. Bush wants a more complete and intimidating space shield than the former Democratic administration, and he will build one. This decision will inevitably lead to tension with Moscow...and with Europe, not to mention China.... The post-Cold War era is indeed over."

"Bush's Axe To U.S. Missiles--Cuts To Obtain Approval For Space Shield"

Andrea di Robilant filed from Washington in centrist, influential La Stampa (2/10): "George W. Bush seems to suggest the possibility of a compromise in trying to stop the major diplomatic storm over his decision to proceed with the creation of an anti-missile shield. The president yesterday ordered a major, urgent review of the American nuclear arsenal. According to the Pentagon, this would be the first step towards a rapid and unilateral reduction of thousands of intercontinental missiles.... Bush hopes that, by showing his determination to drastically reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal, he will succeed in softening European resistance and the strong opposition of China and Russia to the idea of an anti-missile shield."

BELGIUM: "More Or Less Concrete Counterproposal"

VRT correspondent Johan Depoortere remarked in independent Catholic De Standaard (2/21): "As usual, President Putin reiterated Russia's objections to NATO's enlargement...and U.S. plans for a space shield. For the first time, however, a more or less concrete counter-proposal was presented: the plan of hardliner General Leonid Ivasjov who wants to build a mobile anti-missile system in cooperation with the Europeans.... Besides the vague and highly conditional aspect of the plan, there is the question of how the Russians will fund the plan. Yet, after his meeting with Putin, Robertson said that he is impatient to examine the details with his European and American partners. In the Duma, the Secretary General uttered even more reconciling language: Russia is not an adversary, but a partner and it is not impossible that Russia will be welcomed in the Alliance at a certain moment. If we are to believe the Russian press, there is also another attractive proposal that may make the Russians abandon their opposition to a U.S. anti-missile shield. At the same time as Robertson, there is a U.S. Congressional Delegation in Moscow with, the Russian press agencies say, a new proposal from President George W. Bush: if Putin gives up his opposition to the American anti-missile shield and, instead, participates in it, the United States may place orders with the Russian defense industry. In that way, the Russians would get their share from the BEF 2,400 billion that the Americans are going to spend on the anti-missile shield. From Cold War to Hot Commerce?"

"A Russian Dilemma"

Pol Mathil held in left-of-center Le Soir (2/20): "For the Russians, the installation of NMD by the Americans leads to a dramatic dilemma: Either accept a change in the balance of power to the detriment of Russia, or decide to increase military spending.... Regarding the Kremlin, President Bush and his NMD project automatically remind them of former President Reagan and his Stars War, which very efficiently contributed to the USSR's defeat in the Cold War. By making his allies and adversaries understand that the creation of this shield is just a question of time, Mr. Rumsfeld is speaking the same language.... It is thus no surprise that Russia raises its voice on the occasion of Mr. Robertson's visit to Moscow. Of course, the Russians and the Americans do not need any middleman. But Lord Robertson's presence in Moscow can be useful to try to calm down Russian fears.... He could, indeed, remind the Russians that NMD is just a virtual weapon, because only three tests have taken place so far, only one of which was successful. Yes, but...the Russians reply that Reagan's Stars War was also only virtual, but caused considerable damage to the USSR. Damage which was quite real."

"Washington Sets Itself Against Russian 'Threat'"

Philippe Paquet argued in independent La Libre Belgique (2/12): "'A threat for the West in general, and for our European allies in particular!' The statement on Russia by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in an interview to International Policy is certainly not going to improve U.S.-Russian relations, which are deteriorating quickly since the change of U.S. administration.... Since the Republicans settled in the White House, blows below the belt are following one another. Wednesday, in the presentation of his annual report to Congress, it was CIA Director George Tenet who blamed Moscow for supplying sensitive military technologies to the United States' enemies, including Iran. Two days later in Vienna, Vladimir Putin...took up the Russian refrain about the incomprehensible and intolerable enlargement of NATO to the East. NMD, which deeply divides the Atlantic Alliance, irritates Russia and China a lot.... This virtual shield threatens to severely and damage U.S.-Russian relations for a long time to come--the impact on U.S.-Chinese relations remains to be assessed. Indeed, in the Kremlin, one notices an unprecedented diplomatic activity to strengthen defense links with countries of concern for Washington. North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il is expected in Moscow in April. Russia is also getting ready to conclude a series of defense agreements with Iran."

DENMARK: "Europe On NMD"

Center-left Politiken judged (2/21): "The Russians are clearly attempting to create a rift in the Alliance over the issue, but the Russian strategy seems to be driving European allies into the arms of the United States. Blair, and probably Lykketoft as well, will aim to safeguard their relations with the United States, and it appears that this will involve cautious acceptance of the U.S. plans. Nonetheless, this does not alter the fact that Europeans are still secretly hoping that the missile project will either disappear totally or take several years to implement."

FINLAND: "Russia and NATO Speak But Still Don't Communicate"

Leading, independent Helsingin Sanomat's editorial read (2/22) "As for Putin's proposal for a European missile defense, Robertson in fact interpreted it quite differently from what it was intended: as a kind of recognition by Moscow that U.S. concerns about rogue states are justified.... From the Moscow viewpoint, NMD is not a good sign. The first statements by the new U.S. administration have already described Russia as a proliferator of arms technology that threatens...the West.... Putin said the formulations recalled the Reagan era. If Putin expects to be able to drive a wedge between Western Europe and the United States, he will be badly disappointed. Germany and some other EU members may be ready to speak for Putin to some extent in their talks with the Bush administration as the initial reactions of the European NATO members towards the NMD have been negative. But it is useless for Putin to hope that they would seriously oppose Washington. Robertson made this quite clear in Moscow."

"Fragmentation Bomb Against NATO"

Liberal Hufvudstadsbladet said editorially (2/22): "Why did Russia submit a proposal for a joint Russo-European missile defense to Secretary General of NATO George Robinson? Of course, the Russians know that nothing will ever come of their proposal. NATO says that it no longer considers Russia a threat. Russians question the honesty of that statement. They believe that, de facto, NATO is posed against Russia. 'Starsky Wars' is meant to call what the Russians see as NATO's bluff. Russia's attempt to drive a wedge between NATO members will not be successful, but will cause enough confusion in the ranks.... Colin Powell, who will visit Europe next week, has now been presented with a marginally more complicated agenda."

"Resumption Of Russia-NATO Dialogue Important For Europe"

Independent Karjalainen editorial (2/21): "NATO's eastward expansion will continue to pique NATO-Russian relations exactly as long as the decision continues to be unmade. Therefore, it is vitally important that NATO make unambiguous decisions in its Prague summit on the admission of the Baltic countries, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Albania, Slovenia and Macedonia. Russia is particularly threatened by the Baltic countries' membership but if and when they are accepted as members, the threat will be removed. From the Russian perspective, it is understandable that Russia does everything to put pressure on former Warsaw Pact countries, and the Nordic countries including Finland, not to move closer to NATO."

"Russian Missile Defense Plan"

Regional, independent Turun Sanomat editorialized (2/21): "The Kremlin does not believe in the assurances that NMD is directed only at so-called 'rogue states', such as North Korea. The missile shield is not, however, the only issue souring relations between Russia and NATO. Mr. Robertson should be able to sell the Russians on NATO's possible expansion to include the Baltic states and certain other countries of Eastern Europe. The vehemence of Russian opposition is quite understandable. Enlargement to the Baltics would bring NATO planes within only a few minutes' flight to St. Petersburg and Russia's heartland. Against this background, Mr. Robertson's assurances that NATO enlargement will only enhance stability in Europe do not sound convincing from the Kremlin's viewpoint.... There is reason to hope that Mr. Robertson will be able to take advantage of Russia's desire for rapprochement and manage to narrow differences of opinion between Russia and NATO, as well as between Russia and the United States. Although Russia is militarily weak at the moment, it does not lie in anyone's interest if NATO and the United States begin stubbornly carrying out major military plans irrespective of Russia."

GEORGIA: "America's New Anti-Missile System, Georgia And Russia"

Independent Dilis Gazeti carried this piece by Zurab Khachapuridze (2/9): "Russian politicians cannot put up with this and are doing their best to encourage the U.S. to change its mind regarding the [NMD] system. Minister Ivanov recently said in Switzerland that Russia is ready to work on the new agreement on strategic arms limitation jointly with the U.S. The Americans did not respond, they are well aware that the national anti-missile system is a perfect tool to tame Russia.... Russia has little choice. There may be a deal struck. The United States will temporarily give up the [NMD] idea, while Russia will not oppose NATO's enlargement to the East."

HUNGARY: "Grievances Here And There"

Peter Barabas wrote in independent Nepszava (2/16): "According to President Bush's national security advisor, Russia poses the greatest danger to the West, especially to the European allies of the United States. In his report to the Senate, CIA director George Tenet considered the 'Russian issue' as one of the threats against the security of the United States. Reviving the scary image of the Russian bear is eminently suitable to prepare the ground for the acceptance of the pet plan for missile defense.... The Russians have every reason to object to Washington disregarding Moscow's concerns about the missile defense system. Relations between the two large powers are changing, but not so much as to fear cold war winds. Not yet."

POLAND: "The Republican Shield"

Tadeusz Zachurski wrote in centrist weekly Wprost (2/14): "The United States is increasingly wondering why the Europeans prefer to waste money on the creation of a rapid reaction force instead of joining the program of building a global anti-missile defense system. One of the explanations Washington suggests is [Europe's] false pride and ill-hidden inferiority complex toward its partner across the Atlantic. Meanwhile, information about the installation of new Russian Topol missiles and the possible deployment of ballistic missiles in the Kaliningrad enclave indicate that Moscow still treats its nuclear stockpile as an attribute of superpower status. The U.S.' European Allies should not forget that Russia has not become a 'paper tiger' despite its weakened position and a more than a decade-long political thaw."

PORTUGAL: "Germany Between"

Senior editor Teresa de Sousa wrote in influential moderate-left Público (2/20): "In Moscow, where he visited last week, Joschka Fischer took pains to make it clear that, when talking about NMD, Berlin was not an equidistant partner betwen Washington and Moscow. It is an ally of America, whose privileged relationship with Russia might help preserve the bridges between the White House and the Kremlin. What Fischer will transmit starting today to his interlocutors in Washington is that the new doctrine of American defense must...take into account the interests of its European allies, the first of whom is named--precisely--Russia."

ROMANIA: "U.S.-EU-Russia Power Triangle"

Mihai Hareshian's editorial in the English-language Nine O'Clock said (2/14): "In the overall picture of the triangle of power (U.S.-EU-Russia) on the international scene, the United States plays a decisive role. The stand of Washington, in one or another matter, will determine the course of relations between the EU and Russia, as well as overall EU relations. 'The power triangle'--France, Germany and Russia--will however, exercise more influence in Europe, especially in Eastern Europe, all the more as the U.S. administration has taken an ambiguous stand in the Balkans."

SPAIN: "Bush's Shield"

Barcelona's conservative La Vanguardia commented (2/21): "The only new thing to come from the Moscow meeting has been the Russian proposal to build a European anti-missile system which will compete with the U.S.' However, the Russian offer, which does not seem too realistic, speaks for itself.... The Russian case is special. The Bush shield...signifies that the United States is convinced that nuclear deterrence based on mutually assured destruction is obsolete now that Russia is not the enemy. What, then, does the Bush shield mean for Russia? Reagan revived the Strategic Defense Initiative...and this initiative was decisive in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now with the anti-missile shield, a more modest version of 'Star Wars,' the United States no longer sees Russia as the power it once was and, therefore, unworthy of priority treatment."

TURKEY: "NATO And Russia"

FIkret Ertan contended in religious/intellectual Zaman (2/21): "Robertson's visit to Moscow is an attempt to normalize NATO-Russia relations.... Robertson has two important agenda items: NMD and NATO expansion.... For the former, Russia has an alternative plan that is already regarded as 'insufficient and incomplete' by U.S. sources. Yet the alternative missile defense plan will be presented to NATO members soon for further discussion.... On the latter, Russia has objections to NATO's expansion particularly toward the Baltic countries. However, when it comes to the final decision, it seems Russia will not be able to prevent this."

This site is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State. Links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list