Home Staff Courses Documents Links Contact



MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Pyotr Romanov)

What does Europe stand to gain, or lose, from the forthcoming deployment of
American antiballistic missile (ABM) systems in Poland and the Czech

Officially, they are supposed to protect Europe from the missiles of
“rogue” countries (such as North Korea and Iran). If this explanation
weren’t already as believable as Santa Clause, the facts (including
geography, ballistics, and the data provided by all major intelligence
agencies) serve to discredit it even further.
“Rogue” countries do not have the kinds of missiles the system was meant to
protect against, and even if they did have them, the systems should not be
deployed in the projected areas.
I am not going to discuss American reasoning here, because it is much more
interesting to see what Europe may gain or lose from the implementation of
the U.S.’s plans. Europe’s only gain from it will be Washington’s applause
for doing “the right thing,” applause that can be converted into something
more profitable, though not security.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact strengthened the
security of Western Europe to an unprecedented level.
The Soviet Union liquidated its intermediate- and shorter-range missiles
which had been targeted at Europe, and reduced its heavy weaponry (tanks,
armored vehicles and artillery systems), which were the dominant force
deployed in the direction of the West. These and several other conciliatory
actions gave the world a chance to become a safer place.
Unfortunately, the world has not taken advantage of that chance. The West
has not honored its commitments to the Soviet Union and Russia’s first
president, Boris Yeltsin. Former members of the Warsaw Pact have joined
NATO, which is advancing closer to the borders of Russia with every passing
The West has also violated the limits set for conventional heavy weaponry.
The admission of Bulgaria and Romania to NATO increased the bloc’s reserves
by 1,250 tanks, some 2,700 armored vehicles and 1,600 artillery systems
above the flank limits. Together with the other new members, NATO has now
exceeded the limits stipulated in the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE)
treaty by 5,992 combat tanks, 8,882 armored vehicles, 5,171 artillery
systems, 1,497 combat aircraft, and 515 strike helicopters.
Does the Kremlin have any use for such a conventional forces treaty,
especially if NATO can now monitor Russia’s armed forces in real time?
It is therefore not surprising that Russia has decided to respond. General
of the Army Yuri Baluyevsky, chief of the Russian General Staff, has
recently mentioned the possibility of Moscow withdrawing from the CFE and
the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaties.
President Vladimir Putin has said openly that Russia would respond to the
U.S. deployment of ABM systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, though not
in kind. In other words, it will not build a new ballistic missile system,
whose effectiveness could in any case not be proved without live tests, but
will use missiles that can evade such systems, which it already has.
So, has Europe gained or lost? Has life on the continent become safer under
America’s leaky umbrella, with Russian missiles on combat duty round the
clock? Would it have been better off without either?
The answer seems apparent to me. Why then have Poland and the Czech
Republic agreed to house American ABM systems, and why is NATO building up
its military muscle? Does it want to intimidate Moscow?

The United States is a great power, but it is not God Almighty, and when it
makes mistakes it makes them in a big way. Why recreate problems the world
has worked so hard to solve?

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not
necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board. -0-