[Today's Paper] from [The New York Times]
[Europe]
Russia’s Reaction on Missile Plan Leaves Iran Issue Hanging
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY and PETER BAKER
Published: September 18, 2009
MOSCOW — President Obama’s decision to cancel an antimissile defense system in Eastern Europe earned a strong welcome from Russian leaders on Friday. Now, the question is whether Russia will do more to help prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, who had repeatedly assailed the antimissile system as a grave danger to Russia’s security, called Mr. Obama’s decision “correct and brave.” President Dmitri A. Medvedev hinted that Russia would respond favorably to the decision to replace former President George W. Bush’s plan with a missile shield seen as less threatening to Moscow.
Still, neither leader offered any immediate indication that Russia would make specific concessions, especially on Iran, which has become a major stumbling block in relations between the countries. If Russia does not toughen its opposition to Iran’s nuclear program, analysts say, Mr. Obama may be vulnerable to criticism that he yielded to Russian complaints on the antimissile plan but received little in return.
“I hope our administration really thought this through and this was not about appeasing Russia, because I don’t think that justifies the decision,” said Riki Ellison, chairman of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, a nonpartisan group that receives financing from defense contractors as well as private individuals who support missile defense.
The White House described the missile defense announcement as a response to changing Iranian capabilities, not as giving in to Russia, and said there was no quid pro quo. But the Obama administration needs support from Russia, which has veto power in the United Nations Security Council, in order to increase sanctions on Iran. American and European officials argue that Iran has carried out significant advances in recent months in developing a nuclear weapon.
Russia and China so far have resisted taking strong diplomatic steps or imposing tougher sanctions against Iran. Mr. Obama’s decision to remove one of the main irritants in relations between Washington and Moscow seems intended, in part, to alter that diplomatic equation and help increase the chances of addressing the impasse over Iran without resorting to military force.
But Mr. Obama was already facing a backlash on Friday from Congressional Republicans and politicians in Poland and the Czech Republic, nations that have looked to the United States for protection against what they perceive as Russian aggression.
Mr. Obama’s decision on Thursday cancels an antimissile plan proposed by the Bush administration. Mr. Obama replaced the Bush system, which would have been based in Poland and the Czech Republic, with a reconfigured system designed to knock down short- and medium-range missiles instead of intercontinental ones.
The Bush administration had said the system was intended to deter countries like Iran, but the Kremlin had long insisted that it was in fact aimed at Russia.
Mr. Medvedev on Friday maintained that Russia did not feel obligated to respond to the United States as part of some deal. But he added: “There always is a score in politics. And if our partners hear some of our concerns, we will, of course, be more attentive to theirs.”
Mr. Medvedev and Mr. Obama are to meet at the United Nations in New York next week.
Russian officials did indicate that they would withdraw a proposal to base short-range missiles on Russia’s western border, in Kaliningrad, though American officials had not seemed very worried about that Russian plan.
What else Russia might do to respond was a topic of speculation in both Washington and Moscow on Friday. One issue was whether the Kremlin, after more closely examining the new Obama antimissile plan, would voice new protests about it.
Mr. Obama ordered the development of a system that would deploy smaller SM-3 missile interceptors in 2011, at first on ships, later on land in Europe. They are aimed mostly at short- and medium-range Iranian missiles. At least as currently designed, they are not capable of destroying Russia’s intercontinental missiles, though they are expected to be eventually upgraded, Obama administration officials said.
The Obama plan calls for dozens and eventually possibly even hundreds of the smaller interceptors, not just the 10 larger ones included in Mr. Bush’s plan.
Pavel Y. Felgenhauer, a military analyst who writes a column for Novaya Gazeta, an opposition newspaper in Moscow, said he doubted that the Kremlin would be able to complain about the new plan. Mr. Felgenhauer emphasized that the Kremlin had opposed the Bush system because it believed, on the advice of the Russian military, that the system was intended not to bring down Iranian missiles, but to give the United States the potential to make a crippling first strike against Russia.
Also on Friday, in another sign of a warming in relations, NATO called for new cooperation with Moscow, including possibly on antimissile systems.
In his first major foreign policy speech, which was coordinated with the White House, NATO’s new secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, proposed a “genuine new beginning of our relationship with Russia” and said the West and Russia had a shared interest in opposing proliferation of missile technology.
Some Obama supporters in Washington said the remarks by Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev did not necessarily help Mr. Obama.
“Critics will inevitably make hay of the positive comments,” said Mark Medish, a former Russia expert in the Clinton White House and now a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Much as in the Soviet days, Moscow’s praise can be seen as a political kiss of death for Western counterparts. But the criticism misses the point that Mr. Obama has made a hardheaded calculation based on U.S. national security interests and strategic priorities.”
The Obama administration continued to use Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, a Republican first appointed by Mr. Bush, to explain the new plan and deflect criticism. Mr. Gates met with the Czech defense minister, Martin Bartak, in Washington on Friday and offered more reassurances that the United States was not abandoning Eastern Europe.
Even so, some analysts in Washington contended that Mr. Obama had sacrificed the Bush system in order to reach a broader arrangement with Russia that was by no means assured.
Mr. Ellison, the missile defense advocate, said that if the mobile SM-3 interceptors that the Obama administration planned to deploy instead of the Bush system were genuinely effective, “the Russians should be much more concerned about having hundreds of interceptors in this system that could potentially shoot down missiles in and around Europe.”
The fact that Russia is not, he said, “validates to me that the SM-3 system won’t be at that level for long-range ballistic missiles.”
Clifford J. Levy reported from Moscow, and Peter Baker from Washington. Stephen Castle contributed reporting from Brussels.
[Europe]
Russia’s Reaction on Missile Plan Leaves Iran Issue Hanging
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY and PETER BAKER
Published: September 18, 2009
MOSCOW — President Obama’s decision to cancel an antimissile defense system in Eastern Europe earned a strong welcome from Russian leaders on Friday. Now, the question is whether Russia will do more to help prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin, who had repeatedly assailed the antimissile system as a grave danger to Russia’s security, called Mr. Obama’s decision “correct and brave.” President Dmitri A. Medvedev hinted that Russia would respond favorably to the decision to replace former President George W. Bush’s plan with a missile shield seen as less threatening to Moscow.
Still, neither leader offered any immediate indication that Russia would make specific concessions, especially on Iran, which has become a major stumbling block in relations between the countries. If Russia does not toughen its opposition to Iran’s nuclear program, analysts say, Mr. Obama may be vulnerable to criticism that he yielded to Russian complaints on the antimissile plan but received little in return.
“I hope our administration really thought this through and this was not about appeasing Russia, because I don’t think that justifies the decision,” said Riki Ellison, chairman of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, a nonpartisan group that receives financing from defense contractors as well as private individuals who support missile defense.
The White House described the missile defense announcement as a response to changing Iranian capabilities, not as giving in to Russia, and said there was no quid pro quo. But the Obama administration needs support from Russia, which has veto power in the United Nations Security Council, in order to increase sanctions on Iran. American and European officials argue that Iran has carried out significant advances in recent months in developing a nuclear weapon.
Russia and China so far have resisted taking strong diplomatic steps or imposing tougher sanctions against Iran. Mr. Obama’s decision to remove one of the main irritants in relations between Washington and Moscow seems intended, in part, to alter that diplomatic equation and help increase the chances of addressing the impasse over Iran without resorting to military force.
But Mr. Obama was already facing a backlash on Friday from Congressional Republicans and politicians in Poland and the Czech Republic, nations that have looked to the United States for protection against what they perceive as Russian aggression.
Mr. Obama’s decision on Thursday cancels an antimissile plan proposed by the Bush administration. Mr. Obama replaced the Bush system, which would have been based in Poland and the Czech Republic, with a reconfigured system designed to knock down short- and medium-range missiles instead of intercontinental ones.
The Bush administration had said the system was intended to deter countries like Iran, but the Kremlin had long insisted that it was in fact aimed at Russia.
Mr. Medvedev on Friday maintained that Russia did not feel obligated to respond to the United States as part of some deal. But he added: “There always is a score in politics. And if our partners hear some of our concerns, we will, of course, be more attentive to theirs.”
Mr. Medvedev and Mr. Obama are to meet at the United Nations in New York next week.
Russian officials did indicate that they would withdraw a proposal to base short-range missiles on Russia’s western border, in Kaliningrad, though American officials had not seemed very worried about that Russian plan.
What else Russia might do to respond was a topic of speculation in both Washington and Moscow on Friday. One issue was whether the Kremlin, after more closely examining the new Obama antimissile plan, would voice new protests about it.
Mr. Obama ordered the development of a system that would deploy smaller SM-3 missile interceptors in 2011, at first on ships, later on land in Europe. They are aimed mostly at short- and medium-range Iranian missiles. At least as currently designed, they are not capable of destroying Russia’s intercontinental missiles, though they are expected to be eventually upgraded, Obama administration officials said.
The Obama plan calls for dozens and eventually possibly even hundreds of the smaller interceptors, not just the 10 larger ones included in Mr. Bush’s plan.
Pavel Y. Felgenhauer, a military analyst who writes a column for Novaya Gazeta, an opposition newspaper in Moscow, said he doubted that the Kremlin would be able to complain about the new plan. Mr. Felgenhauer emphasized that the Kremlin had opposed the Bush system because it believed, on the advice of the Russian military, that the system was intended not to bring down Iranian missiles, but to give the United States the potential to make a crippling first strike against Russia.
Also on Friday, in another sign of a warming in relations, NATO called for new cooperation with Moscow, including possibly on antimissile systems.
In his first major foreign policy speech, which was coordinated with the White House, NATO’s new secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, proposed a “genuine new beginning of our relationship with Russia” and said the West and Russia had a shared interest in opposing proliferation of missile technology.
Some Obama supporters in Washington said the remarks by Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev did not necessarily help Mr. Obama.
“Critics will inevitably make hay of the positive comments,” said Mark Medish, a former Russia expert in the Clinton White House and now a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “Much as in the Soviet days, Moscow’s praise can be seen as a political kiss of death for Western counterparts. But the criticism misses the point that Mr. Obama has made a hardheaded calculation based on U.S. national security interests and strategic priorities.”
The Obama administration continued to use Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, a Republican first appointed by Mr. Bush, to explain the new plan and deflect criticism. Mr. Gates met with the Czech defense minister, Martin Bartak, in Washington on Friday and offered more reassurances that the United States was not abandoning Eastern Europe.
Even so, some analysts in Washington contended that Mr. Obama had sacrificed the Bush system in order to reach a broader arrangement with Russia that was by no means assured.
Mr. Ellison, the missile defense advocate, said that if the mobile SM-3 interceptors that the Obama administration planned to deploy instead of the Bush system were genuinely effective, “the Russians should be much more concerned about having hundreds of interceptors in this system that could potentially shoot down missiles in and around Europe.”
The fact that Russia is not, he said, “validates to me that the SM-3 system won’t be at that level for long-range ballistic missiles.”
Clifford J. Levy reported from Moscow, and Peter Baker from Washington. Stephen Castle contributed reporting from Brussels.
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます