MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - The possible deployment of elements of a U.S. anti-missile defense system in Ukraine has become one of the most debated issues of the "new anti-missile defense configuration."
The U.S. is considering deploying an anti-missile radar in Ukraine, said U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Alexander Vershbow, formerly the U.S. ambassador to Russia. Furthermore, among other things is a proposal to use the existing ex-Soviet radars in Ukraine, provided that it is appropriately upgraded, according to information from various sources. Such action could potentially be a new point of contention between Moscow and Washington; therefore, the reaction to such news was rather high-strung.
But Ukraine itself has denied such plans and both Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko and the new Ukrainian foreign minister, Pyotr Poroshenko, have stated that "Ukraine has not received any such proposal" (Yushchenko), and "such a proposal would go against the Ukrainian Constitution" (Poroshenko).
The U.S. State Department was forced to clarify what Vershbow said.
State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly said that the reports of Assistant Secretary of Defense Vershbow's announcement regarding U.S. plans for an anti-missile defense facility in Ukraine are incorrect, the U.S. has no plans to build anti-missile defense facilities in Ukraine, and it has not made any proposals to Ukraine regarding early warning radars.
The Pentagon, which was left to carry the can for Vershbow, also put in its two cents. U.S. Defense Department representatives said that journalists incorrectly interpreted the statements of Vershbow, who merely said that Eastern European countries, including Ukraine, could have an early warning radar.
The story could have ended with this statement if it were not for the implications thereof. In order to understand it, a closer look at the new missile defense concept is necessary.
The new anti-missile configuration involves waiving deployment of GBI interceptor missiles in Europe and development of sea- and land-based systems. These systems are designated for intercepting short- and mid-range missiles.
The main distinction of the new anti-missile defense system is the absence of silo-based long-range GBI interceptor missiles. This type of missiles, which has an effective range of several thousand kilometers, could pose a real threat to strategic missile forces units stationed in European Russia and the Northern Fleet's strategic missile carriers.
The U.S. is currently planning to install PAC-3 missile systems in Poland oriented toward countering short- and mid-range missiles. In addition, the seas bordering Eastern Europe could see the arrival of sea-based missile systems - SM-3 missiles on navy cruisers and destroyers equipped with the AEGIS command information system. These missiles are also primarily oriented toward intercepting short- and mid-range missiles. They can only intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles in their launching trajectory, provided that they are in close proximity to the launch site.
The "anti-missile" AEGIS-class naval group currently based in Japan has the capability of intercepting North Korean missiles if necessary.
SM-3 missiles can also be land-based. Combined with the appropriate radio-electronic detection systems, such a "shield" is actually capable of defending Europe against missiles from Iran without upsetting the balance of power.
Accordingly, Russia and the U.S. have returned to a conventional dialogue on interrelated issues of anti-missile defense and strategic nuclear weapons. At the same time, it is evident that such a dialogue is not satisfactory for everyone in the United States. It is unknown whether Vershbow intended to throw gasoline on a dying fire or whether he merely let the cat out of the bag, but either way the statements of a career diplomat on such subjects can only be regarded as a provocation.
The speed with which the U.S. disavowed Vershbow's statements, calling them "incorrectly understood," is also telling. It is obvious that in the current state of anti-missile defense and strategic nuclear weapons negotiations, the last thing that Obama and his administration need is tension with Russia over Ukraine.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
