Russia Warns US On Placing Missile Defenses, In Poland Options

[ABLAT Staff]

Mutual Destruction Danger In US Anti-Missile Plan Says Putin

by Sebastian Smith
Moscow (AFP) April 27, 2007
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday warned that US plans to deploy an anti-missile system in eastern Europe sharply increase the danger of mutual destruction.
In comments laden with Cold War imagery, the Kremlin leader accused the United States of misrepresenting the true aim of the limited missile shield, which is to be based in NATO members Czech Republic and Poland.

"The threat of causing mutual damage and even destruction increases many times," Putin said after a meeting with Czech President Vaclav Klaus in Moscow, Interfax and ITAR-TASS news agencies reported.

He scorned Washington's claim that the role of the US interceptor missiles would be to shoot down missiles from countries such as Iran or North Korea, rather than from Russia.

"Neither terrorists, whom they are preparing to defend against, nor Iran, nor North Korea have such a system," Putin said. "To talk of terrorists is simply hilarious. They use other methods."

Moscow's opposition to the US deployment is steadily hardening, fuelling East-West tensions already heightened over differences on independence for Kosovo, Putin's record on democracy, and Russian energy export policies.

On Thursday, Putin stunned Western capitals when he announced suspension of Moscow's participation in the Soviet-era Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, which imposes strict limits on troop deployments across the continent.

Putin said this was in response to the planned US missile shield.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) called for clarification on Friday. The alliance's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, expressed "grave concern," saying the CFE treaty was "one of the cornerstones of European security."

The Pentagon insists the anti-missile system would defend against one-off threats and could have no effect against Russia's enormous nuclear missile arsenal.

But Putin also dismissed this Friday, saying the range of the system would extend to the Ural mountains, covering the entire European section of Russia.

"These systems will control Russian territory up to the Urals if we do not take counter measures -- and we will."

In another Cold War echo, Putin compared the US anti-missile deployment to the stationing of Pershing II ballistic nuclear missiles in West Germany in the 1980s, a step that caused heated debate within NATO.

"The threat is absolutely the same," Putin said. "This new element fundamentally changes the European security system."

Washington accuses Moscow of artificially ratching up tension, saying that the proposed system could make no impact on Russia's military potential. Western analysts say that the Kremlin hopes to use the issue to divide the NATO alliance.

On Thursday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complained that Russia was applying Cold War logic to the missile defence issue and described accusations that the system was directed at Moscow as "ludicrous."

U.S. missile shield expansion may trigger new arms race - expert
Moscow, April 25 (RIA Novosti) - U.S. plans to expand and deploy elements of its missile defense system around the world threaten the start of a new arms race, a Russian expert said Wednesday.

In January, the U.S. announced plans to deploy a radar facility in the Czech Republic and a missile base in Poland to counter possible attacks from Iran or North Korea, whose nuclear programs have provoked serious international concerns. Moscow has strongly opposed the U.S. plans, saying they would threaten Russia's security and destroy the strategic balance of forces in Europe.

Sergei Rogov, head of the Institute of the U.S. and Canadian Studies, said that today strategic stability in the world is maintained by treaties limiting strategic offensive weapons and banning strategic missile defenses, which are due to expire in the near future.

"START I strategic arms reduction treaty will expire in two years. START II treaty will die without even coming into force and the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty will expire in six years," Rogov said. "Eventually, for the first time in 40 years Russia and the United States will have no treaties limiting offensive and defensive weapons. This would mean a game without rules."

START II that followed START I, although ratified, has never been activated. In June 2002 Russia withdrew from START II shortly after the United States withdrew from the ABM Treaty. According to the START II treaty signed in 1993, the sides should have reduced their strategic arms arsenals by two thirds by 2003 against January 1993 levels.

Russia and the U.S. signed the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) in May 2002, envisioning a reduction in the nuclear arsenals of each side to 1,700-2,200 by the end of 2012.

Rogov said that under such conditions the U.S. deployment of its missile shield in the world basically means that the country has begun a process, which has no restrictions and which "Americans will use to achieve absolute military superiority or, in other words, it would lead to a new arms race."

The expert said that against all this background U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates' visit to Moscow this week was extremely important, as "Americans understood that it is necessary to negotiate instead of presenting Russia with a fait accompli."

Gates, on his first visit to Russia in his new capacity, said Monday Washington was not ready to sign a long-term strategic or offensive arms limitation deal with Moscow. He also said the West should not be expected to ratify the adapted Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, a critical arms control deal in Europe, until Russia pulls its troops out from ex-Soviet republics, namely Georgia and Moldova.

Rogov also said that since the end of the Cold War no principle changes have taken place in Russian and U.S. relations in the nuclear sector.

"We are still hostages of mutual nuclear intimidation," he said adding that both countries still have a huge nuclear potential, which is unnecessary when the countries are really partners on the international arena.

The expert said that both countries have come close to a threshold, when relations between Russia and the United States could become confrontational.

"We are on the brink of a new 'Cold War' if one looks closely at our [Russian-U.S.] present day relations," he said adding that if the situation did not change, negative tendencies in relations between both countries will continue to develop.

"I do not rule out that at the 2008 presidential elections in the United States both Republicans and Democrats may bring forward a thesis on the need for a Russia containment policy," Rogov said.

Anti-ballistic missiles: menace and myth
by Alexander Khramchikhin Moscow (RIA Novosti) Apr 30 - The United States' plans to build an anti-ballistic-missile (ABM) system in eastern Europe have sparked a heated debate, which is drawing in more and more participants. Meanwhile, some aspects of the controversy are surprising.

To start with, Moscow's reaction does not seem quite appropriate. It is obvious enough that the deployment of U.S. ABM components in Poland and the Czech Republic does not present any threat to the Russian strategic nuclear forces so far.

It is common knowledge that ballistic missile trajectories are not straight lines on a map. They fly over the globe in a big arc. Thus, an ICBM launched from northwestern Iran towards New York or Washington will fly over Azerbaijan and Georgia, the Russian Black Sea coast of the Caucasus, the Sea of Azov, eastern and central Ukraine, Belarus, northeastern Poland, the southern Baltics, southern Sweden, Denmark, the North Sea, the Orkneys, the Atlantic Ocean, and between Newfoundland and mainland Canada. The American ground-based interceptors (GBIs) are designed to hit their targets head-on, and for this reason it makes sense to deploy them in Poland. This will make it easier for the GBIs to destroy enemy ICBMs because the angle between interceptor and target will be slight or even zero, lowering requirements for the former's speed and range (the targets themselves would approach the GBIs).

At the same time, the trajectories of any missiles flying from Russia to the United States (and vice versa) pass over the Arctic. Let's assume the impossible - a Russian first strike on the United States. In that case, north-bound Russian ICBMs would of course be launched earlier than GBIs. The ABM facility in Poland would then have to detect them, calculate their trajectories and launch interceptors to the northeast to catch them from behind. But GBIs have neither the speed nor range to do this. The further to the east the ICBMs start, the more useless GBIs based in Poland would be. The interceptors are supposed to have characteristics similar to the missiles they are meant to destroy. Their speed is about the same. This does not matter when the two missiles are meant to collide head-on, but to overtake a speeding missile, an interceptor must travel several times faster than it. For this reason, the current version of the GBI does not pose a threat even to Russian ICBMs based in the European part of the country, to say nothing of the Urals and Siberia. And of course, the European ABM system is powerless against Russian ballistic-missile submarines. Moreover, Poland is going to accept only 10 GBIs, a figure which pales into insignificance when compared to the Russian strategic nuclear forces. In any case, the American strategic ABM system can hardly be said to exist because many of the GBI tests have failed. On top of all that, bulky radars and GBI launch pads are highly vulnerable to conventional tactical weapons, cruise missiles and front-line aviation.

Some experts believe that the radar that the Americans are planning to deploy in the Czech Republic is much more dangerous for Russia than the GBIs in Poland. It will cover the country's territory up to the Urals. Its mission is to detect missile launches and feed this information to the anti-missile systems. However, as I have explained above, such systems do not actually exist.

To sum up, the threat posed by the American ABM system to be deployed in eastern Europe is imaginary. The only bizarre point is that the threat of Iranian ICBMs to the United States is even more far-fetched. Up to this day, the U.S., Russia, and China have been the only countries capable of building their own ICBMs. Iran cannot even cope with producing medium-range missiles. Its technological level will not allow it to build nuclear-tipped ICBMs even in the distant future. Even if we assume that Iran obtains such missiles somehow, why would it wish to attack the United States? For all the peculiarities of the Iranian regime, there are no grounds to think that it consists of suicidal fanatics. It is perfectly obvious that a single strike against the United States would cause, quite legally, a massive retaliation that would completely destroy Iran. There are no goals for which the Iranian leaders would pay such a price. It is hard to believe that Washington does not understand this, and in this context its desire to seek protection against Iran seems very strange.

There are five explanations of why the United States wants to have an ABM system in eastern Europe, and none are mutually exclusive:

1. After 9/11, American leaders and society as a whole became so paranoid that they want to counter even mythical threats to national security.

2. The Pentagon's budget has become so big that to keep it at this level or make it even bigger, the Defense Department and the military-industrial complex are presenting mythical threats as real, demonstrating at the same time their concern for the security of the U.S. taxpayer.

3. U.S. military and political leaders believe that in the (albeit remote) future, they will develop their ABM system to the level where it would pose a threat to the Russian strategic nuclear forces; now it is important to gain a foothold by deploying useless GBIs.

4. Washington wants to repeat its successful strategy of the 1980s, when it compelled Moscow to spend huge sums of money to counter a mythical threat. Almost a quarter-century has passed since the United States first announced Star Wars, but for all of its gigantic economic, technological and scientific potential, America has managed to produce almost nothing of what it announced then. It was very easy to understand then that the supposed ABM program was a pipe dream, but the intellectual level of the Soviet elite had dropped so much by that point that it was simply unable to adequately assess the situation. Nobody in America was ever going to make any combat lasers, but Moscow feverishly rushed to parry the threat just to realize shortly afterward that it could not cope with it either economically or technologically.

Under Mikhail Gorbachev, Russia began "perestroika and acceleration," and only after we dropped out of the race from exhaustion did we go for "the new thinking," with the end that we all know. Today, Washington may well try to at least exhaust Russia with another arms race, if not cause its complete disintegration in the wake of the Soviet collapse. At the same time, the U.S. will unite the rapidly decaying NATO alliance and save its combat potential in the face of "the new threat from the East."

5. The final possibility is that America does not care much about either Russia or Iran. Rather, it knows that NATO has no future and wants to create a new security system that would be smaller but more coherent. The system should involve those countries that are truly loyal to Washington. The deployment of ABM components is a loyalty test.

As I have already said, one explanation does not rule out another. I am almost sure that the truth is a combination of several, if not all versions. This is why Moscow is on the horns of a dilemma: should it rush to beef up its armed forces, thinking about the third explanation, or should it pretend that nothing is happening for fear of being trapped by the fourth?

But these two courses are not mutually exclusive. Russia must not only build up its armed forces; it must largely start building them from scratch. If it adopts a serious strategy for military development that reflects real threats and challenges and ways of responding to them, Russia will even be able to deal with the third option - if it becomes a reality.

The author is the head of the analytical department at the Institute of Political and Military Analysis.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.


Source: Agence France-Presse

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Mutual_Des..._Putin_999.html

[ABLAT Staff]

U.S. missile shield talks still on
POSTED: 3:52 a.m. EDT, May 4, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Bush administration said Thursday it will launch negotiations this month to deploy a missile shield in Eastern Europe despite Russia's objections and growing opposition in the Democratic-led U.S. Congress.

"I plan to lead an interagency team to Warsaw and Prague in late May to begin formal negotiations on the placement of missile defense facilities in those countries," Assistant Secretary of State John Rood told a meeting of two House subcommittees.

A separate House subcommittee voted unanimously this week to slash $160 million from $310 million sought by President Bush to deploy 10 missile interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic. The money could be restored in other legislation in the House or Senate.

Bush says the system is needed to protect Europe and the United States from missiles developed by Iran, but the project has angered Russia which calls it a threat to its security. Russian President Vladimir Putin froze commitments under a post-Cold War treaty on conventional forces in protest.

Critical U.S. lawmakers say there has not been enough consultation with the NATO military alliance or testing of the missile shield technology. Some also argued that there had not been enough sensitivity shown to Russia.

Rood, assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, and Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, urged lawmakers to restore the money.

"Obviously that presents issues for us in discussions with those allies," Rood said.

It was not surprising the Russians would dislike a plan to "stick it to them" by placing a U.S. missile shield "in what used to be their allies," said Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat.

During the Cold War, Poland and the Czech Republic (then part of Czechoslovakia) belonged to the Moscow-dominated Warsaw Pact. They are now part of NATO.

Rood and Fried said there was no threat to Russia because the systems to be deployed were literally not fast enough to intercept Russia's strategic forces.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates traveled to Russia last month to try to convince Putin the missile shield was not a strategic threat.

The developing danger was from a nuclear-armed Iran, whose leadership already had used threatening rhetoric against Europe and the United States, Rood and Fried said.

"Iran already possesses many medium- and short-ranged missiles," Fried said. He cited U.S. intelligence community estimates that Iran could develop long-range missiles capable of reaching all of Europe and the United States by 2015.

"The situation we want to avoid is one where Europe would be in a position of absolute vulnerability to an Iranian nuclear arsenal, even a small one, thereby decoupling transatlantic security," Fried said. Iran denies Western fears it harbors a secret atomic bomb project, saying it is enriching uranium for electricity.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/04/usa...reut/index.html

[ABLAT Staff]

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

Bush reassures Putin on missile shield plan
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published May 22, 2007

President Bush yesterday sought to placate Moscow over a planned U.S. missile defense system in the heart of Europe, vowing to convince Russian President Vladimir Putin "that this missile shield is not directed at them."
"NATO allies and other nations recognize the threat we face from ballistic missiles launched by a rogue state," the president said from his ranch near Crawford, Texas, where he met over the weekend with NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.
Mr. Bush dispatched Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to Russia recently "to have a full and transparent conversation with President Putin and his Cabinet to make sure that the Russians understand that this missile shield is not directed at them, but in fact directed at other nations that could conceivably affect the peace of Europe," he said yesterday.
Mr. Putin opposes the U.S. plan for a missile-defense shield and is pressing his European allies to join his opposition. He has criticized planned U.S. military basings in the Czech Republic and Poland, going so far as to compare the project to the stationing of Pershing missiles in Western Europe during the Cold War.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in the Russian capital last week that the United States will not permit Russia to veto its plans to build the shield.
"The United States needs to be able to move forward to use technology to defend itself and we're going to do that," Miss Rice told reporters after meeting with Mr. Putin. "I don't think that anyone expects the United States to permit somehow a veto on American security interests."
Mr. Bush departs early next month for talks in Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland. The Czech Republic and Poland have expressed support to house the shield.
The Pentagon says that missile interceptors and high-tech radar in Europe -- working in concert with a missile defense system installed in California and Alaska -- are intended to protect the United States and Europe from the threat of Iranian missiles.
"Of course, I will continue to reach out to Russia," Mr. Bush said yesterday, noting that "the secretary-general agrees that U.S. missile defense plans complement NATO efforts to keep all nations safe from attack."
"I appreciate the fact that the NATO-Russian Council is an integral part of the secretary-general's plans to make sure that Russia fully understands our intentions," the president said.
Mr. Scheffer said, "It will be now up to NATO -- and I'll try to lead NATO into that direction -- but apart from the third site and the U.S. plans, there will be a NATO system which complements, which will be bolted in the U.S. system so that everybody and everything will be covered for the long-range threats, the medium-range threats and the short-range threats -- an important element, I think."
Mr. Bush and the NATO secretary-general also discussed ongoing efforts to secure Afghanistan. The president vowed to press U.S. allies to do more to share the burden and the risks in fighting in Afghanistan as casualties rise with a resurgent Taliban.
"In order for NATO to be effective it has to transform itself into an organization that actually meets the threats that free nations face," he said. "I pledged to the secretary-general we'll work with our NATO allies to convince them that they must share more of the burden and must all share the risks in meeting our goal."
Mr. Scheffer agreed, saying, "Afghanistan is still one of the front lines in our fight against terrorism."
http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.p...21-113252-1150r

[ABLAT Staff]

Russia says new ICBM can beat any system

By STEVE GUTTERMAN, Associated Press Writer

MOSCOW - Russia tested new missiles Tuesday that a Kremlin official boasted could penetrate any defense system, and President Vladimir Putin warned that U.S. plans for an anti-missile shield in Europe would turn the region into a "powder keg."

First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said Russia tested an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple independent warheads, and it also successfully conducted a "preliminary" test of a tactical cruise missile that he said could fly farther than existing, similar weapons.

"As of today, Russia has new tactical and strategic complexes that are capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defense systems," Ivanov said, according to the ITAR-Tass news agency. "So in terms of defense and security, Russians can look calmly to the country's future."

Ivanov is a former defense minister seen as a potential Kremlin favorite to succeed Putin next year. Both he and Putin have said repeatedly that Russia would continue to improve its nuclear arsenals and respond to U.S. plans to deploy a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic — NATO nations that were in Moscow's front yard during the Cold War as Warsaw Pact members.

Russia has bristled at the plans, dismissing U.S. assertions that the system would be aimed at blocking possible attacks by Iran and saying it would destroy the strategic balance of forces in Europe.

"We consider it harmful and dangerous to turn Europe into a powder keg and to fill it with new kinds of weapons," Putin said at a news conference with visiting Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates.

Russian arms control expert Alexander Pikayev said the new ICBMs appeared to be part of Russia's promised response to the missile defense plans and, more broadly, an effort to "strengthen the strategic nuclear triad — land-based, sea-based and air-based delivery systems for nuclear weapons — which suffered significant downsizing" amid financial troubles after the 1991 Soviet collapse.

The ICBM, called the RS-24, was fired from a mobile launcher at the Plesetsk launch site in northwestern Russia. Its test warhead landed on target some 3,400 miles away on the Far Eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, the Strategic Missile Forces said in a statement.

The new missile is seen as eventually replacing the aging RS-18s and RS-20s that are the backbone of the country's missile forces, the statement said. Those missiles are known in the West as the SS-19 Stiletto and the SS-18 Satan.

The RS-24 "strengthens the capability of the attack groups of the Strategic Missile Forces by surmounting anti-missile defense systems, at the same time strengthening the potential for nuclear deterrence," the statement said.

Ivanov said the missile was a new version of the Topol-M, first commissioned in 1997 and known as the SS-27 in the West, but one that that can carry multiple independent warheads, ITAR-Tass reported. Existing Topol-M missiles are capable of hitting targets more than 6,000 miles away.

Pikayev, a senior analyst at the Moscow-based Institute for World Economy and International Relations, said that little had been revealed about the missile's development, but that Russia has been seeking to improve its capability to penetrate missile defense systems and that the new missile would likely answer to that goal.

He said Russia had been working on a version of the Topol-M that could carry MIRVs — Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles — and that its development was probably "inevitable" after the U.S. withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002 in order to develop a national missile defense.

Pikayev concurred with the missile forces' statement that the RS-24 conforms with terms laid down in the START-I treaty, which is in force, and the 2002 Moscow Treaty, which calls for reductions in each country's nuclear arsenal to 1,700-2,000 warheads.

Ivanov also announced the successful "preliminary" test of an improved tactical cruise missile designed for a mobile Iskander-M launcher, ITAR-Tass reported. Ivanov said last year that Russian ground forces would commission 60 short-range Iskander-M missiles by 2015.

While Ivanov's saber-rattling about missile defense penetration was clearly aimed at the United States — and at Russians who will vote in March for a successor to Putin — he suggested Russia's armament efforts were also aimed to counter a potential treat from the Middle East and Asia.

"We see perfectly how our eastern and southern neighbors here, there and everywhere are acquiring short and medium-range missiles," Ivanov said in televised comments at Kapustin Yar, the southern Russian site where the tactical missiles were tested.

Ivanov said the 1987 Soviet-American treaty limiting such missiles — the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, or INF — is no longer effective because "dozens of countries — many of them along our borders — have acquired them. All of this is a real danger for us, and the consequences can be unpredictable."

He emphasized the need to equip the armed forces with "the most modern, precise weapons" and suggested Russia could arm itself with missiles whose range exceeds the lower limit of 310 miles set in the INF. The ranges of Russia's missiles are "for now within the commitments that Russia has taken upon itself, but I stress: for now," ITAR-Tass quoted him as saying.

Matthew Bunn, a senior research associate at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, said the missile test was "in line with Russia's renewed emphasis in recent years of maintaining their weapons systems after years of decline."

Bunn said he did not think the Russians had planned the test as a reaction to U.S. plans to deploy the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, although they may have worded Tuesday's announcement to make it appear that way.

"I think if anything, the wording of the announcement may have been changed to emphasize the missile's ability to evade defense systems, but the test was probably planned way before," Bunn said.

Andrew Kuchins, director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the test was Russia's way of showing the U.S. and its own people that it was investing more in national security.

"The Russians have been talking about developing and testing new weapons for years now, so this isn't a surprise. They have a very aging nuclear missile structure and this test fits in with a broader trend of upgrading security," said Kuchins.

"After years of spending little on their military, they're now showing us and showing the Russian population that they're paying more attention to defense."

Russia is also embroiled in a dispute with the West over another Soviet-era arms pact, the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.

Putin has announced a moratorium on observance of the treaty and threatened to withdraw altogether if the United States and other NATO members do not ratify an 1999 amended version.

Russia said Monday that it lodged a formal request for a conference among treaty signatories in Vienna next week.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070529/ap_on_...qm5ZOV_ZcOs0NUE

[ABLAT Staff]

Russian missile test adds to arms race fears
Luke Harding in Moscow
Wednesday May 30, 2007
The Guardian

Russia yesterday threatened a new cold war-style arms race with the United States by announcing that it had successfully tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile capable of penetrating American defences.
Russia's hawkish first deputy prime minister, Sergei Ivanov, said the country had tested both a new multiple-warhead intercontinental missile, the RS-24, and an improved version of its short-range Iskander missile.

He said the missiles were capable of destroying enemy systems and added: "As of today Russia has new missiles that are capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defence systems. In terms of defence and security, Russia can look calmly to the country's future."

The missile tests follow months of anger in Moscow over the Bush administration's determination to install parts of a controversial missile defence shield in eastern Europe.
President Vladimir Putin has been incensed by the Pentagon's plans to site missile interceptors and radar shields in Poland and the Czech Republic. The row has contributed to the worst relations between Russia and the west for 20 years.

But as well as confrontational rhetoric from Mr Putin, Russia has also been preparing a secret military response, analysts said yesterday. They said the new RS-24 missile was capable of:

· carrying multiple independent warheads, making it almost impossible to shoot down

· travelling inter-continentally to hit targets thousands of miles away

· using sophisticated navigation systems which allow the warheads to lock on to different targets

Yesterday's launch took place at the Plesetsk cosmodrome in north-west Russia. The missile successfully hit its target 3,400 miles away in far eastern Kamchatka peninsula, on Russia's Pacific coast, the Russian strategic missile forces said.

The statement said the missile would replace two ageing ICBM systems - the RS-18 and RS-20, known in the west as the SS-19 Stiletto and SS-18 Satan, respectively. Separately, an upgraded and more accurate version of the Iskander-M cruise missile, was fired from southern Astrakhan.

Mr Ivanov, a potential successor to Mr Putin next year, hailed both tests as successful. He said Russia now had a "new tactical system and a new strategic system". He also signalled that Russia was preparing to upgrade its nuclear forces.

The treaty between the US and the Soviet Union banning intermediate range nuclear weapons was no longer effective, warned Mr Ivanov, Russia's former defence minister, because it did not apply to Russia's neighbours such as China.

Alexander Pikayev, an arms control expert and senior analyst at the Moscow-based Institute for World Economy and International Relations, said the development of the missile had probably been inevitable after the Bush administration unilaterally withdrew from the Soviet-era anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002, preventing the Start-II treaty from coming into force. The treaty banned missiles with multiple warheads.

The test comes at a time of increased tension between Russia and the west over missiles and other weapons issues.

The Bush administration insists its new missile defence system is aimed at rogue missiles fired by Iran or North Korea. But Russia says the system destroys the strategic balance of forces in Europe and is a direct threat to the country's nuclear arsenal.

"We consider it harmful and dangerous to turn Europe into a powder keg," Mr Putin said yesterday when asked at a news conference with the Portuguese prime minister, Jose Socrates, about the test.

On Monday Russia called for an emergency conference in June on the key Soviet-era conventional forces in Europe treaty, which has been a source of increasing friction between Moscow and Nato.

The call follows last month's statement from Mr Putin in which he declared a moratorium on observing Russia's obligations under the treaty, which limits the number of aircraft, tanks and other non-nuclear heavy weapons around Europe. The treaty was first signed in 1990 and amended in 1999 to reflect changes since the Soviet breakup.

Russia has ratified the amended version, but the US and other Nato members have refused to do so until Moscow withdraws troops from the former Soviet republics of Moldova and Georgia - an issue Moscow says is unrelated.

Mr Putin warned that Russia could dump the treaty altogether if western nations refused to ratify its amended version, and the foreign ministry said on Monday that it had lodged a formal request for a conference among treaty signatories in Vienna, Austria, on June 12-15.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0...91130%2C00.html

[ABLAT Staff]

Putin: U.S. Has Triggered New Arms Race
Thursday , May 31, 2007

MOSCOW —

President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that tests of new Russian missiles were a response to the planned deployment of U.S. missile defense installations and other forces in Europe, suggesting Washington has triggered a new arms race.

In a clear reference to the United States, he harshly criticized "imperialism" in global affairs and warned that Russia will strengthen its military potential to maintain a global strategic balance.

"It wasn't us who initiated a new round of arms race," Putin said when asked about Russia's missile tests this week at a news conference after talks in the Kremlin with Greek President Karolos Papoulias.

Putin described the tests of a new ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads and a new cruise missile as part of the Russian response to the planned deployment of new U.S. military bases and missile defense sites in ex-Soviet satellites in Central and Eastern Europe.

He assailed the United States and other NATO members for failing to ratify an amended version of the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, which limits the deployment of heavy non-nuclear weapons around the continent.

"We have signed and ratified the CFE and are fully implementing it. We have pulled out all our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia to (locations) behind the Ural Mountains and cut our military by 300,000 men," Putin said.

"And what about our partners? They are filling Eastern Europe with new weapons. A new base in Bulgaria, another one in Romania, a (missile defense) site in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic," he said. "What we are supposed to do? We can't just sit back and look at that."

Putin and other Russian officials have repeatedly rejected U.S. assurances that the planned missile defense installations are meant to counter a potential threat from nations such as Iran and pose no danger to Russia.

Putin reaffirmed his warning that Russia would opt out of the CFE treaty altogether if NATO nations fail to ratify its amended version.

"Either you ratify the treaty and start observing it, or we will opt out of it," Putin said.

In remarks clearly directed against Washington, Putin blasted those "who want to dictate their will to all others regardless of international norms and law."

"It's dangerous and harmful," he added. "Norms of the international law were replaced with political expediency. We view it as diktat and imperialism."

Russia this week initiated an international conference to be held in Austria in early June to discuss the situation around the CFE treaty.

Putin described the tests of new missiles conducted by Russia on Tuesday as a necessary response to the Western action.

"There is no reason to fear these actions by Russia, they aren't aggressive. It's merely a response to tough and unfounded unilateral actions by our partners," he said. "These actions are aimed at preserving a global balance."

In one missile test Tuesday, a prototype of new Russia's intercontinental ballistic missile, called the RS-24, was fired from a mobile launcher at the Plesetsk launch site in northwestern Russia and its test warhead landed on target 3,400 miles away on the Far Eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, officials said. Russia's military also tested a new cruise missile based on the existing short-range Iskander missile.

"We will keep modernizing our potential," Putin said.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_st...,276721,00.html

[ABLAT Staff]

Rice: Russian Attitudes Locked In Past
Rice Says Russia Should Drop Cold War Mentality, Puzzled By Dispute Over Missiles

(AP) Russian attitudes are locked in the past, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday, adding that the United States is perplexed by the current fracas with Russia over a planned U.S. missile system in Europe.

"We want a 21st Century partnership with Russia, but at times, Russia seems to think and act in the zero-sum terms of another era," Rice said, referring to the suspicions and territorial ambitions of the Cold War.

The top U.S. diplomat spoke as U.S. relations with its old Cold War foe have hit a modern low. The United States is at odds with Moscow over matters inside and outside Russia's borders. The missile dispute pushed the simmering problems and resentments into a hot zone this spring, with Russian President Vladimir Putin seeming to liken President Bush's foreign policy to that of Germany's Third Reich and generals and diplomats talking darkly of a new Cold War.

Rice had a brittle exchange with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov over the missile plan on Wednesday, but sought Thursday to put the dispute in a more academic, historical context.

The West wants a strong Russia, but strong by modern democratic measures, Rice said in an address accepting an award for promoting better U.S.-German relations. The award, and the setting in the city where Josef Stalin met Harry Truman in 1945, evoked both the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Rice's remarks referred to a laundry list of U.S. complaints about post-Soviet Russia, including democratic retrenchment under Putin.

"Democratic institutions and an open society are not a source of weakness," Rice said. "Nor is freedom of speech and freedom of the press just a nuisance."

She said the United States will respect Russia and air differences honorably.

"In this regard we find Russia's recent missile diplomacy difficult to understand," Rice said.

Putin said Thursday that tests of new Russian missiles were a response to the planned deployment of U.S. missile defense installations and other forces in Europe.

In a clear reference to the United States, he harshly criticized "imperialism" in global affairs and warned that Russia will strengthen its military potential to maintain a global strategic balance.

"It wasn't us who initiated a new round of arms race," Putin said when asked about Russia's missile tests at a news conference after talks in the Kremlin with Greek President Karolos Papoulias.

Putin and other Russian officials have repeatedly rejected U.S. assurances that the planned missile defense installations in Poland and the Czech Republic are meant to counter a potential threat from nations such as Iran and pose no danger to Russia.

Putin described Tuesday's tests of a new ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple nuclear warheads and a new cruise missile as part of the Russian response to the planned deployment of new U.S. military bases and missile defense sites in ex-Soviet satellites in Central and Eastern Europe.

Earlier Thursday, Rice held the hard U.S. line against concessions to Iran over its nuclear program and renewed a conditional offer to talk to the clerical regime on any subject.

Asked if it is time to change tactics in the world's nuclear standoff with Iran, Rice ruled out the idea of dropping a key precondition.

"I think it's time for Iran to change its tactics," Rice said.

Iran also refused to budge as talks began Thursday between Iran's chief international negotiator and the European Union's senior foreign policy official.

There is increasing sentiment in Europe that world powers trying to engage Iran should drop the demand that Iran halt, or suspend in diplomatic parlance, disputed nuclear activities before bargaining on a package of incentives could begin.

"The international community is united on what Iran should do, which is to suspend; to demonstrate that it is in fact not seeking a nuclear eapon under cover of civilian nuclear power," Rice said.

She spoke during a press conference with Austria's foreign minister, a year to the day after she made a dramatic outreach to longtime adversary Iran. The offer to talk "anytime, any place," was intended to inject new life into an ebbing European diplomatic effort to turn back Iran's advancing nuclear program.

"I think the question isn't why won't we talk to Tehran," she said. "The question is why doesn't Tehran want to talk to us."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/31/...in2872899.shtml

[ABLAT Staff]

New Russian missile R-500 to destroy any US defense system

30.05.2007 Source: URL: http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/92...missile_R_500-0

Russia successfully tested new missile R-500, the capacity of which allows to destroy any defense system including most recent perspective ballistic missile defense systems.

R-500 tests are to be finished in 2008, whereas in 2009 these missiles will be used to equip the Iskander tactical missile systems.

The tests of the new missile took place at the Kapustin Yar site in the Astrakhan Region of Russia. First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said that R-500 was a high-accuracy missile, capable of destroying ballistic missile defense systems and air defense systems. Ivanov also said that “these tests were preliminary and it is very pleasant to realize that they were successful”.

The flight of R-500 lasted for 24 minutes. Reporters observe the launch from the distance of six kilometers. The missile reached the height of 100 meters about three minutes after the launch and developed the speed of 250 meters a second. Having passed the half of its way the missile began to descend. The deviation was only 30 meters in spite of the wind and hot weather.

The ICBM , called the RS-24, was fired from a mobile launcher at the Plesetsk launch site in northwestern Russia earlier. Its test warhead landed on target some 3, 400 miles away on the Far Eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, the Strategic Missile Forces said in a statement.

Ivanov said the missile was a new version of the Topol-M , first commissioned in 1997 and known as the SS-27 in the West, but one that can carry multiple independent warheads Existing Topol-M missiles are capable of hitting targets more than 6, 000 miles away.

While Ivanov's saber-rattling about missile defense penetration was clearly aimed at the United States - and at Russians who will vote in March for a successor to Putin - he suggested Russia's armament efforts were also aimed to counter a potential threat from the Middle East and Asia.

Translated by Alexander Timoshik
Pravda.ru

http://english.pravda.ru/russia/kremlin/30...missile_R_500-0

[ABLAT Staff]

Russia tests new intercontinental ballistic missile at time of rising tensions with West
JIM HEINTZ, Associated Press Writer

May 29, 2007 9:55 AM

MOSCOW (AP) - Russia on Tuesday test-launched a new intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple independent warheads, and a top government official said it could penetrate any defense system, a news agency reported.

The new missile would modernize Russia's stockpile at a time of rising tensions with the West.

The ICBM was fired from a mobile launcher at the Plesetsk launch site in northwestern Russia, and its test warhead landed on target about 3,400 miles away on the Far Eastern Kamchatka Peninsula, a statement from the Russian Strategic Missile Forces said.

President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said Russia would continue to improve its nuclear weapons systems and respond to U.S. plans to deploy a missile defense system in Europe.

First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said the ICBM, as well as a tactical cruise missile that also was tested Tuesday, can penetrate any missile defense system, Russian news agencies reported.

''As of today, Russia has new (missiles) that are capable of overcoming any existing or future missile defense systems,'' ITAR-Tass quoted Ivanov as saying. ''So in terms of defense and security, Russian can look calmly to the country's future.''

Ivanov is a former defense minister seen as a potential candidate to succeed Putin in elections next year.



The ICBM, called the RS-24, is seen as eventually replacing the aging RS-18s and RS-20s that are the backbone of Russia's missile forces, the statement said. Those missiles are known in the West as the SS-19 Stiletto and the SS-18 Satan.

The statement said the RS-24 conforms with terms laid down in the START-I treaty and the 2002 Moscow Treaty, which calls for reductions in each country's nuclear arsenal to 1,700-2,000 warheads.

The RS-24 ''strengthens the capability of the attack groups of the Strategic Missile Forces by surmounting anti-missile defense systems, at the same time strengthening the potential for nuclear deterrence,'' the statement said.

The statement did not specify how many warheads the missile can carry.

Ivanov said the missile was a new version of the Topol-M, first known as the SS-27 in the West, but one that that can carry multiple independent warheads, ITAR-Tass reported.

The first Topol-Ms were commissioned in 1997, but deployment has proceeded slower than planned because of a shortage of funds, and aging Soviet-built ballistic missiles remain the backbone of Russia's nuclear forces. Existing Topol-M missiles are capable of hitting targets more than 6,000 miles away.

Alexander Golts, a respected military analyst with the Yezhenedelny Zhurnal online publication, expressed surprise at the announcement. ''It seems to be a brand new missile. It's either a decoy or something that has been developed in complete secrecy,'' he told The Associated Press.

The new missile would probably be more capable of penetrating missile defense systems than previous models, according to Alexander Pikayev, a senior analyst at the Moscow-based Institute for World Economy and International Relations.

He said its development was probably ''inevitable'' after the U.S. withdrew from the Soviet-era Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in 2002 in order to deploy a national missile defense shield.

Russia adamantly opposes U.S. efforts to deploy elements of a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The United States says the system is aimed at blocking possible attacks by countries such as North Korea and Iran, but Russia says the system would destroy the strategic balance of forces in Europe.

Russia's military chief of staff has suggested repeatedly that Russia would regard elements of the system as potential targets.

Asked about the controversy Tuesday at a news conference with Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates, Putin said, ''We consider it harmful and dangerous to turn Europe into a powder keg.''

On Monday, Russia called for an emergency conference next month on a key Soviet-era arms control treaty that has been a source of increasing friction between Moscow and NATO.

The call for a conference on the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty follows last month's statement from Putin declaring a moratorium on observing Russia's obligations under the treaty.

The treaty, which limits the number of aircraft, tanks and other non-nuclear heavy weapons around Europe, was first signed in 1990 and then amended in 1999 to reflect changes since the Soviet breakup. Russia has ratified the amended version, but the United States and other NATO members have refused to do so until Moscow withdraws troops from the former Soviet republics of Moldova and Georgia - an issue Moscow says is unrelated.

Putin warned that Russia could dump the treaty altogether if Western nations refuse to ratify its amended version, and the Foreign Ministry said Monday that it lodged a formal request for a conference among treaty signatories in Vienna, Austria, on June 12-15.

AP-WS-05-29-07 1246EDT

http://www.newspress.com/Top/Article/artic...024461548815697

[ABLAT Staff]

Putin: U.S. Missile Defense Plans Would Force Russia to Target Europe
Sunday , June 03, 2007

ROME —

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe would force Moscow to target its weapons against Europe.

The threat, in an interview published Sunday in Italy's Corriere della Sera and other foreign media, marked one of Putin's most strident statements to date against the U.S. plans and came just days before he is to join President Bush and other leaders at a Group of Eight summit in Germany.

In the interview, Putin was asked whether the proposed missile defense shield would compel Moscow to direct its own missiles at locations and U.S. military sites in Europe, as during the Cold War.

"If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we have to give ourselves new targets in Europe," Putin said, according to Corriere. "It is up to our military to define these targets, in addition to defining the choice between ballistic and cruise missiles."

Russia has not overtly targeted Europe since agreeing after the fall of the Soviet Union not to direct missiles against specific countries, according to Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent military analyst based in Moscow. He added however, that that was simple technical matter, since a missile can be given a target within minutes.

Previously, some Russian military officials have said Moscow could aim Russian weapons at Europe-based missile systems.

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek accused Russia on Sunday of misleading the public about the planned missile defense bases in the Czech Republic and Poland to hide Russia's internal problems.

"Russia needs an outside enemy to hide problems at home," Topolanek said.

The White House had no comment Sunday on Putin's new warning, referring instead to the comments of National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, who was questioned Friday about the missile defense shield in advance of the G-8 summit.

"Of course the deployment that we're talking about in Europe is not about Russia at all," Hadley said. "It's not aimed at Russia. ... It's a very limited capability about other states, like Iran, who are developing ballistic missiles and potentially the weapons of mass destruction that those missiles could deliver."

The Polish president insisted the missile shield was purely "to prevent attacks, neutralize their effects."

"But I don't wonder at Russian present tactics because the issue is whether the Russian state .... will regain influence or not," Poland's President Lech Kaczynski told Polish reporters in Rome.

The United States made a formal request in January to place a radar base in a military area southwest of Prague, Czech Republic, and 10 interceptor missiles in neighboring Poland as part of plans for a missile defense shield that Washington says would protect against a potential threat from Iran.

The U.S. plans have brought a strong reaction from Russia, which accuses the United States of threatening Russian territory and of trying to start a new arms race.

Putin was interviewed Friday at his dacha by journalists from each of the G-8 countries, Corriere said.

The three-day summit, Wednesday to Friday at the Baltic Sea resort of Heiligendamm, will bring together leaders of the United States, Britain, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, and Japan.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_st...,277492,00.html

[ABLAT Staff]

Bush heads to Europe for G-8 summit

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer
13 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Sharp differences between the United States and Russia over President Bush's plan to build a missile defense system on Moscow's doorstep are likely to dominate talk during Bush's European tour.

ADVERTISEMENT

Bush, who left Monday at the start of an eight-day trip to the G-8 summit of industrialized nations and visits to half a dozen countries, will see President Vladimir Putin at the summit in Germany later this week. It likely will be a difficult talk; relations between Washington and Moscow are strained almost to the breaking point, and Putin has been harshly critical of U.S. foreign policy.

Bush's message in advance of the trip has been to calm down, reminding Russia that "the Cold War is over." As if to drive home that point, Bush was bookending his summit stay with calls on the Czech Republic and Poland, former Soviet satellites where he wants to base major parts of the new defense shield.

Diplomatic niceties aside, Bush's strategic defense plan could hardly be seen as anything less than a poke in the eye to Putin.

"This is a distinctive message that is as easily understandable in Russian as it is in English," said Simon Serfaty, a senior adviser to the Europe program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The message is that we're going to do what we're going to do, and your concerns about the deployment of some marginal capabilities designed for defense purposes in Central Europe are not going to impress me."

Speaking to foreign reporters before he travels to Germany for the summit, Putin warned that Moscow could take "retaliatory steps" if Washington goes forward with the missile plan, including possibly aiming nuclear weapons at targets in Europe.

Putin said neither Iran nor North Korea have the rockets the American system is intended to shoot down, suggesting the system would be used instead against Russia.

Besides the Czech Republic, Germany and Poland, Bush also has Italy, Albania and Bulgaria on his travel itinerary. He has meetings planned with at least 15 foreign leaders, plus the Pope, and his schedule isn't final yet.

But the spat with Putin is front and center.

U.S. officials have insisted — publicly and to Putin personally — that the system planned for Eastern Europe is meant to protect NATO allies against a missile launch from Iran, which the West suspects of trying to develop nuclear weapons. Moscow isn't buying it, insisting the system must be aimed at Russia and accusing Washington of touching off a new arms race.

Saying it is now forced to strengthen its military potential, Russia test-fired new missiles and declared a moratorium on observing its obligations under a key Soviet-era arms control treaty. Putin assailed "imperialism" in global affairs, saying the shield would turn Europe into a "powder keg" and accusing the U.S. of "an almost uncontained hyper use of force."

Arguments about the missile defense plan came on top of Washington worries about backsliding on democracy under Putin's leadership — even as the U.S. courts Russia's assistance in curtailing Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programs. Putin, meanwhile, is increasingly riled over what he views as U.S. meddling in his backyard.

To settle things down, Bush has invited the Russian leader for an unprecedented stay at his family's summer compound on the Maine coast in July. But he also is hosting Estonia's president at the White House the week before. Like the Czech and Polish stops, this meeting will not please the Russians, angry with Estonia for moving a memorial to Soviet soldiers killed during World War II.

"The Cold War is over," Bush told foreign reporters before the trip. "We're now into the 21st century." He called the Washington-Moscow relationship "complex" — a term previously used mostly to describe the U.S.'s tricky ties with China.

This sort of strategic travel-planning isn't new for Bush.

The president agreed to attend Putin's Red Square celebration in May 2005 of the 60th anniversary of WWII's end. But he started that trip in Latvia and ended it in Georgia, both ex-Soviet republics that the president used as backdrops for rhetoric on the power of democracy.

Later that year, Bush made a state visit to communist China. But first he delivered a pointed speech in Japan that amounted to a lecture for Beijing to increase political and economic freedoms. And he flew directly from China to Mongolia, the first Asian nation to discard communism in favor of democracy.

Other presidents have done it, too.

When President Nixon traveled to Moscow in 1972, for instance, he made counterweight stops in Poland and Iran.

"It has some benefit in trying to demonstrate to people who might be critical of policies that there's a broader set of initiatives being pursued, often to critics back home," said Stephen Sestanovich, senior fellow for Russian studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Lavishing attention on smaller countries facing pressure from their more powerful neighbors can back up Bush's promise to predicate U.S. relations with all nations on their treatment of their citizens, and to advance democracy in every corner of the globe. At the Radio Free Europe building in Prague on Tuesday, the president is delivering a speech on the importance of supporting democratic aspirations and meeting with current and former dissidents from around the world.

"When he goes to NATO or he visits a major industrialized country, he goes out of his way to go to the Baltics or to some part of the former Soviet Union to sort of send a message that we're behind this agenda," said Charles Kupchan, director of Europe studies for the Council on Foreign Relations. "I think it really does make a difference."

For Bush, unpopular at home and in much of the world, it also offers photographic proof he still is revered in some places.

In the impoverished, struggling young democracy of Georgia, for instance, the main road from Tblisi's downtown to the airport has been called George W. Bush Avenue since his visit.

"There are countries that tire of having Air Force One touch down," Sestanovich said. "But very small countries that rarely get the treatment can respond in very positive ways. And presidents who aren't used to that kind of adulation at home anymore sometimes find it invigorating."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/ap_on_...lDKEeEJuN_MWM0F

[ABLAT Staff]

From The Times

June 4, 2007

Putin raises spectre of nuclear war in Europe
Bronwen Maddox in Moscow

President Putin has warned the US that its deployment of a new anti-missile network across Eastern Europe would prompt Russia to point its own missiles at European targets and could trigger nuclear war.

In an exclusive interview with The Times, the Russian leader says: “It is obvious that if part of the strategic nuclear potential of the US is located in Europe and will be threatening us, we will have to respond.

“This system of missile defence on one side and the absence of this system on the other . . . increases the possibility of unleashing a nuclear conflict.”

Russia has been alarmed at America’s plans to install a network of defences in Eastern Europe to shoot down incoming missiles it fears that Iran might launch.

Mr Putin expressed scepticism of this motive, arguing that “There are no such missiles – Iran does not have missiles with the range”. The US was insisting, he said, that the defence system was to be “installed for the protection from something that does not exist. Is it not sort of funny? It would be funny if it were not so sad.”

He speculated that the US’s real motive was to provoke Russia’s retaliation and so “to avoid further closeness of Russia and Europe”.

Mr Putin’s tough warning comes days before the start of the G8 meeting of the world’s most powerful industrialised economies.

His uncompromising stand on America’s missile defence, Kosovo, Iran and climate change was partly blamed for the failure of last month’s summit between Russia and the European Union.

Mr Putin had warm words for the “cordial reception” that Tony Blair had given him, and for Gordon Brown, “a high-class specialist”. But he offered little room for compromise on Britain’s request for the extradition of Andrei Lugovoy, the former intelligence officer, wanted on charges of the murder of dissident former agent Alexander Litvinenko by radioactive poisoning in London.

“No matter from what angle we look at this problem, it’s all stupid, stupid nonsense”, he said of Britain’s extradition request. “I will not see any single positive component. It’s complete nonsense.”

Russian authorities were investigating the case and if enough evidence were found, the case would “certainly be sent to court”, he said. In theory, he added, “there are possible circumstances” in which Russia would comply with the extradition “but it would require an amendment to the Constitution.”

But Britain had not provided justification for such a dramatic move, he said. If heads of British law enforcement agencies “did not know that the constitution prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens to foreign states then their competence is questionable” and “they should work for parliament or newspapers” because the request was at heart “only a political public relations step”.

He also gave no quarter on the cases of Shell and BP, the British oil giants, who have recently seen the terms of their investments in Russia rewritten because of alleged breaches of their licences.

Mr Putin insisted that he wants “cooperation not confrontation”, repeatedly blaming the US for its intransigence. But of all the potential clashes at the G8 meeting, which begins on Wednesday in Germany, it is his warnings on Russian retaliation to the US missile defence plans that are likely to cause the greatest friction.

He called on “our American friends to rethink their decision” and warned that ”We cannot be responsible for our reciprocal steps because it is not us who are initiating an arms race in Europe”.

He added: “We will need to establish such systems which would be able to penetrate the [US] missile defence systems. . . What kind of means will be used to hit the targets that our military believe are potential threats – ballistic missiles, or cruise missiles, or some kind of new weapons system?

Mr Putin threatened that in retaliation, Russia might stop complying with agreements to reduce conventional forces.

“We have brought all our heavy weapons beyond the Urals and reduced our military forces by 300,000. But what do we have in return? we see that Eastern Europe is being filled with new equipment, two positions in Bulgaria and Romania, as well as radar in the Czech Republic, and missile systems in Poland. What is happening? Unilateral disarmament of Russia is happening.”

He also warned that Russia might quit a treaty with the US to cut stocks of intermediate range missiles because so many other countries were racing to develop these weapons.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1878730.ece

[ABLAT Staff]

Bush to Putin: Relax, the Cold War Is Over
Tuesday , June 05, 2007

Memo to Vladimir Putin: The Cold War is over.

President Bush gave the Russian president a firm response Tuesday to his remarks that Moscow would take "retaliatory steps" if the U.S. went ahead with plans to build a missile defense system in Europe.

"Russia is not the enemy," Bush said after meeting with Czech President Vaclav Klaus and Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek. "The Cold War is over. It ended."

Despite frostier relations with the man whom Bush once felt so chummy with that he nicknamed him "Pootie-Poot," the president offered an olive branch to the Kremlin — one he says he will deliver personally to Putin later this week on the sidelines of the Group of Eight summit in Germany.

"My message will be: 'Vladimir — I call him Vladimir — you shouldn't fear a missile defense system. As a matter of fact, why don't you cooperate with us on a missile defense system?"' Bush said.

Bush said the system would be coordinated with NATO. He said he would urge Putin to participate. "Please send your generals over to see how such a system would work. Send your scientists," Bush said.

U.S. experts contend the shield poses no threat to Russia because the missiles involved would be purely defensive and incapable of being fitted with warheads.

The president appeared with his hosts in a high-ceilinged hall of Prague Castle. The Czech president said it was significant that Bush promised to make "maximum efforts" to explain his position to Putin.

"We have pointed it out to our guest that it is very important that we win maximum support for this project of the Czech Republic who are very sensitive to those issues," Klaus said. "I suppose this is what President Bush clearly realizes."

Topolanek endorsed the plan as well.

The White House has billed a speech Bush will deliver on democracy at Czernin Palace as the highlight of his visit. Bush was invited to make the speech as part of a conference on democracy hosted by Natan Sharansky, a former prisoner of the Soviet regime who has continued to champion freedom, and former Czech President Vaclav Havel, who led the Velvet Revolution that ended communism in the former Czechoslovakia in 1989. The president also plans to meet with current and former dissidents from around the world.

From Prague, Bush will travel to Germany's Baltic Sea resort town of Heiligendamm for three days of meetings between the leaders of the world's eight major industrialized democracies. The rest of his eight-day European trip was to include a stop in Poland — also a proposed site for part of the missile defense system — as well as visits to Italy, Albania and Bulgaria.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_st...,278053,00.html

[ABLAT Staff]

Bush defends missile defense shield

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

PRAGUE, Czech Republic - President Bush and the Czech Republic's leaders on Tuesday defended plans to base part of a U.S. missile shield here despite fierce opposition from Russia.

"The people of the Czech Republic don't have to choose between being a friend of the United States or a friend with Russia," Bush said in his stop at this former Soviet satellite. "You can be both. We don't believe in a zero-sum world."

Bush, in the Czech Republic as part of an eight-day trip to Europe, spoke as Russia's opposition to the proposed defense system mounts. Russia believes the shield in Eastern Europe is meant for it, and says it has no choice to boost its own military potential in response.

Bush dismissed those concerns. He said he will make his case directly to Russian President Vladimir Putin later this week on the sidelines of the Group of Eight summit.

"My message will be Vladimir — I call him Vladimir — that you shouldn't fear a missile defense system," Bush said. "As a matter of fact, why don't you cooperate with us on a missile defense system. Why don't you participate with the United States."

The Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, said it was significant that Bush promised to make "maximum efforts" to explain his position to Putin.

"We have pointed it out to our guest that it is very important that we win maximum support for this project of the Czech Republic who are very sensitive to those issues," Klaus said. "I suppose this is what President Bush clearly realizes."

Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek endorsed the plan as well.

China joined Russia on Tuesday in criticizing the U.S. plan, saying the anti-missile system could set off an arms race. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said the proposal "is not conducive to mutual trust of major nations and regional security."

Most Czechs aren't happy about the proposal for a U.S. anti-missile radar base to be built at the Brdy military zone southwest of their capital. Recent polls here show more than 60 percent of the public in opposition.

Bush appeared with his hosts in a high-ceilinged hall of Prague Castle. Although the event was billed as a press conference, the three leaders took no questions.

Despite Bush's declaration that the Cold War is over, the international debate over the missile defense system likely will drown out everything else during his stay in Prague.

The White House has billed a speech Bush will deliver on democracy at Czernin Palace as the highlight of his visit here. His Czech counterparts expressed some complaints, such as a two-tiered visa system for European nations that leaves their citizens out in the cold.

Bush acknowledged those concerns, and pledged to work with Congress on a remedy.

Earlier, he was welcomed to an arrival ceremony at the Prague Castle courtyard, with a military band playing anthems and troops in pale-blue uniforms marching in formation.

Czech leaders have brushed off Russia's objections to the defense shield.

Most Czech citizens, though, worry about Russian threats to embark on a new arms race in response, and they fear that the installation could make the tiny country a terrorist target.

In Prague last weekend, more than 1,000 people protested the plan. Demonstrators planned to show their displeasure again Tuesday outside medieval Prague Castle.

Over the weekend, Putin stepped up already incendiary remarks about the U.S. and its intentions with the shield, warning that Moscow could take "retaliatory steps" including aiming nuclear weapons at U.S. military bases in Europe.

Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, called this sort of talk "not helpful."

Still, he, the president and other U.S. officials have sought to cool down the situation — to no avail. They insist the network is meant to protect NATO allies against a missile launch from Iran, not Russia.

The president's speech in Prague could stoke the fires further.

As part of taking stock of "the freedom agenda," Bush plans to mention Russia as a difficult area, Hadley told reporters traveling Monday with Bush to Europe on Air Force One.

"He'll talk a little bit about the challenge of promoting democracy in countries, big countries in particular, where we have a complex relationship and a number of interests, places like China and Russia," Hadley said.

He said the speech was not aimed at Russia, and that Bush would handle that bit of it "in a very responsible way."

Still, the remarks were not likely to be well-received by Putin.

With the Iraq war raging and that country in disarray, some criticized Bush's effort to refocus attention on his "freedom agenda" — the byproduct of the president's promise to predicate U.S. relations with all nations on their treatment of their citizens and to advance democracy in every corner of the globe.

Bush's message is typically better received in small, newer democracies. The Czech Republic, for instance, has deployed troops to help support the U.S.-led campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush was invited to make the speech as part of a conference on democracy hosted by Natan Sharansky, a former prisoner of the Soviet regime who has continued to champion freedom, and former Czech President Vaclav Havel, who led the Velvet Revolution that ended communism in the former Czechoslovakia in 1989. The president also plans to meet with current and former dissidents from around the world.

From Prague, Bush was to travel to Germany's Baltic Sea resort town of Heiligendamm for three days of meetings between the leaders of the world's eight major industrialized democracies. The rest of his eight-day European trip was to include a stop in Poland — also a proposed site for part of the missile defense system — as well as visits to Italy, Albania and Bulgaria.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070605/ap_on_...Eog1q2RObys0NUE

[ABLAT Staff]

The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com

Putin's menacing behavior
Published June 6, 2007

Much is on the table at the Group of Eight (G-8) Summit, which opens today in Germany, but casting a shadow over the official agenda are simmering tensions and worsening relations between Russia and the West. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seemed to win an agreement from Russian officials last month to tone down the rhetoric. But the agreement hasn't stuck. Just last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin played host to Western journalists and grabbed headlines with menacing speculation about pointing Russian missiles at Europe. Mr. Putin then deflected questions about his domestic policies with the claim that: "I am an absolutely pure democrat. The real tragedy is that I am the only one. Elsewhere in the world there just aren't any others." So absurd is the claim that it comes off as nothing more than a bungled barb.
The jab was most likely a soundbite for domestic consumption. The Bush administration has reminded Mr. Putin on many occasions that the Cold War has ended, but his remarks still play well with many Russians. Mr. Putin is concerned with the fate of his system after he formally leaves the presidency, and filtering these comments through the state-regulated media, which usually fails to report the more tempered rebuttals, has its advantages for him.
In response to the proposed U.S. missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, Mr. Putin said that Russia would "have to get new targets in Europe." The threat carries more rhetorical than military weight, since modern missiles can be targeted and re-targeted quickly. Russia made a more menacing gesture last week when it tested a new intercontinental ballistic missile that Kremlin officials suggestively announced could penetrate any missile defense system.
As planned, the missile interceptors are nothing for Russia to worry about, and senior Russian military officials have acknowledged that the system would not be a deterrent. Mr. Putin's overreaction has twofold significance: First, Russia is distrustful of U.S. assurances and expects that the proposed system is nothing more than a foothold from which U.S. presence will expand. Second, he is trying to send the message to Washington to stay out of what Russia still regards as a region where it is entitled to special influence.
Washington has done well to stay above acrimonious recriminations, but there is much room for the United States and its European allies to toughen what has been, with few exceptions, a largely circumspect and gentle approach to Mr. Putin's government. Mr. Bush's visit to Poland and the Czech Republic shows that kind of firmness. So does Britain's demand that Russia extradite a former FSB agent indicted in the poisoning death of one of his former associates in London.
Two new leaders in the G-8, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the summit's host, share U.S. concerns about the clear trend in Russia's foreign policy and Mr. Putin's domestic agenda. The current consensus going into the G-8 summit presents the opportunity to take a collectively firmer line against Russia.

http://www.washtimes.com/functions/print.p...05-092645-4384r

[ABLAT Staff]

Bush: Russia Won't Attack Europe

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

HEILIGENDAMM, Germany — President Bush on Wednesday discounted Vladimir Putin's threat to retarget missiles on Europe, saying "Russia's not going to attack Europe."

Bush, in an interview with The Associated Press and other reporters, said no U.S. military response was required after Putin warned that Russia would take steps in response to a U.S. missile shield that would be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic.

"Russia is not an enemy," Bush said, seeking not to inflame a heated exchange of rhetoric between Washington and Moscow. "There needs to be no military response because we're not at war with Russia. ... Russia is not a threat. Nor is the missile defense we're proposing a threat to Russia."

Bush spoke before heading off to lunch with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is hosting the annual meeting of the world's seven richest industrial democracies and Russia. Merkel has made global warming the centerpiece of her G-8 leadership and is pushing for specific targets for reducing carbon emissions.

The meeting is being held under tight security on the Baltic Sea coast in northern Germany. Police used water cannons to scatter an estimated 10,000 demonstrators who swarmed a seven-mile fence that encircles the site. At one section, hundreds of protesters chanted "Peace" and "Free G-8! Free G-8!"

Bush, who met with reporters for nearly an hour in a sun-drenched garden, also discussed Iran, the suffering in Darfur, global warming and this week's sentencing of a former White House aide.

The president said he would like to see other countries follow the United States in taking steps against the government of Sudan to stop the misery in Darfur.

"I'm frustrated because there are still people suffering and the U.N. process is moving at a snail's pace," Bush said.

Bush announced tighter U.S. sanctions on Sudan last week. He also is seeking a U.N. resolution to apply new international sanctions against the Sudanese government.

On climate change, Bush said he would not give ground on global warming proposals that would require mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, he backed his own idea for the United States and other nations that spew the most greenhouse gases to meet and — by the end of next year — set a long-term strategy for reducing emissions.

Merkel has proposed a "two-degree" target, under which global temperatures would be allowed to increase no more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, before being brought back down. Practically, experts have said that means a global reduction in emissions of 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Merkel supports a global carbon-trading market as one tool.

But Bush wants to bring India, China and other fast-growing countries to the negotiation table. He envisions that each country will set their own goals, and decide whether they should be binding. The president said his plan addresses "life after" 2012, the expiration date for the Kyoto Protocol, which the United States has not endorsed.

Merkel put a good face on her talk with Bush about issues such as combatting poverty in Africa. But their debate on global warming seems unlikely to produce the kind of hard targets she and others have advocated. "We started here on a very good footing," she said.

Bush also met with Japan's new prime minister Shinzo Abe and discussed North Korea's pledge to close its sole nuclear reactor in exchange for economic aid and political concessions. "There is a common message here and that is: We expect North Korea to honor agreements," Bush said.

While North Korea topped Bush's talks with Abe, and hers with other leaders before the evening's official opening of the summit, the president's plan to deploy an anti-missile radar system in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland is likely to be a key topic in Bush's meeting Thursday with Putin.

Asked if he anticipated a tense encounter, Bush replied "Could be. I don't think so ... I'll work to see that it's not a tense meeting."

Putin has accused the U.S. of starting a new arms race and said if the U.S. pressed ahead with its plan, Russia would revert to targeting its missiles on Europe as it did during the Cold War. China joined Russia in saying the missile defense plan could touch off a new escalation in nuclear weapons.

The move to put the missile defense shield in former Warsaw Pact nations — purportedly as a defense against a future missile launch from Iran — clearly fanned Putin's anger.

Bush cited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declaration that it was "too late" to stop Iran's nuclear program as justification for the U.S. missile defense system. "Therefore, let's build a missile defense system," Bush said, adding that it was time to return to the U.N. Security Council to tighten pressure on Iran to give up its suspected weapons program.

Bush also has angered Putin in the past by criticizing Russia's spotty progress on democratic reform and human rights — a theme Bush expressed in a speech just one day ago. Bush said that despite all the problems, the United States has a friendship with Russia. He suggested Putin's recent rhetoric could be calculated mostly for internal political consumption in Russia.

"There will be disagreements," said Bush, who has invited Putin to meet him in July in Kennebunkport, Maine, the home of his father, former President George H.W. Bush. "That's the way life works."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278473,00.html

[ABLAT Staff]

Bush preps to face Russia at G-8
President: U.S. missile system not an issue 'to be hyperventilating about'
The Associated Press
Updated: 7:40 a.m. MT June 7, 2007

HEILIGENDAMM, Germany - President Bush said he hoped to convince Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday that their dispute over a U.S. missile defense system is not an issue either side should “be hyperventilating about.”

Bush and Putin were holding talks Thursday afternoon on the sidelines of the Group of Eight summit — their first meeting since a clash over U.S. plans for a missile defense system in eastern Europe flared into Cold War-style rhetoric.

Bush said he would try to ease Russia’s concerns about the shield and convince him the intention is to block missiles from Iran — not Russia, which has a huge arsenal of nuclear rockets that the system would not be capable of deterring.

“A missile defense system cannot stop multilaunch regimes. ... The fact is that you can’t stop two, three, four, five missiles,” Bush said after a meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

“Russia is not a threat,” Bush said. “They’re not a military threat. They’re not something that we ought to be hyperventilating about. What we ought to be doing is figuring out ways to work together.”

But Moscow has dismissed that as an “insufficient” explanation. Putin warned earlier this week that a new shield could require Russia to retarget missiles toward Europe or take other buildup measures, and a Kremlin spokesman promised “uncomfortable consequences” if the shield is deployed.

But, spokesman Dmitry Peskov added, “Russia is the last country in this world who is thinking about confrontation or starting another Cold War.”

There are other items on the U.S.-Russia disagreement list, notably Russia’s unhappiness with U.S. support for independence for the breakaway Serbian province of Kosovo. Russia bristles at what it sees as U.S. meddling in its traditional sphere of influence.

Bush this week put Russia on a par with China, calling U.S.-Russian ties “complex” and criticizing democracy as having being “derailed” under Putin. The remarks carried extra sting because they were delivered publicly and in the Czech Republic. The NATO membership of the former Soviet satellite, which threw off communism in 1989, along with others, is a thorn in Russia’s side.

‘This summit isn’t about disagreements ...’
However, Moscow has shown more willingness of late to help the West take on Iran over its nuclear program, and Russian officials said the open hostility was part of a constructive relationship.

“This summit isn’t about disagreements between Russia and the rest of the G-8 members,” Peskov said late Wednesday, adding that he hoped for “an open and sincere exchange of views” between Bush and Putin.

Putin next month will become the first world leader during Bush’s presidency to come to the Bush family’s summer compound on the Maine coast. The two — once so close in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — last met in November, in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Blair, too, is scheduled to meet Putin privately. He is expected to speak to Putin about Russia’s worsening relations with the U.S. and Europe, as well as the case of an ex-Soviet spy poisoned in Britain.

Britain’s relations with Russia have soured considerably over the November poisoning death of ex-Soviet agent Alexander Litvinenko, a fierce Kremlin critic who pointed the finger at Putin from his deathbed.

Britain has requested the extradition from Russia of Andrei Lugovoi, the only named suspect in Litvinenko’s murder — a request Putin characterized as “stupidity.”

The Kremlin warned Britain against “politicizing” the Litvinenko case.

Meanwhile, Litvinenko’s widow, Marina, urged world leaders to press Putin about the source of the polonium-210 that poisoned him. It is widely believed that around 90 percent of the world’s supply of polonium comes from a single Russian laboratory.

Focusing on climage change
Blair had held out hope that he could bridge an impasse between the United States and some other countries over setting specific targets at the meeting for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions thought to cause global warming. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as summit host, is pushing for binding targets.


But Bush stuck to his view that specific targets would not be the result of this week’s summit, also attended by other European leaders, as well as those from Canada, Japan and Russia.

“Nothing’s going to happen in terms of substantial reductions unless China and India participate,” the president said.

‘Enough is enough on Darfur’

For his part, Bush sought to give some momentum for his hope to bring allies along in support of tougher action against the government of Sudan over the crisis in its Darfur region. Bush announced new U.S. penalties against Sudan last week, but he also wants backing for a U.N. resolution to add pressure on the Sudanese government to allow a U.N. peacekeeping force.

“I’m frustrated that the international organization can’t move quickly enough,” Bush said. “I don’t know how long it’s going to take for people to hear the call to save lives. ... Enough is enough on Darfur.”

The president indulged wistful thoughts about this month’s departure of Blair, for years his closest foreign ally. “It’s a nostalgic moment for me,” Bush said, the Baltic Sea shimmering behind the two men. “I’m sorry it’s come to be. But that’s what happens in life.”

In between private meetings on the sidelines, the eight leaders had a full day of summit sessions to discuss issues ranging from Africa aid to trade and Lebanon.

The gathering is being held under tight security, with Heiligendamm entirely encircled by a seven-mile, razor-wire-topped fence to keep out protesters. Some 800 demonstrators made it to the fence Wednesday, while 10,000 more reached areas in the perimeter where demonstrations have been banned.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19086862/

[ABLAT Staff]

Putin Suggests U.S. Missile Shield Be Based in Azerbaijan
Thursday , June 07, 2007

HEILIGENDAMM, Germany —

Russian President Vladimir Putin, bitterly opposed to a U.S. missile shield in Europe, told President Bush on Thursday that Moscow would drop its objections if the radar-based system were installed in Azerbaijan.

Putin told Bush he would not seek to retarget Russian missiles on Europe if the United States agreed to put the system in the central Asian nation of Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic.

National Security Adviser Steve Hadley called it an "interesting proposal."

"Let's let our experts have a look at it," Hadley said.

Bush has proposed putting the radar and rockets in the Czech Republic and Poland.

"This will create grounds for common work," Putin told Bush as they met on the sidelines of a summit of the world's eight major industrialized democracies being held at this seaside resort.

Bush, speaking before Putin, said that the Russian president had presented some interesting suggestions and that they would pursue the issue during two days of talks beginning July 1 in Kennebunkport, Maine, at the Bush family's oceanfront compound.

Putin's proposal to put the system in Azerbaijan was a surprise.

The Russian leader said the proposed relocation would alleviate Russia's concerns about a missile shield based in Europe. Moreover, he said an Azerbaijan-based system would cover all of Europe rather than part it.

The two leaders met on the sidelines of a summit of the world's eight major industrialized democracies being held at this seaside resort.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_st...,278817,00.html

[ABLAT Staff]

Rice: US won't change missile shield


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press, THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 8, 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The United States will pursue its own plans to put a missile defense in Eastern Europe despite Russian suggestions to locate it outside the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told The Associated Press Friday.

Rice said Russian President Vladimir Putin's surprise offer to share a Soviet-era radar tracking station in Azerbaijan for the project had caught the Bush administration off guard, but that it was worth looking into even while missile defense negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic continue.

"One does not choose sites for missile defense out of the blue," she said in an interview. "It's geometry and geography as to how you intercept a missile."

"This is an idea that has not yet been vetted," she said of Putin's offer, made Thursday to President George W. Bush at a meeting in Germany. "We have to see whether Azerbaijan makes any sense in the context of missile defense."

Rice said Putin's idea, which represented an apparent softening in Moscow's hardline opposition to missile defense, could be positive but stressed that Washington would do what it saw fit to deal with the "real security problem" posed by rogue states like Iran and North Korea.

"If it is a way to begin more serious discussions about what we believe is a common threat which is the threat of the Irans and North Koreas of the world launching missiles - that's a very positive development," she said.

"But we are continuing our discussions with the Czech Republic and Poland and we're going to do that, we are continuing our discussions in NATO, and we're going to do that. We will do what is best from the point of view of actually dealing with the problem, which is a real security problem. This isn't a faux security problem."

The United States has been pushing a plan that would put the radar tracking station in the Czech Republic and missile interceptors in Poland to protect European and NATO allies from attacks.

Until Putin's Azerbaijan offer on Thursday, Russia has been vehemently opposed to the entire concept, arguing that it poses a threat to its nuclear deterrent.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...Article/Printer

[ABLAT Staff]

US to Press Ahead With Anti-Missile Plan

Jun 8, 7:27 PM (ET)

By TERENCE HUNT

ROME (AP) - President Bush signaled Friday the United States will press ahead with a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe despite Russia's heated objections. Poland's president expressed support for installing interceptor rockets in his country.

An upset stomach crimped Bush's schedule on a busy day that took him from Germany to Poland and finally to Italy. The president stayed in bed and skipped morning sessions at the summit of world leaders in Heiligendamm, Germany, and he appeared subdued later after talks in Poland with President Lech Kaczynski.

"Still not 100 percent but better all the time," White House deputy press secretary Dana Perino said of her boss.

On Saturday, Bush will meet for the first time with Pope Benedict XVI. Large anti-Bush demonstrations are planned in Rome, and Premier Romano Prodi had to ask his Cabinet members to refrain from taking part.

The administration made clear it was not abandoning plans for a missile-defense program in Poland and the Czech Republic despite a surprise counterproposal Thursday by Russian President Vladimir Putin to instead use a Soviet-era radar tracking station in Azerbaijan.

Putin had more suggestions on Friday for locations for missile interceptors: "They could be placed in the south, in U.S. NATO allies such as Turkey, or even Iraq," Putin said. "They could also be placed on sea platforms."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in an Associated Press interview in New York, said Friday, "One does not choose sites for missile defense out of the blue. It's geometry and geography as to how you intercept a missile."

"This is an idea that has not yet been vetted," she said of Putin's offer. "We have to see whether Azerbaijan makes any sense in the context of missile defense."

The U.S. system calls for a radar screen in the Czech Republic to watch for missile threats, and 10 interceptor rockets in Poland to shoot down any missiles. Both Bush and Kaczynski said the system would not threaten Russia. The Kremlin argues that the system would undermine its nuclear deterrent.

"The system we have proposed is not directed at Russia," Bush said after talks with Kaczynski at the presidential retreat at Jurata, a resort on the Baltic Sea. "Indeed, we would welcome Russian cooperation on missile defense."

Bush said a working group including the United States and Russia would "discuss different opportunities and different options, all aimed at providing protection for people from rogue regimes who might be in a position to either blackmail and/or attack those of us who live in free societies."

Kaczynski voiced strong support for putting the interceptors on Polish soil. "As far as the missile defense system is concerned, the two parties fully agree," Kaczynski said.

"The Russian federation can feel totally safe," said Kaczynski. He said Moscow must recognize that the world has changed since the fall of the Soviet Union nearly two decades ago.

Bush thanked the Polish president for sending troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan. Poland has nearly 900 troops in Iraq, and Bush noted that the country had recently agreed to keep them there at least through the end of the year.

The three-day summit in Heiligendamm ended with agreement to commit more than $60 billion to fight disease in Africa. Half of the money already had been pledged by Bush, and other countries would have to fill in the rest. Anti-poverty activists have complained that promises to boost annual aid to poor countries have not been met.

The leaders also warned Iran to drop its disputed nuclear program, signaling support for U.N. Security Council moves to discuss a third set of sanctions against Tehran. But, in a setback, they failed to reach a deal about the independence-seeking Serbian province of Kosovo.

White House counselor Dan Bartlett said Bush likely fell ill with "some sort of bug, probably more viral in nature" and that it appeared unrelated to anything he ate.

Bartlett joked that Bush's decision to avoid the other leaders for a while was a "precautionary step" to avoid following in the footsteps of his father, former President George H. W. Bush.

At a state dinner in Tokyo in January 1992, the elder Bush fainted and vomited into the lap of Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070608/D8PKUCCG0.html

[ABLAT Staff]

Russia: U.S. missile shield not needed
Foreign, first deputy prime ministers lay out Moscow’s position on proposal
Reuters
Updated: 12:35 p.m. MT June 9, 2007
MOSCOW - Russia said on Saturday its offer to the United States of joint use of a radar it controls in Azerbaijan made a planned American missile shield in central Europe unnecessary.

It stressed its offer was still open, despite Washington’s signal it will press ahead with its plan to base radar and missile interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter the threat of a nuclear attack from “rogue” states like Iran.

Russia’s foreign and first deputy prime ministers set out Moscow’s stance after President Vladimir Putin surprised Washington on Thursday with the radar offer.

Putin, keen to avoid Washington placing its missile defense shield in Central Europe where Moscow says it could threaten Russian security, had suggested both sides instead used the Russian-rented Qabala radar in Azerbaijan.

“This (Qabala station) is an efficient element of a reliable early warning system,” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told journalists in Moscow.

“It remarkably well copes with all its tasks and it fully serves our interests without causing any strain in Russia’s ties with its neighbors.”

He rejected at the same time an idea that Moscow could take part in the U.S. missile shield system: “To suppose that we will take part in building such a potential which ... creates a threat to us is wishful thinking.”

Putin said on Friday the interceptors could be placed in southern Europe or Turkey and that Russia was happy to share intelligence picked up by the Azeri radar. Moscow would also then not retarget its own missiles towards Central Europe.

Lavrov said using the Qabala station would make elements of the planned U.S. missile shield in Europe unnecessary.

“Joint use of information collected by this (Qabala) station would allow the U.S. to give up plans of deploying elements of its missile shield in Europe and allows not to think of deploying some components in space.”

Russian initiative
President Bush did not comment directly on the Russian offer to use Qabala during a visit to Poland on Friday, but signaled Washington would press ahead regardless with its plans to locate the shield in Central Europe.

Asked about the U.S. reaction to Russia’s offer, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov told a news conference in St Petersburg earlier on Saturday: “Of course (the Russian initiative) remains on the table.”

Ivanov, a former defense minister, is considered a leading contender to succeed Putin in elections next March.

Ivanov said using Azeri-based radar would be more effective than operating radar in Central Europe because it could pick up hostile cruise missiles as well as intercontinental missiles.

“In my opinion, Russia’s suggestion regarding the use of Qabala radar station ... is the most effective from the point of view of control over launches of any missiles from the vast southern strategic direction.”

Lavrov said Putin and Bush had agreed “to conduct a detailed study of the anti-missile shield with the participation of foreign ministry and defense experts”.

“Beyond all doubt, this issue will be a center piece at the Putin-Bush summit in Kennebunkport on July 1-2 this year.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19142686/

[ABLAT Staff]

Report: Russia Calls on U.S. to Halt Missile Shield Moves in Europe
Saturday , June 09, 2007

MOSCOW —

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov urged the United States on Saturday to halt moves to deploy missile defense facilities in Europe pending negotiations on the issue, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported.

Lavrov's remark suggested Moscow is unhappy that the United States has continued discussions on its plans to deploy facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic following Russia's counteroffer of joint use of a radar station in Azerbaijan.

"It's necessary to freeze the deployment of a missile defense system in Europe for a period of study and analysis, as well as negotiations on this issue," ITAR-Tass quoted Lavrov as saying. "We suggest that the U.S. jointly and professionally evaluate [the issue] ... and reach a general understanding."

Lavrov also warned that the U.S. missile defense plans could hamper efforts to ease international concerns about Iran's nuclear program, RIA-Novotsi reported. He suggested that Washington's stated intention of protecting against a potential Iranian threat would anger Tehran by indicating that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons — an assertion he said has not been proven.

Lavrov spoke two days after President Vladimir Putin, who has led Russia's bitter objection to U.S. plans to deploy a missile-defense radar in the Czech Republic and interceptors in Poland, surprised U.S. President George W. Bush with the offer of joint use of a radar station in Azerbaijan, which borders Iran.

Meeting with Putin during a Group of Eight summit in Germany on Thursday, Bush agreed to consider the proposal. But on Friday he pressed his plan for the system in a meeting with his Polish counterpart, Lech Kaczynski, and again shrugged off Moscow's assertions that it would threaten Russia by tipping the strategic balance.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_st...,279815,00.html

[ABLAT Staff]

RUSSIA'S G8 STRATEGY
by J. R. Nyquist

"...a terrorist doing work for spetsnaz does not, in the great majority of cases, suspect he is being used. He is utterly convinced that he is acting independently, of his own free will and by his own choice.” - Viktor Suvorov, Spetsnaz, 1987

Is it possible to get what you want by behaving badly? Consider the recent dispute between Russia and America over missile defense in Europe. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned NATO against deploying a missile defense system for Europe, saying this deployment was intended to disarm Russia. His warning carried the urgency of pointed menace. If NATO puts missile defenses into Poland and the Czech Republic, says Putin, then Russia has no choice but to train its missiles on European capitals. Such a turn of events might even lead to a nuclear war. The guilt of the United States was clear in this matter, Putin said. Talk of the missiles being sited to stop future Iranian missiles is palpable nonsense.

The Russian leader knows, full well, that he is slandering his naïve American counterpart. He is distorting the facts and lying about intentions. This sudden, vicious, outburst was carefully considered in advance, and brilliantly executed. It must be noted that President Putin did not pursue the quiet diplomatic route. He did not meet with Bush behind closed doors, venting his paranoid estimation of American intentions out of the earshot of an impressionable world. He wanted the world to hear his complaint. He wanted to rally anti-American sentiment. But also, he needed to get the West’s attention.

Throughout the 1990s the Russians intentionally depicted themselves as economically backward and militarily defunct. They used the poverty of Russia as an advertisement of “defeat.” This portrayal had a profound effect on American attitudes toward Russia. Moscow was no longer taken seriously. And this is what the Russian leadership wanted. When Gorbachev began to work his magic, the Russians boldly announced their intention of “taking away America’s enemy.” The “Russian threat” must seem to disappear. It was the success of this propaganda campaign that led the Americans to drop their guard, to give up the Cold War. On the other side, however, Russia did not give up the Cold War. She used the interval of relaxed tensions and open trade to renew her vast military industries which now threaten to produce the world’s most advanced nuclear missiles, warheads, grenades, rifles, submarines and fighter jets. If America is the arsenal of democracy, Russia is now the arsenal of dictatorship – feeding weapons to every rogue regime from Iran and Venezuela to North Korea and China. The image of Russian weakness, however, has stuck in the Western mind – in the American mind especially.

So what happens when the Russians wish to be taken seriously? To get President Bush’s attention, Vladimir Putin must make the most hostile, strident and disturbing statements. These amount to a kind of psychological shock tactic – which is seen differently in Russia and Third World than in the West. Those who envy the West and fear its power are inclined to see Putin’s outburst as a courageous act of defiance. But Western leaders are confused by it, and an almost humorous exploitation of this confusion necessarily follows.

What is at the bottom of this?

The Russians want to undermine and destroy American power. They must therefore strive to keep America from playing a decisive role in Europe’s defense. Since America has played such a role for decades, it is vitally important that America be diverted away from defending Europe, toward an unproductive involvement in the Middle East. This is the very real and very secret policy of the Kremlin. The significance of U.S. defensive missiles in Europe is political, not military. The missiles themselves could never be effective against Russian weapons. They are powerful political symbols.

So how does Putin’s outrageous, threatening demeanor, divide Europe from America? The answer is ridiculously simple. By threatening the equilibrium of the post Cold War setup, Putin forces the American president to take him seriously and entertain a series of bizarre proposals that otherwise would never be entertained. For a renewed Cold War is hardly acceptable to Washington or the capitals of Europe. To defuse the situation that he himself has created, Putin only has to offer a seemingly reasonable solution, which will be clutched at. But the solution will prove dangerous, and it will lead to further “solutions.”

Think of the effect that has been created. On the eve of the G8 summit the Russian leader has taken center stage. You can rest assured that his performance will be strictly choreographed. He will propose that Russia, in cooperation with America and Europe, undertake Europe’s defense. This proposal may evolve over time, and has already appeared in its most outrageous, early version. (This will make later versions seem less outrageous.) As of this writing Putin and Bush have met, and the Russian leader has suggested basing Europe’s missile defense in Azerbaijan. The U.S. could easily place its missiles there, on “former” Soviet soil, with two additional conditions: (1) all sides would have “equal access” to the weapon system; (2) the system’s development would be transparent.

This diplomatic proposal is bound to bear fruit, one way or another. President Bush was greatly relieved that the Russian president had opened the door to reduced tensions. The Russian was, after all, only joking about missiles targeted on Europe (as if he couldn’t dial up the targets in an instant, any day of the week). And so, the Americans are relieved. There is nothing to fear. We are “friends” with Russia after all. How grand. How nice. Let the experts look at the Russian proposal. If Europe can be defended by ABMs based in the “former” Soviet Union, what possible objection could Washington offer? Any rejection of the Russian proposal would raise the suspicion that Putin was justified in his initial declarations regarding American wickedness and deceit.
If President Putin changes his tune in the days ahead, we shouldn’t be surprised. The first proposal may not be acceptable to the Americans for technical reasons. This would leave the game open to further posturing, further tensions, and more acceptable proposals,” like stationing U.S. ABMs in southern Russia with mixed U.S.-Russian crews. If the American side gives way to this process, the American ABM technology would fall into Russia’s hands, and so would the weapons themselves – along with the servicemen who operate them.
American leaders and experts are now helpless in the face of Russian diplomacy because they long ago accepted a series of lies about Russia. And now that the fabric of their knowledge has been corrupted beyond help, they are bound to make further mistakes. Believing that the Cold War ended in 1989 at the Malta Conference, American leaders see no reason for a conflict with Russia. This blindness is shown in Bush’s absurd reply to Putin, in which he attempted to remind the Russian leader that “the Cold War is over.” This idea, in fact, was invented in Russia and exported to the West. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was equally absurd in her reaction to Putin’s initial belligerence. She said that Putin’s argument is no longer “acceptable in a world in which the United States and Russia are not adversaries.” Again, this idea is part of Russia’s deception strategy. The Russian Communists taught the Americans to think there is no reason for mutual antagonism; and now the American dupes are “teaching” the Russians (which is the ultimate affirmation of the deception’s success). “This isn’t the Soviet Union,” explained Rice, “and we need to drop the rhetoric that sounds like what the United States and the Soviet Union used to say about each other and realize it is … a very different period.”
And what makes today so different from thirty years ago? Russia is not disarmed and the KGB is still in charge, and so are the old Communist cadres. Russia is still aligned with the old Communist bloc, assisting Third World revolutionaries and terrorists under the table, supporting Marxist revolution in Latin America and Africa. Please explain how we are living in a new era. The only thing new about the situation today is that the Communist Bloc is bigger and more effective than ever, and the West is completely off its guard. One might even say that the West is divided. “It doesn’t really help anybody to start threatening Europeans,” complained Rice. “You cannot launch a threat at Europe that is separable from the United States.”

But madam secretary, you have missed the entire point. Russia knows it cannot launch a threat at Europe that is separable from the United States. That is why Russia has so carefully formulated an attack aimed at America that bypasses Europe altogether, leaving it neutral and untouched (and defended by Russia herself!). This idea, unfortunately, does not occur to the Secretary of State because she is not a strategist. Her training has been academic, and her approach is academic. When she says that Vladimir Putin’s threatening remarks aren’t helpful, it all depends on who is being helped. In this situation, President Putin’s slanderous remarks against the United States serve to raise the moral of the Communist forces in Colombia; he signals his solidarity with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela; he thrills the African Communists in Congo, Angola, Zimbabwe, Namibia and South Africa. The lunatics in Tehran regard his utterances as masterstrokes.

But the Americans will quickly forget Putin’s harsh words because they want to forget. They will rush forward to appease, and he will smile and joke once they’ve delivered themselves into his hands. He knows there isn’t a plot to disarm Russia. The Americans don’t even bother to enforce existing arms control agreements, which Russia routinely ignores. He knows that America isn’t building missile defenses that can stop Russian missiles. He is free, therefore, to build his forces and rally his allies. He has already described the Russian Federation as the surviving remnant of the Soviet Union. He has stated this on Russian television, before cameras; and he has also said that America is Russia’s enemy. This has occurred on more than one occasion, and has been a theme of Putin’s speeches since June 22, 2001, when he first compared America to Nazi Germany.

Russia’s new missiles did not spring out of the ground yesterday. They were not built in reaction to American “aggression.” A new type of missile takes many years to develop. During these same years, America has been reducing its own missile forces. The United States Congress has cut nuclear programs. America’s nuclear arsenal has been shrinking, and will continue to shrink. The Russian arsenal is becoming more effective. They pretend that these new missiles were built in reaction to American missile defenses. But that is merely a cover, an excuse for war preparations. The Russians have the best spies in the world, and these have undoubtedly penetrated the U.S. defense establishment and political hierarchy. Putin therefore knows, perfectly well, that America harbors no evil intentions; that America is hardly engaged in an arms race with Russia. Putin’s slanderous outburst, replete with mock outrage and play-acted alarm, was pure theater. The whole episode has been a provocation.

Today the Russian president disclaims responsibility for his “retaliatory steps.” Tomorrow he will blame the annihilation of entire countries and regions on the imperialist American warmongers and capitalists. In between these utterances, he will make nice with his enemy in order to destroy that same enemy. If this is not perfectly clear, then nothing can be.


© 2007 Jeffrey R. Nyquist

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/g.../2007/0608.html

[ABLAT Staff]

Russians silent on U.S. missile plans

By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer

BRUSSELS, Belgium - Defense Secretary Robert Gates' assertion that the Bush administration will not replace its plan for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe with Russia's counterproposal for a radar site in Azerbaijan was met Friday with silence.

Gates met briefly with Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, and told reporters afterward that the hotly debated missile defense plan simply did not come up.

"I guess I would have to say, honestly, I was somewhat surprised," said Gates, who is attending a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers here. "I don't know how to read it, to be honest."

The silence came a day after other Russian officials blasted the U.S. plan, and warned that the new sites could be targeted.

Gates said he did not bring the matter up in his session with Serdyukov because, "I felt I'd been pretty explicit yesterday in the session so I didn't feel the need to." Instead, Gates said, they talked about plans for an upcoming meeting between President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

During a session on Thursday, Gates told the allies that the U.S. will proceed with its plans for a radar system in the Czech Republic to watch for missile threats and 10 interceptor rockets in Poland to shoot down any missiles.

And he flatly dismissed any notion that Russia's push for joint use of a radar station in Azerbaijan could replace the broader U.S. plan.

He also said he doubts that there could be any agreement with the Russians by next month, when Bush meets with Putin at Kennebunkport, Maine.

"I was very explicit in the (NATO) meeting that we saw the Azeri radar as an additional capability, that we intended to proceed with the X-Band radar in the Czech Republic," Gates told reporters Thursday.

Russian officials earlier this week called for a freeze on the U.S. plan, arguing that it would undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent. And they reportedly issued threats against the planned sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Meanwhile, NATO ordered its military experts to draw up plans for a possible short-range missile defense system to protect nations on the alliance's southern flank that would be left exposed by proposed U.S. anti-missile units in central Europe.

According to U.S. and NATO officials, the addition of the European bases to anti-missile installations in North America would protect most of Europe from the threat of long-range attack from Iran or elsewhere in the Middle East. But it would leave Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria and parts of Romania exposed.

To fill that gap, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said NATO experts would produce a report by February on short-range anti-missile defenses "that can be bolted on to the overall missile defense system as it would be installed by the United States."

Russia has threatened to retaliate against the U.S. plans by pulling out of a key arms control treaty and pointing warheads at Europe for the first time since the Cold War. However, at last week's G-8 summit, Putin seemed to take a more open approach, suggesting Russia could cooperate with the West on an anti-missile radar base in Azerbaijan.

In other comments Friday, Gates said he told the allies that the U.S. would keep 20 of its helicopters in Kandahar, Afghanistan, for an extra six months, which would be until January, since the NATO nations have no aircraft to replace them.

But he said he warned the ministers that he "expected the allies to come up with a solution by that time, in terms of helicopters that have the capability to operate in Afghanistan."

He said a number of allies during a late Thursday session offered to provide additional training teams, reconstruction teams, and some other types of helicopters, for the Afghan war. And he said one country offered to provide a combat battalion.

NATO has said it needs four battalions, so this would only partly meet that need.

Gates added that several allies announced they will remove restrictions on their forces that have made some operations difficult. That move, he said, "was a very important contribution in my view."

Some countries restrict their troops from participating in particular missions or from being deployed to the more dangerous southern and eastern regions.

NATO spokesman James Appathurai said seven allied nations had agreed to set up more embedded training units alongside about 20 already operating. France offered to create three, with a total of 150 instructors. Italy, Canada, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Slovakia also committed training units. The offers, however, fell short of the alliance's plans to build up the national army so it can replace the close to 50,000 international troops in Afghanistan.

There are about 26,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070615/ap_on_...1RTBrXjkcis0NUE

[ABLAT Staff]

U.S. says Russia offer cannot replace missile shield
By Mark John and Andrew Gray

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The United States told Russia on Thursday a Kremlin offer to share a radar site in Azerbaijan could not replace U.S. plans to site a missile shield in eastern Europe.

"I was very explicit in the meeting that we saw the Azeri radar as an additional capability and that we intend to proceed with the ... radar in the Czech Republic," U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said after a meeting of NATO and Russian defence ministers.

Gates played down hopes of an early end to the months-long dispute with Moscow over the shield proposal.

He said he doubted experts would come up with a full appraisal of the week-old Russian offer before July 1-2 talks between President George W. Bush and Russia's Vladimir Putin.

Gates said Russian Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov did not respond during the meeting to his remarks. Diplomats said Serdyukov had earlier repeated that Moscow sees the Azeri proposal replacing the existing U.S. plan.

Gates said he welcomed the surprise offer to share radar data made by Putin at a Group of Eight (G8) meeting last week.

"I repeated our willingness to work and partner with Russia on missile defence," he said.

The United States plans to use interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic, a configuration Washington says is ideal for blocking any missile, particularly from Iran, heading towards the United States and most of Europe.

Russia has said the U.S. scheme is a threat to its own security and that the proposed U.S. bases on its doorstep could be converted to more dangerous uses in the future.

Washington has said it wants to hold expert-level talks to explore the possibilities of the Russian offer of the Azeri radar, but Gates said he was "sceptical" there would be any conclusions before Bush welcomes Putin in Maine next month.

'TACIT ENDORSEMENT'

Tension between Washington and Moscow alarmed European NATO members, particularly after Putin threatened to target missiles on Europe if Washington went ahead with building the shield.

The project has also raised concerns it will split NATO into those who would be covered by the shield and those not. Analysts said Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria and Romania would not get full protection.

In what U.S. officials hailed as a tacit endorsement of the U.S. plan, NATO defence ministers agreed to explore building a "bolt-on" anti-missile system that would plug those gaps.

The study should be completed by February. NATO officials hope the alliance can agree by a summit in April in Romania to start work on such a system, which would deploy complementary interceptors to cover southeast Europe.

"We do believe that (our) concerns have been addressed and understood," Bulgarian Defence Minister Defence Veselin Bliznakov told Reuters.

"What we just need is the U.S. (missile shield) and the one which would be added by NATO."

A senior U.S. official, who requested anonymity, said: "What you see here is allies agreeing to adapt NATO's work to the reality that there will be a (U.S.) long-range system."

(Additional reporting by Marine Hass)

http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/international...y=1181845584000