|
|
|
|
|
|
14.06.07
|
A Disarming Proposal
|
|
|
Comment by Georgy Bovt
|
Is Putin’s Offer of Gabala Just Another Move in a Complex Game?
While both the Russian and Western press seem to regard President Vladimir Putin’s offer of the Gabala monitoring station positively, the plan could further complicate the U.S.-Russian relationship.
As the curtain call of his reign approaches, President Vladimir Putin has become the world’s major headliner: Now almost every trip he makes abroad or every press conference he gives brings a sensation. His appearances, irrespective of the subject, play like a glittering political show. The recent G8 summit in Germany was no exception. On the eve of the summit, rumors were rife that the meeting would be a serious test of Russia’s relationship with the West: Russia’s image over the last few months had been tarnished and criticism of it – predominantly over the country’s “retreat” from the principles of democracy – was increasing from day to day, along with disparagement of its energy policies. While the West regards Russia’s decisions over the prices of oil and gas as “blackmail,” Moscow regards the moves as proof of its pursuit of a sovereign line in foreign policy, which, Russian leaders maintain, irritates those who would prefer to see Russia as a weak player.
Soon to leave his post as Britain’s prime minister, Tony Blair gave a harsh interview on the eve of the summit in which he promised Putin difficult talks on the subject of democracy and predicted the mass departure of Western business from the Russian market as a result of its failure to observe the civilized political rules of the game and its unpredictability. It is worth noting that Russia’s relations with the UK are currently at an all-time low.
U.S. President George W. Bush, in Prague on his way to the summit, also allowed himself to throw some criticism in the direction of the Russian regime. In Prague, Bush also discussed with the Czech leadership the issue of deploying elements of its anti-missile defense system in the country. At present, the U.S. ABM system is the biggest foreign irritant for the Kremlin, and the host of the G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, even warned participants against allowing that painful issue to become the only issued discussed at the meeting. All discussion of the missile system was set aside for two-party talks between Bush and Putin, in which the Russian president unveiled his sensation.
Putin’s proposal to offer the Americans joint use of the missile attack early warning station rented by Russia in Gabala, Azerbaijan was entirely unexpected. After the meeting with Bush, Putin looked especially pleased with the effect he created, whereas Bush looked bewildered. No doubt it was the latter factor that forced him to describe Putin’s initiative as interesting and worthy of further attention. The Russian mass media described Putin’s initiative as a stunning diplomatic victory, while the Western media agreed that Putin had managed to outplay Bush in the propaganda stakes, putting him in an embarrassing position – now he will find it a lot harder to justify the need to locate ABM elements in Poland and the Czech Republic in order to defend against Iran. In truth, Azerbaijan borders Iran, and Moscow’s proposal, to the general public looks attractive and disarming, but the fact that it is, indeed, “disarming” brings considerable problems for Russia’s relations with the United States. Perhaps a more important question to ask is whether a propaganda victory is really what is needed in order to resolve the issues surrounding the ABM system?
It is easy to predict that Moscow’s proposal will soon worsen and complicate U.S.-Russia relations. Several preconditions for this eventuality are already in place. It’s unlikely that Bush will be happy about the fact that the G8 summit was used as the venue for a propaganda duel in which his partner acted like an opponent. There may have even been an element of public humiliation involved. In the VIP club that is the G8, that’s just not a very nice way to behave.
Moscow’s proposal was genuinely unexpected, but nevertheless, we should take into account the context in which it was made – a context characterized by expanding cracks between Russia and the West (and in particular with the United States) that don’t encourage the development of mutual trust. And so the first reaction of partners in conditions of growing mutual distrust will be: “There’s some kind of hidden catch here.” The West may see the catch as being in the fact that Russia and the United States have been operating on entirely different premises with regard to the ABM systems and the Iranian missile threat. The United States maintains that it is building ABMs in the Czech Republic and Poland for the defense of Europe against Iran, while Russia, until the very last moment, has categorically denied the existence of such a threat, seeing the Europe-based ABM elements as directed against it. And then, suddenly, comes such an unexpected initiative. In the West, the essence of Moscow’s Gabala proposal could be seen not so much as an attempt to provide defense against Iran, but as a simple attempt to destroy the basis for building ABMs in Poland and the Czech Republic, with the added bonus of complicating U.S. propaganda.
This fall, Russian and American military experts will confer on the joint use of the Gabala radar station and factors of a deeply technical nature will be revealed that will remove the essence of the proposal. The Gabala station has been fitted with Soviet-era radars of an entirely different type than those planned for Poland and the Czech Republic. For the Gabala station to work effectively against Iran, it seems likely that several satellites will be needed, although space elements are not required for the Polish-Czech ABM elements. And most importantly, there are no plans to equip Gabala with the missile interceptors that it lacks and which the United States intends to install in Poland and the Czech Republic, along with guidance systems for them. Thus, joint use of the Gabala station will not remove (or even reduce) the need for locating the ABM system in Eastern Europe. Additionally, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has already announced that Putin’s proposal will not alter U.S. plans.
As a result, soon Russia and the United States will enter into a new phase of mutual accusations and reproaches. Washington, not entirely trusting Moscow, will insist on ABMs in Eastern Europe; the Russian political elite will accuse the United States of perfidy, and anti-Russian intentions, after being offended by the fact that George Bush rejected such a “disarming” proposal from Vladimir Putin.
Georgy Bovt is a Moscow-based political analyst. |
| The source |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The virtual community for English-speaking expats and Russians
