“NATO will never get access to Russia’s big red button”
Published: 01 July, 2011, 10:38
Russia will build its national missile defense system "irrespective of what its Western partners will be doing in this field," Dmitry Rogozin said. (RIA Novosti / Michail Fomichev)
TAGS: Arms, Military, NATO, Nuclear, Russia, Politics, Europe, USA
Russia will not give the Western alliance access to its command posts even if the two sides start to work together on a missile defense system, Moscow’s envoy to NATO has warned.
“Giving anyone access to this virtual red button… is something that can never happen,” Dmitry Rogozin told Interfax on Friday. “It is impossible.” Moscow will never put its system of strategic nuclear forces or aerospace defense under anyone else’s control,” the ambassador said. This system will always remain “under Russian sovereign national control.”
But Rogozin added that the same principles would work in the contrapositive. Russian control over a portion of the NATO or US defense systems is equally unrealistic, he noted. Cooperation in this area must proceed “within absolutely different parameters,” he said.
NATO General Secretary Anders Fogh Rasmussen said in May that Moscow and the alliance should have separate missile defense systems working towards a common goal to defend the Euro-Atlantic area. The two sides should develop their missile defense systems separately, but they should also find ways to cooperate while using them, he noted.
Initially, Rasmussen had invited Russia to take part in building a common European defense system, but its parameters are still not clear. Later, NATO officials started to insist on separate systems of missile defense, while Russia favored a united “sectoral system.”
The Russian leadership has warned that the creation of a European missile defense system without Moscow’s participation might provoke a new arms race. Russia is also insisting on guarantees that the new Western missile shield, whoever builds it – the US or NATO – should not pose a threat to Moscow’s strategic nuclear arsenal.
The main security guarantee for Russia would be the “absolute absence of a US missile defense system,” Rogozin said on Friday. He admitted that Russia’s talks on this problem with Washington and NATO are in a deadlock now “thanks to the American side." Missile defense has become “a kind of incantation, rhythmically pronounced by all American politicians and diplomats,” he said.
They are not going to depart from it, and it is “practically impossible to move them from this point,” Rogozin said. He was speaking ahead of the Russia-NATO Council meeting scheduled for July 3-4 in Sochi. It will focus on NATO's European missile defense shield project. Neither side has reported any breakthroughs thus far.
Russia will build its national missile defense system “irrespective of what its Western partners will be doing in this field,” Rogozin noted. He said that while Moscow “is somewhat behind the US in missile defense,” serious efforts have been made in recent years to restore Russia’s parity in this area.
Russian MPs to consider bill on independent prosecutorsA new legal institution comprising independent prosecutors is needed to develop civil society and exercise parliamentary control, Anatoly Lyskov, a member of the Federation Council, believes. |
01.07.2011, 12:35
7 comments
Russian anarchists start war against rich people’s propertyThe ELF anarchist group has claimed responsibility for a string of arson attacks and blasts that were carried out in Moscow and its suburbs over the past few weeks. |
Donald Despite complexity and ups and downs of the China/ Russia relations, by and large excuses are often made for China double standards but not for Russia.. I have seen the some pattern of thinking among all my progressive friends. China might have differed the decision on War on Libya to Russia but why? When it comes Sudan, China openly opposes UNSC resolutions and often seeks Russia’s backing and often she gets it. So why has China-with its massive investment in Libya- did not want to assert itself on the UNSC rather the merely delegating its UNSC veto power to Russia in this case? I think this is clever way for China to blame Russia for and displace the anger of the Africa and the global South to unto Russia and as China goes about its business with the Europe and the U.S . China used the same aggressive anti-Russian tactic during the Cold War and not many in the left almost never question China doubling dealing in the Cold War and on Libya today. China is playing a clever game by placing all the moral responsibility of the fallout from Libya and on the shoulders of Russia-China can do business with EU and the US and it is doing just that. This is clever politics- I do admit it- I do think also this is why the Russians do not want to go out in limb on Libya alone whilst China smiling does sweet business with Europe and the U.S. China has been silent on Libya but doing lot of smiling with EU. Since the NATO war on Libya, Russia has been doing all the talking, Why has China not doing the same?
Citizen K: It`s true that there have been some ups and downs in the relationship between Russia/USSR and China over the decades. The USSR under Stalin gave a great deal of material help to the communist forces of Mao in the 1940`s and to this day, in Chinese political/military celebrations Stalin`s portrait is displayed with a prominence equal to that of other revolutionary heroes such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao. Things changed under Khrushchev though and relations turned sour. It`s a very complex topic that would take a long time to detail but I think both sides should share some of the blame for that tragic period. Since the 1980`s relations have been improving steadily to the point where Russians made more than 2.3 million tourist trips to China in the last year. Maybe you`ve been talking to the wrong Chinese people, but I`ve spoken to many from communist China as well and, without exception they are friendly, have no territorial claims against anyone, and are vehemently opposed to what is becoming the US/NATO habit of starting new wars every month. I don`t think you can say they are in bed with the US and Europe. They deferred to Russia on the UNSC vote on Libya and agreed to follow what Russia decided. Regretfully, Russia chose to abstain. I have heard of a party circular wherein they call the US the primary enemy of China and, though they are employing some aspects of capitalism, they still have as their long term goal the construction of a socialist society. Meanwhile, it appears as though racist beliefs are fluorishing in Russia as they embark on a new capitalist path. So who is in bed with the imperialists?







Citizen K: I agree that it was dastardly and a huge mistake for China, during the cold war, to have taken the anti-Soviet, pro-American stance that it seemed to relish. If you look at the socialist world that existed at that time, and it was very large, China was virtually alone with every other country taking the side of the USSR, including those in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. However it became a different world with the de-establishment of the Soviet Union. The most succinct analysis I`ve heard is that, with the disappearance of the USSR, Russia was transformed from an adversary of the global capitalist-imperialist system into an asset of this system. It seems to enjoy this new role, so can you really blame developing countries for turning more and more away from Russia toward China for support? It`s still not too late for Russia to turn this situation around. It and China must get their act together and start acting in concert if they are to survive long term.