Reset button in US-Russian relations doesn’t work – Russia’s NATO envoy
Published: 16 February, 2010, 18:28
Edited: 02 June, 2010, 02:20
Missile complex "Iskander" (AFP Photo / Evgeny Stetsko / Vedomosti)
TAGS: Arms, Military, Russia, Politics, Europe, USA
Russia’s envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin has cooled Transdniester’s eagerness to locate Russian missile system on its territory, warning that such steps could only worsen the current state of affairs.
“Such situations could lead to a rather serious regional conflict. In regard to whether Iskanders should be deployed there or not, Iskander missiles are not the means to be used in such talks,” said Rogozin.
Earlier on Monday, Moldova’s unrecognized republic of Transdniester said that it's ready to host a Russian Iskander operational-tactical missile bases (SS-26 by NATO classification) to counterbalance US anti ballistic missiles in Romania if Moscow were to ask.
“We have been asking for Russia’s permanent military presence in the republic. We are not against any type of Russian military presence with any kind of armament that is needed to protect the security of the citizens of Transdniester, Russia and Ukraine,” said Transdniester’s President Igor Smirnov on Monday, during his visit to Moscow for talks on bilateral relations.
Commenting on the Transdniester offer, Dmitry Rogozin also added that there could be no talk yet of bilateral efforts to “reset” Russian-US relations if Moscow continues to find out about the United States’ plans to locate missiles in Eastern Europe from mass media: “How can we talk of a true partnership with Washington if we read unpleasant news in the newspapers?”
Earlier in February, NATO member Romania approved a US plan to deploy American SM-3 interceptor missiles on its territory. The US State Department said that such systems will be in operational readiness in Romania by 2015. Besides this, plans to host American ABMs in Bulgaria are also being discussed. The Russian Foreign Ministry has asked Bulgaria for clarification of its plans by asking a rather rhetorical question: “Why is it that, after the Romanian surprise, a Bulgarian one follows?”
However Russia’s envoy to NATO thinks that there is too much excitement around the deployment of American antiballistic missiles in Europe, saying that the most important thing now is not to threaten each other with missiles, but to understand what the true purpose of the United States’ ABMs is.
Moldova's reaction
Moldova’s Foreign Minister Yury Lanke, commenting on Transdniester’s offer, expressed hope that, before making any decisions on this front, Russia would consult with Moldova.
“All questions concerning Russian-Moldovan bilateral relations should be discussed in a dialogue between Chisinau and Moscow”, said Yury Lanke, adding that Chisinau is confirming its interest in developing close political and economic ties with Russia.
Moldova’s vice-premier Viktor Osipov was more critical in his reaction to Transdniester’s offer, saying that the republic is “ready to deploy anything on its territory, even the Black Sea Fleet”. He also thinks that US missile plans in the neighboring Romania don’t pose any threat to Moldova’s security.
The head of the Democratic Party of Moldova, Marian Lupu, thinks that the Transdniester leader is simply making those statements to gain political weight ahead of the upcoming elections in the unrecognized republic. In addition, he thinks that by making such offers to Russia does Moscow more of a hindrance than a help.
Observers’ opinions
Political analyst Mikhail Troitsky thinks that Transdniester made the statements to demonstrate one more time its loyalty to Russia. “Just as how Romania and Bulgaria, by agreeing to locate US missile defense systems, want to develop closer ties with the US, Transdniester wants to get Moscow’s support,” he said. Troitsky also thinks that the president of the unrecognized republic made those statements to strengthen his position in the domestic political battles with the local opposition.
Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for Analyses of Strategies and Technology, is convinced that Russia will not consider deploying its Iskander facilities in Transdniester, saying, “Even though Transdniester is one of Russia’s allies in the post-Soviet space, Moscow would not deploy its Iskander missiles there. It doesn’t need to; primarily because, from my point of view, the US ABMs in Romania in its current form do not pose any threat to Russia’s security.”
Military analyst Vitaly Shlykov thinks that those statements are no more than Transdniester’s desire to tease Moldova and to demonstrate its fidelity to Moscow. “Transdniester is like an elephant in a zoo. Well, who would really ever deploy defense systems in an unrecognized republic? Russia would never do it and wouldn’t jeopardize its good relations with Moldova. I would not even expect an official reaction from Moscow to such a statement. It would be absurd to even comment on such a thing,” the analyst commented.
Reference
The breakaway republic of Transdniester proclaimed its independence from Moldova in 1990. However the international community has not recognized its self-declared statehood, and its relations with Moldova remain tense. However, Transdniester has always retained close ties with Moscow. More than 120,000 of Transndiester’s residents (about a quarter of the whole republic’s population) hold Russian passports.
16.02.2010, 18:12
8 comments
Role of Black Sea in US missile defense unclearWithin just two weeks the US has voiced two completely different stances on placing elements of its missile defense shield in the Black Sea – but which of these is true? |
Do drones kill intelligence?The US has boasted recent success in killing terrorist leaders in drone attacks, but some argue this policy leaves the country open to attack. |
February 17, 2010, 16:09, Alfred wrote > To VSE BERLIN: > > Alfred, you are quite right.Basarabia (Moldova without Transnistria) is romanian, historically and factually.Should this problem be solved, the romanians and the russians should be to each others as good as cousins. The links between us are thousands of years old and can traced in everything from our language(romanian) right up to what we eat and how we react spontaneously. The romanians are at least 30% of slavic origins and I for one am proud of it.
@vsm.berlin @Bianca Oh boy - Maple leaf already discussed about this lie of lancers attacking tanks so I will get over with it. I see You are a advocate of imminent nuclear warfare - sorry to dissapoint You but in regional warfare no country will use them. UK fought with Argentina - why didn`t they use nukes? China vs India? India vs Pakistan? No one propably will ever use nukes because they are useless against military - thay are great to target civilian populations but in wars You want to invade and conquer to take opponents resources - to have some benefit from the whole mess. Concepts of limited and cold nuclear warfare were already discussed with 60s and 70s between both superpowers, and sad but true is that both agreed not to use nukes when conventional warfare would broke up between BRD and DDR. No nukes for You ;). Appendix for Bianca - in 1939 only two countries had mechanized brigades - USSR and Germany (concept from USSR) those units still had horses as a backup. @William I think it was article from anti-nuclear lobby - and largely hyperbolized. There are report tables from US secretary of defense about effects of nuclear war made on the presidency request (now public). From 1982 US and USSR/RF reduced its arsenal to around 30% what they had, but it is (by these reports) still not enough to kill even once. Regarding nuclear winter - most studies and simulation take parameters from single phased enriched uranium and plutonium bombs (similar to fat man and little boy) which are no longer used (maybe North Korea has one or two and Pakistan has few left) which truly produce lots of radioactive debris, smoke and soot - most countries use hydrogen bombs which are more efficent, they produce much less radiation and much higher temperatures in which debris and other trash just evaporates. Most simulations also take detonations from the ground level, while in reality all detonations will be on certain altitude.












I think it's very hard to undo the aftermath of WWII without risking new global confrontations. Romania may yet reunite with Moldova, but likely without Transdniester. During WWII, Romania sided with Hitler, and was not content to merely recapture Bessarabia, which had been re-annexed by the Soviet Union the year before, but also went on to invade Ukraine and Russia, alongside its ally Nazi Germany in 1941. It may be true that the Romanians didn't have much choice but to go along with Hitler, or they would've risked losing the rest of Transylvania, the north of which had already been given to Hungary in 1940. However, it was a gamble which did not take into account the Germans' defeat. Once the war seemed lost on the Eastern Front, Romania switched sides after a coup in August 1944. It may have seemed unjust, but after the war the Soviets kept Bessarabia to themselves, partly as punishment for Romanian aggression. Hungary, another Nazi ally, lost out and had to give back northern Transylvania (as reward for Romania's switching sides). Both times, Romania had to make a difficult tradeoff regarding territory. A similar situation involved Poland, whose borders changed drastically in the war's aftermath. Germany (and to a degree Hungary) had a lot to lose teritorially at the end of the war. February 18, 2010, 10:47, vse.berlin wrote > Alfred, > I hope you are kidding. Do you really understand what do you call for? Stripping all the rhetoric down you call for voiding entire bloody 20th century. > Now let’s give back Silesia and East Prussia to Germans. Part of Western Ukraine to Poland, Moldavia to Romania, Kuriles to Japan, Ardahar/Kars/Batumi to Turkey, All the Baltic states/Pomerania/Alsas to Germany. > Or you want to go back to 1812? In this case I immediately immigrate to South Pole because I do not want to be in the middle of blood bath.