The United States announced a plan in January to deploy 10
ballistic missile defense (BMD) batteries in Poland and a tracking
radar station in the Czech Republic supposedly to guard Europe
against possible missile attacks by Iran.
The planned deployment of US missile defense systems at Russia's
front door has become a new focus of US-Russia bickering in the
past few months, because in Moscow's view, neither Iran nor the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) has the kind of
missiles US defense systems are designed to shoot down. The target
of US missiles can only be Russia.
US-Russia bickering on this issue has been heating up. The
"homely meeting" US President George W. Bush accorded his Russian
counterpart Vladimir Putin at his father's private ranch in Maine
in early July did little to narrow the difference between the two
military superpowers.
No matter what alternative plan Russia managed to put forward,
such as a joint missile defense system using Russia's early warning
radar in Azerbaijan in central Asia, the US was not interested.
Lieutenant General Henry "Trey" Obering, director of the
Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, even told Russian reporters the
US BMD batteries and radar system to be deployed in Eastern Europe
will be ready for active duty in 2013.
As the US has deployed missile interceptor systems at its
Eielson and Fort Greely Air Force bases (AFB) in Alaska, and
Vandenberg in California, it already has complete BMD systems for
use elsewhere. And the US is now working with Japan to advance the
development and deployment of BMD systems in the Far East.
To Russia, once the US has finished deploying its BMD systems in
Poland and the Czech Republic, the strategic encirclement of Russia
from both the east and west by the US-led Western military alliance
will be a resounding success.
Even though it is no longer the Soviet Union, Russia is still a
strategic nuclear superpower next to the US. It surely will not sit
idle while the US tightens the noose around its neck.
Hot on the heels of the US scheme for missile defense deployment
in Eastern Europe, Russia announced a new military upgrade plan
worth dozens of billions of rubles, with particular attention to
the three sure-kill weapon systems in its strategic nuclear
capabilities specifically designed to deal with the missile shields
of the US.
The trio features Tu-160 strategic bombers of the Air Force, the
strategic missile forces' land-based Topol-M intercontinental
ballistic missiles and Project 941 (Typhoon) strategic nuclear
submarines of the Navy.
Last Friday, Putin announced that Russia had permanently resumed
long-distance patrol flights of strategic bombers, which were
suspended in 1992 after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
"Air patrol areas will include zones of commercial shipping and
economic activity. As of today, combat patrolling will be on a
permanent basis. It has a strategic character," Putin said.
Russia is also developing its own fifth-generation missile
defense system, while working to expand its existing missile
defense network beyond its borders into Byelorussia, Armenia and
Kazakhstan.
At the same time, Moscow is speeding up the development of new
intercontinental ballistic missiles and realigning its strategic
warheads in addition to announcing it had temporarily suspended the
implementation of the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty on
July 14.
It may not be too difficult to predict the outcome of this
US-Russia arm-wrestling, which will see both sides continue with
what each has been doing. But no matter what the outcome is, this
struggle has already shown observers of the US global strategy that
the war on terror in the post-9/11 agenda of the Bush
administration is probably not the top focus any more.
At least the preparedness for dealing with challenges from other
major powers seems to be given the same strategic significance as
to the war on terror.
Why so, some people might ask? Viewed from the international
perspective, the rise of non-Western powers is becoming a main
trend in global politics and Russia happens to be one of those
powers with a superpower's capability to rival the US as far as its
strategic nuclear arms stockpile is concerned.
And Russia's national strength today is not what it used to be.
Its economy has been undeniably recovering after it hit rock bottom
as a result of the "shock therapy" following the end of the Cold
War. The country has been profiting from high oil prices on the
world market in recent years. The influx of oil and natural gas
dollars has pumped up the country's confidence.
By the end of last year, Russia's economy was close to what it
was in 1991. Economic strength remains the power source keeping its
military machine running and providing much-needed support for
Moscow's counter measures against US pressure over the missile
defense issue.
In foreign policy and national security, though Russia still
needs help from Europe and the US on certain issues, such as
joining the World Trade Organization, Moscow no longer feels it has
to behave in deference to US-European mood.
Fed up with the US "stretching the limit of their forbearance"
in almost all areas, the Russians are now ready to say whatever
they want, like what Putin did at the European security summit held
in Munich earlier this year.
For the US, it has been more than a decade since the end of the
Cold War, but the digestion of the fruits has not been all that
smooth. After the expansion of the European Union and two rounds of
eastward expansion by NATO, many former Warsaw Pact members,
including Poland, have joined the Western Bloc, but the
transformation of Russia has not proceeded the way the West
wanted.
The rise of Putin's personal esteem and Russia's "manageable
democracy" has the US screaming autocracy. Its luring of the
Commonwealth of Independent States members with energy resources or
other bait has also become a target of US and European criticism
that labels it part of the attempt to rebuild Russia's traditional
empirical power.
The revival of a Russia set on "moving away from democracy" as
its economy continues to recover and its military might remains
formidable means something in world politics that the West knows
only too well.
In recent years "the unimaginable major power challenge or war"
has become a catchy phrase among many US politicians and scholars,
but the country's military thrusts causing major power rivalries
remains a reality. It has been in plain sight alongside the war on
terror following 9/11.
To the conservatives of the US, terrorism can never bring
America down and the real threat will always come from major power
challenges.
This is why NATO is still hell-bent on growing larger after two
rounds of eastward expansion and the US is working hard on
energizing the old military alliance in addition to developing "an
alliance of the willing", with an obsession in forging military
relations with non-allies.
Counter-terrorism has taken absolutely nothing from America's
grand design of having the whole world in its pocket.
We are watching the rekindling of the Cold War mentality in
Washington's efforts to find allies and partners while beefing up
its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region, Eastern Europe
and South Asia apart from occupying Iraq indefinitely.
Bush has already become a lame-duck president as he struggles
under a mountain of domestic and foreign problems while counting
his remaining days in the White House. Though he repeatedly vowed
to veto any congressional bill on a timetable for the pullout of US
troops from Iraq, the House passed one on July 2 demanding the bulk
of US forces leave Iraq by April 1, 2008.
Apparently, Americans are already thinking about what to do in
the post-Bush era.
One thing demanding our attention is what will dominate
post-Bush global politics. It is obvious that people all over the
world are hoping for cooperation among major powers to deal with so
many challenges facing humanity.
But, what if it turns out to be unsettling rivalries such as the
ongoing row over missile defense in Europe? It would not make for a
peaceful world that is for sure.
The author is assistant president of China Institutes of
Contemporary International Relations
(China Daily August 21, 2007)
