It is interesting that arguably the most bellicose of US presidents in recent times should now be accusing the Russians of bellicosity. But that is what the Bush administration has resorted to in response to the threat from Moscow that Russia will take “military measures” if Washington pressed ahead with its European missile shield based in the Czech Republic and Poland.
Russia does not accept the American argument that the defensive missile installation is there to protect Europe from attack from a nuclear-armed Iran. Nor do many other defense analysts. The Kremlin sees that NATO — created to confront the old Soviet Union and its satellites — is now sitting on its Western borders and now the Georgian government is pressing ahead with its intention to join NATO. The ability of US missiles in Poland to interdict a Russian missile attack on Europe may be defensive but in balance of power terms, it can be reasonably taken by the Russians as an offensive move.
The “military measures” Moscow is threatening if the Bush shield scheme goes ahead are almost certainly the re-targeting of Russian missiles onto Europe, where they have not been aimed since the end of the Cold War.
For the Europeans this is a chilling promise. The newly assertive Russia with its massive new inflows of petrodollars and its ability to cut off gas supplies to much of the continent has long since ceased to be the land of unbridled economic opportunity dreamt of 10 years ago in European capitals. Russia is now prepared to be confrontational and will no longer be pushed around as it was when it was undergoing the economic consequences of its attempted transformation into a free market economy.
Bush’s missile shield is not the only factor that has triggered this uncompromising stance. The Kremlin now questions the very existence of NATO. What is its real purpose now that the Cold War has ended? It bombed Russia’s allies — the Serbs — into submission over Bosnia and Kosovo. Now it is fighting and perhaps beginning to lose a war in Afghanistan. Why should European and North American armies still be training together with a unified command structure when the threat for which NATO was originally formed no longer exists?
Kremlin thinking now would seem to be that if the NATO alliance remains in being, it constitutes a threat which Russia must counter, whether in terms of its own missile retargeting or in terms of reconfiguring its military dispositions on the ground.
What is, therefore, happening is a ratcheting up of tension. History shows that increased “defensive” preparedness by opposing powers can all too easily lead them to stumble into war. Bush’s missile shield started this hardening of Russian policy, though this is not to say that if the White House had not handed them this excuse on a plate, Moscow might not have found another reason to adopt its tough new policies. The US and its shortsighted president have, therefore, led Western Europe into suddenly dangerous times after 60 years of comfortable peace.
