NATO Deputy Secretary General tries to reassure sceptical Moscow Conference

In his address to the Moscow Missile Defence Conference on 3 May, Ambassador Alexander Vershbow, NATO Deputy Secretary General endeavoured to reassure that NATO's proposed Interim Capability will provide only a limited defence against a ballistic missile threat and could not, technically, intercept Russia's ICBMs.

He justified the need to defend western Europe and North America from ballistic missile attacks from outside the Euro-Atlantic area on the grounds of "a grave and growing missile threat. Over 30 states are working on advanced missile technology. Some already have ballistic missiles that can be fitted with conventional warheads or with weapons of mass destruction. Some of our major cities are already in range. And there is a small but growing chance that, someday, we may be faced with a hostile country threatening our citizens with ballistic missiles". Reinforcing his justification later he said, “Today, south eastern Europe and Southern Russia are the main areas at risk. But by the end of the decade, all of Europe could be within range”.

He then went into some detail about how the NATO missile defence system has been developed by national contributions, "along with a substantial US contribution", and which will provide a limited defence against a ballistic missile threat to the Alliance. After initial signs of Russian willingness to cooperate with NATO on missile defence, he regretted that "progress on NATO-Russia cooperation has not matched progress within NATO". He reiterated that, "NATO’s objective is to find a way forward that includes strong cooperation with Russia on Missile Defence."

In trying to reassure his audience that Russia was not a target for NATO's missile system he said that:

These sites are simply in the wrong place if we were trying to defend against Russian ICBMs aimed at North America. Furthermore, Russia’s ICBMs are too fast and sophisticated. They would simply outpace our planned NATO interceptors. And finally, Russia’s ICBM force is far too large for the NATO system to seriously undermine, even if our interceptors were concentrated in larger numbers than we currently envisage.

He added that NATO's system could not be launched before the burnout of an attacking ballistic missile launched from Russia.

Turning to possible cooperation, the Deputy Secretary General proposed the established of two NATO-Russia missile defence centres where NATO and Russian officers would work closely 24 hours a day:

The first centre, the NATO-Russia MD Data Fusion Centre, would pool data from NATO and Russian sensors to form a common operational picture of possible third-country missile launches.This operational picture would be fed into the second centre, the NATO-Russia MD Planning and Operations Centre. There, NATO and Russian officers would develop plans for intercepting missiles that may be launched against us in a range of scenarios. The second centre would also develop concepts of operations, rules of engagement and pre-planned responses for coordinated missile defence operations that could be implemented in the event of an actual attack. Under this arrangement, NATO and Russia would carry out missile intercepts through their separate command and control systems. But there would be substantial cooperation at every stage of the intercept process, and this would greatly enhance the effectiveness of our combined missile defence capabilities.

Finally, he encouraged Russia along the road of cooperation and away from confrontation, while reaffirming NATO's commitment that it will announce an operable Interim Missile Defence Capability at the Chicago Summit.

NATO's seeming determination to press ahead regardless of growing Russia objections only appears to have hardened the rhetoric with Russian Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov saying the talks were "close to a dead end" and Chief of the Russian Defence staff General Nikolai Makarov saying, "A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens,"

Dr Ian Davis, Director of NATO Watch said, “Will Europeans and North Americans rest easier in their beds at night knowing they have 'protection' against a possible future missile attack from somewhere in the Middle East or Asia at a cost of once again being threatened by nuclear annihilation as a result of a renewed Cold War?”