NATO Deputy Secretary General’s enthusiasm for missile defence is undiminished, despite Russian opposition

By Nigel Chamberlain, NATO Watch

Speaking at the 2013 Royal United Studies Institute (RUSI) Conference on Missile Defence in London on 12 June, Deputy Secretary General Ambassador Alexander Vershbow said that missile defence has become one of NATO's "critical security challenges of our time”. He explained that NATO’s Interim Capability now offers protection to Allies in Southern Europe and includes: 

  • NATO command and control assets;
  • a US forward-based radar located in Turkey under NATO’s operational control; and
  • the availability of a US ship equipped with missiles capable of intercepting short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. 

Vershbow added that NATO expects to declare an Initial Operating Capability in a few years and achieve the ultimate goal of Full Operational Capability early next decade, which will provide full coverage and protection for all NATO European populations. To this end, NATO’s command and control arrangements for missile defence have been enhanced this year. He said that: ”There is a clear and agreed understanding among the Allies that missile defence can complement the deterrent role of nuclear weapons, but not replace those weapons”.

According to the Deputy Secretary General, NATO’s on-going work in this field includes:

1. Regular assessments of the potential threats posed by missile proliferation so that missile defence plans can be adopted, if necessary.

2. Monitoring developments to ensure good governance and keeping costs under control.

3. Being prepared to engage with third states to enhance transparency and confidence, and to increase missile defence effectiveness.

4. Looking closely at the possible consequences for third states of any NATO action to intercept or engage incoming missiles.

5. Bringing together assets from Europe and the US to deliver a common, integrated and shared NATO capability.

Listing contributions from several Member States, he said that “other Allies are expected to announce additional contributions”:  

  • the Netherlands has announced plans to upgrade four air-defence frigates with a missile defence radar;
  • France plans to develop an early-warning capability and long-range radar;
  • Germany is hosting the NATO command-and-control system at Ramstein; and
  • Turkey, Romania, Poland and Spain have agreed to host US assets.

He cited these developments as “an excellent example of what we call Smart Defence – Allies working together to deliver a critical capability that they would be unable to deliver individually”, but then went on to detail a critical assessment of Russia’s opposition to missile defence saying “Russia remains very skeptical – both about NATO’s missile defence plans, and about the merits of working together to meet the growing missile threat to all our nations”. Vershbow said that NATO leaders have made a strong political commitment that deployed systems in Europe will:

Not undermine strategic stability or Russia’s strategic deterrence capabilities. Even without that guarantee, the facts should have really convinced Russia that NATO missile defence plans pose no danger to its strategic forces. The technical capabilities, the planned numbers, and the locations of our interceptors mean that our system simply cannot pose a threat to Russia.

Seemingly rather frustrated, he went on to say that many independent Russian experts and retired general officers accept that NATO’s missile defence plans would be no match for the many hundreds of sophisticated ICBMs that are still available in Russia’s inventory and that: “They know that the Russian official claims about the threat allegedly posed by NATO’s missile defence system require that one suspend the laws of physics!” Pressing his point, the Deputy Secretary General said:

Any remaining ambiguity about these facts should have been removed by the US decision earlier this year to reprioritise its missile defence plans, and to cancel Phase 4 of the European Phased Adaptive Approach. This was the specific phase Russia claimed would have significantly degraded its strategic deterrent. That assertion was unsupported by the facts but, given the Russian perception, one would have expected the US decision to open a way to cooperation. Regretfully, that didn’t happen. And there is a growing sense in NATO that every time we remove one perceived hurdle, Russia simply erects another.

NATO’s stated objective is a combined missile defence architecture that can protect both the Alliance and Russia which would include a very high level of integration and day-to-day interaction between the NATO and Russian systems, while maintaining their separate chains of command. This could be achieved by connecting individual missile defence systems into a common NATO-Russian endeavour through two joint centres:

  1. The NATO-Russia Data Fusion Centre where NATO and Russian officers would monitor together the intelligence picture, and share early warning data and other information 24/7. 
  1. The NATO-Russia Planning and Operations Centre where joint planning and coordination of missile defence operations would take place on a on a full-time basis, developing plans for intercepting missiles that may be launched against either party in a range of scenarios. The centre would 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.

NATO leaders have proposed the development of transparency measures to provide a maximum degree of predictability. By cooperating with NATO, Russia would get the best possible insights and assurances about plans and intentions and the two joint centres would give the strongest guarantee that NATO’s system is not directed against Russia.

Russia’s demand for legally binding guarantees and new treaties are “not on the cards” according to Vershbow nor would they “solve the real problem, which is a fundamental lack of trust” which requires Russia “to jettison Cold War stereotypes, once and for all, that still portray NATO as a threat and an adversary”. Summing up, the Deputy Secretary General said that:

NATO have always regarded missile defence cooperation as a possible game-changer for our relationship with Russia. It is a real opportunity to raise our partnership to the strategic level that NATO and Russia pledged to achieve in Lisbon two and a half years ago. It would also bring greater stability and security to the entire Euro-Atlantic area. If Russia doesn’t want to cooperate, then it will be a huge missed opportunity. But life will go on. We will move ahead with NATO missile defence as planned, because it is critical to the collective defence of our people and our territories in this 21st century. And I trust our Russian friends will understand that.