"RESET" OVERLOADED WITH MISTRUSTThe Russian-US relations are still hindered by a considerable amount of mutual mistrust

In November 2010, during the NATO summit in Lisbon, the announcement was made that the partnership with Russia would become closer.  According to the new strategic concept of the alliance, the Russian Federation is not officially defined as a threat.  The document describes Moscow as a strategic partner and mentions mutual trust, predictability of policies and respect for territorial integrity.

The sides have also presumably agreed on cooperation on the missile defense in Europe.  However, already early this year, NATO's plans to start to in 2012 the deployment in Europe of the elements of the antimissile "shield" have again balked the Russian-US "reset."

During the Sochi meeting of the Russia-NATO summit which was created earlier as a mechanism of consultations on the security issues, Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev attempted to persuade the alliance officials to provide legal guarantees to Moscow that the new missile defense system will not neutralize the Russian nuclear deterrence forces, in other words, that it would not jeopardize Russia's defensive ability.  Moscow fears that in the absence of this type of a document, the obsolete but still effective principle of the "mutually assured destruction" might ultimately simply be rendered ineffective.  If the USA does not provide guarantees, the Kremlin promised to withdraw from the new START treaty, deploy missiles near the alliance's borders and start a new arms race.

In 2007, Russia already voiced the possibility of deployment of the missiles on its western borders in Kaliningrad.  These plans were cancelled when in September 2009, US President Barack Obama abandoned the preceding version of the air defense system, which was developed by the George Bush administration and under which the missile defense system components were to be deployed in Poland and Czech Republic (a radar in the Czech Republic and 10 silo-based antimissiles in Poland).

The present-day concept of the US missile defense system in Europe is based on NATO (or, to be more precise, strengthens NATO's central role in Europe's missile defense system), has four phases and is called Phased Adaptive Approach.

The first phase of the system (2011-2012) includes SM-3 missiles on the US Navy ships and radars in South Europe.  The second phase is to be launched in 2015, when the ground-based antimissile system will be added.  In other words, until the first ground-based facilities are installed, Europe will be defended by the US battleships, cruising along the coasts and carrying antimissile missiles.  During the third phase, antimissile missiles with the effective range that will enable them to fly as far as to London, and the fourth phase, scheduled for 2010, envisages installation of antimissiles which can engage an intercontinental missile.  The final decision on what the architecture of the antimissile defense in Europe is to be reached in May 2012 at the NATO summit in Chicago.

Russia is particularly worried about the final phase of the US missile defense system deployment program, in other words, about the installation of the missiles that can down intercontinental missiles, the mainstay of the Russia's nuclear arsenal.  Moscow fears that the US antimissile defense system in Europe might grow so strong that Russia's nuclear forces will turn out to be useless.  This is why the Kremlin argues that Washington's plans pose a threat to Russia's national security.

NATO is trying not to attach much significance to Russia's statements about the withdrawal from START and deployment of missiles near the alliance's borders.  NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that Russian threats to start a new round of arms race are simply a component of a "normal working process."  NATO officials keep saying that the missile defense is intended against Iran and North Korea and that the alliance does not pose a threat to Russia and is not going to attack it.  At the same time, Rasmussen added that Moscow is unlikely to get any concrete guarantees and noted that the "best reassurance which Moscow can get is participation in the practical cooperation, involvement in the process.

However, the sides have different views on "practical cooperation" too.  Russia insists on joint command and control of the missile defense system.  The USA categorically rejects this and proposes to create joint data exchange centers and operate "two independent systems, Russian and NATO, but with common goals."  It is noteworthy that some of the NATO countries provide their own explanations for Russia's protests against the US missile defense system.  For example, Romuald Szeremietiew, professor of the Catholic University of Lublin, former deputy and acting defense minister of Poland, wrote literally the following in Nasz Dziennik in May 2011:  "Strategic concepts which are developed in Russian centers of geopolitical analysis say unequivocally that the goal of the country's policy is rebuilding the empire and regaining the status of a superpower in international relations.  Russia is a former colonial state.  The colonies were not overseas, as was the case with other empires, but nearby and formed so-called 'near abroad.'  So if the Russian elites really want to maintain imperial greatness, getting the colonies back and their reincorporation into the empire turns out to be necessary.  From this point of view, the NATO military infrastructure on the territory of Poland, Baltic states or Romania would thwart Russia's plans.  Moscow's plans would be particularly thwarted by the presence of US military bases and elements of the US armed forces there…"

Against this backdrop, it is noteworthy that there are differences of opinion on the level of cooperation with Russia in the missile defense field.  For example, the Baltic and Eastern European states are mainly against Russia's close integration into the European missile defense system.  Germany for its part, is not particularly pleased with increasing role of the USA in Europe and, on the contrary, wants to raise the level of cooperation with Moscow.  "There is need for a clear understanding that this is a US design.  Europe can only contribute in some auxiliary things of secondary importance.  But the design, most of the practical implementation, are of course of the US origin," Russia teases Europeans using its Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov as a mouthpiece.

In the mean time, there is a lot of criticism of the Obama administration domestically too.  In June, a number of influential US analysts said that the White House voluntarily supplies Moscow with confidential information about the missile defense systems, including different types of unique technologies.  The Republicans also harshly criticized the president for the failure of the plans to install missile defense systems in the Czech Republic, saying that Obama betrayed one of his European allies for Russia's sake.

In addition, the House Foreign Affairs Committee, during the hearing in Congress which was called "Time to Pause the Reset? Defending U.S. Interests in the Face of Russian Aggression," recently voiced its displeasure with the concessions which the President Obama administration made.

So, in the runup to the elections, Barack Obama is unlikely to take any steps which his political opponents, the Republicans, might consider as ceding positions to Russians.

The Washington Time has already reported that if the Obama Administration signs an agreement with Turkey on deployment of the TPY-2 radar there, it will constitute another concession to Russia.  In the opinion of critics, deployment of the radar in Turkey will lower the potential of the system and reduce the efficiency of interception of the long-range missiles which may be launched from Iran toward the USA.

Among other possible countries of deployment of radars was Georgia, which, however, is not a NATO member.  In addition, keeping in mind the strained relations between Moscow and Tbilisi in recent years, it is hard to imagine what consequences this decision by the White House would have for the Russian-US relations.

At the same time, Turkey insists that, in case of signing of the agreement, the data collected with the radar are not to be released to Israel or any other countries which are not NATO members.  It is not known how Washington will react to that.

Against this backdrop, the US State Department spokesman Mark Toner is trying to persuade everyone that this issue, just like the choice of the phased adaptive approach, has nothing to do with Russia.  On the contrary, the adaptive approach can "better protect" NATO members and the United States and can be practically implemented faster than the preceding project.  However, this does not seem to sound convincing to the White House's political opponents.

Russia also recognizes threats that emanate from the Islamic Republic of Iran, but there are quite a few people in the USA who believe that the Kremlin helps Iran.  In their arguments, they usually add when they supply their arguments that the world does not know the true intentions of the Iranian leaders or the consequences of the confrontation which is reportedly under way at full speed between the followers of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the ayatollah.

Also, Clifford May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, writes in National Review that in the USA, some politicians and experts are certain that besides the missile defense system in Europe, the USA needs space-based missile defense systems.  In the opinion of May, this system would not only not result in "militarization of outer space," but also play a role of a warning sign "Weapons prohibited" of sorts.

"If we don't utilize space to protect lives, do we really think that others - the Iranians, the North Koreans, the Chinese, the Russians - will not eventually develop the means to use space for their own, less benevolent ends?" - the author asks in good faith.

So, in practice the words which are used in the new strategic blueprint of NATO are unable to change anything yet.  So it seem that the Russian-US "reset" is still balked by a considerable portion of mistrust, and the European missile defense system plays an important role here.

However, the question is whether or not Russia and the USA need arms race.  Especially for Russia, it would mean huge budget spending which would most probably damage social security programs.  Raising funds together is much easier, but Europeans are unlikely to be delighted.  And even the USA has its own, widely known, economic problems.