Updated

The need for an anti-missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic is about as believable as the need for a Canadian based system. NATO has claimed that the defense shield is important in that it will guard against missile attacks from rogue states, a line that Canadians were treated to in the not too distant past regarding the need to implement it here despite the fact that no ‘rogue state’ on earth could actual target mainland North America.

The first thing that has to be examined when it comes to the implementation of systems such as this is – who actually constitutes a legitimate threat? The answer right now is – no one. Iran doesn’t have the capability to target Europe, and even if it did, do you honestly believe that it would actually fire a missile at an Eastern European target? That is, of course, a hypothetical, and it’s important to remember that Iran doesn’t possess delivery systems capable of hitting Poland, let alone the Balkans, nor does it possess a nuclear weapons capability. And even then, if it did, do you actually believe it stupid enough to aggressively and unilaterally employ a nuclear weapon against another nation knowing that the response to any such attack would spell its utter destruction?

Perhaps some of you are under the impression that Iran is a nation of bloodthirsty killers capable of just about anything. And that would speak more to your own ignorance and the foolishness spread by the likes of the Bush administration that is actually swallowed en mass by those that don’t bother to actually apply reason to unreasonable assumptions.

Unlike Iran, North Korea does have a nuclear capability, as under developed as it may be, and has, in the past, tested it. But there again, the existence of their program has been used more as a bargaining chip with regards to securing aid assistance than actually threatening to use it in an aggressive manner.

Logistically, North Korea does not possess the ability to realistically target the US mainland, nor could it target Eastern Europe. As I have point out above, and in the past, the use of any such weapon in an aggressive, unilateralist way would result in it being transformed into the world’s largest parking lot, and to believe that it would, and thus invite its own doom, not only goes against every understanding of the megalomaniacal mindset of its leader, but presupposes that the entire North Korean military leadership would happily go along with the idea without a significant portion of it engaging in a coup attempt.

This brings us back to the current position of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has, I believe, responded in a realistic fashion with regards to the deployment of such a system and the potential for growth of a US nuclear weapons presence in Europe. As I said yesterday, were such a system implemented in, for example, Latin America, with its aim being to deter potential threats from ambiguous ‘rogue states’, the United States would most likely respond in the same way. Unless, that is, they actually brokered the deal to supply the system itself.

As Putin has pointed out…

“He said neither Iran nor North Korea had the weapons that the US was seeking to shoot down.

“We are being told the anti-missile defence system is targeted against something that does not exist. Doesn’t it seem funny to you?” he asked.

Top Iranian security official Ali Larijani described the planned deployment as the “joke of the year”, adding that Iran’s missiles were not capable of reaching Europe.

Mr Putin said Washington had “altered the strategic balance” by unilaterally pulling out of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty in 2002.”

That last statement concerning the ABM Treaty should be seriously considered when examining this situation…

“On December 13, 2001, George W. Bush gave Russia notice of the United States’ withdrawal from the treaty, in accordance with the clause that requires six months notice before terminating the pact. This was the first time in recent history the United States has withdrawn from a major international arms treaty. This led to the eventual creation of the Missile Defense Agency.

Supporters of the withdrawal argued that it was a necessity in order to test and build a limited National Missile Defense to protect the United States from nuclear blackmail by a rogue state. The withdrawal had many critics as well as supporters. John Rhinelander, a negotiator of the ABM treaty, predicted that the withdrawal would be a “fatal blow” to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and would lead to a “world without effective legal constraints on nuclear proliferation.”

In this case, the The Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions also holds little water due to three crucial loopholes…

There are no verification provisions to give confidence, to either the signatories or other parties, that the stated reductions have in fact taken place.

The arsenal reductions are not required to be permanent; warheads are not required to be destroyed and may therefore be placed in storage and later redeployed.

The arsenal reductions are required to be completed by December 31, 2012, which is also the day on which the treaty loses all force, unless extended by both parties.

Following 9/11, given the possibility of new threats arising, cooperation with the Russian Federation in this regard would have been the most prudent course. Instead, it was one that was largely overlooked. And now, rather than bilateral options being implemented with regards to the ‘rogue state’ scenario, the United States has isolated the Russians. History, with regards to the deployment of this system, cannot be overlooked, and were Putin not to respond in the way that he has would have been a sign of weakness on Russia’s part, and that is certainly not something that an ex-KGB official turned President is going to entertain. Putin is, unfortunately, not a stupid man. He has first hand experience with regards to dealing with the United States during the Cold War and knows very well how to differentiate between fact and fiction in certain situations, ones that the public at large knows little of. Whether US intentions are honourable is, unfortunately, not the point. What is, is the fact that, even as moronic as the Bush administration may be, there is no questioning that the implementation of this program was going to illicit such a response from Moscow. For NATO, or the United States, to play dumb in that regard is offensive.

Lastly, the benefits to the US defense sector that this undertaking will provide is one of the sleeper issues that is little discussed, as is the growth of US influence in Eastern Europe, especially as it has to do with policy and the backing of foreign governments for US initiatives elsewhere.

Updated: Former Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, the man continually overlooked by chest thumping Westerners with regards to his immense role in the dissolution of the Soviet Union, has also commented on the issue…

“Moscow and the West have been in dispute over Iraq, America’s plans for a missile defense system and civil rights within Russia itself.

Britain’s extradition request for a Russian man in connection with the murder of ex-agent Alexander Litvinenko has also caused tension.

In an interview with Radio Four’s The World This Weekend, Mr Gorbachev said relations between Russia and the West were in a bad state.

“Well, it’s worse than I expected,” he said through a translator.

“We lost 15 years after the end of the Cold War, but the West I think and particularly the United States, our American friends, were dizzy with their success, with the success of their game that they were playing, a new empire.

“I don’t understand why you, the British, did not tell them, ‘Don’t think about empire, we know about empires, we know that all empires break up in the end, so why start again to create a new mess.’”

He added that the war with Iraq had damaged Britain’s relationship with Russia after a promising start.

“Tony Blair and Putin established a very good relationship and that made it possible to advance our relationship,” he said.

“But then Iraq happened and Tony found himself in the embrace of that military monster, of that war situation, and he lost a lot of his credibility in the world and in Europe.”