President Dmitry Medvedev's decision to set up Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad territory wedged between Poland and Lithuania -- announced just as Obama was elected -- immediately raised "serious worries" at NATO.

Medvedev said the move would neutralise the security threat posed by the US shield which will link 10 interceptors in Poland to a radar in the Czech Republic by 2013-2014 and is aimed at countering "rogue states" like Iran.

Iskanders carry conventional warheads over a range of up to 280 kilometres but Russia, given its frustration over the US system, could deploy an updated version capable of reaching close to 500 kilometres (300 miles).

This could be in defiance of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, signed between Moscow and Washington in 1987 and banning missiles with ranges of 500-5,500 kilometres, from which Russia has already threatened to withdraw.

It could also be a new step in rolling back Cold War-era arms accords, after Moscow suspended almost a year ago participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty, limiting troop numbers and military equipment in Europe.

But while the deployment might raise new tensions between Russia and NATO -- whose biggest and most powerful member is the United States -- it would not, of itself, significantly change the military balance of power.

"This project to deploy Iskanders, in place of the old Totchka missiles, in the Kaliningrad region already dates from 2000. It was only delayed due to lack of funding," said Joseph Henrotin, at Belgium's Strategic Studies Network.

Even Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, whose country is directly in Russia's firing line, considers Medvedev's missile gambit to be "a new political step, not a military one."

Despite this, analysts differ over how the future US administration will respond to the move.

For Francois Heisbourg, special advisor at the Foundation for Research and Security (FRS) in Paris, "this manouevre of intimidation by the Russians could backfire on them."

"If they think that the United States will give up the idea of deploying their anti-missile shield, they're barking up the wrong tree," he said.

Certainly US Democrats have never been quite as enthusiastic as President George W. Bush's Republicans toward this vast and costly -- roughly eight to nine billion dollars a year -- expansion of the defence shield into Europe.

But "Obama is extremely sensitive to anything that might portray him as someone who is easy to intimidate", as his lack of international experience was a factor that his campaign rivals tried to exploit, Heisbourg noted.

"He will not want to give the impression that he is someone who can easily be pushed around, right at the beginning of his mandate," he said.

But according to Andrew Cuchins, at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies, Moscow's "public relations" error must not be allowed to drive the wedge deeper between Russia and the United States right now.

"A failed diplomacy with Russia is not workable," he said.

And he warned: "We have not found a way which integrates Russia security concerns into a broader security framework."

"If we don't convince the Russians we are taking these concerns into account, (there will be) no way to negotiate on armaments control and proliferation," he said.

He also said it was vital "to convince the Iranians that Russia and the Americans are serious about cooperating".

"I think there could be, and should be, a greater effort to integrate the Russians into evolving missile defence strategy in Europe," he said.

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Share This Article With Planet Earth

del.icio.us	Digg	Reddit
YahooMyWeb	Google	Facebook

Related Links
Learn about nuclear weapons doctrine and defense at SpaceWar.com
Learn about missile defense at SpaceWar.com
All about missiles at SpaceWar.com
Learn about the Superpowers of the 21st Century at SpaceWar.com