by Shang Xuqian
LEIDEN, Netherlands, Sept. 23 (Xinhua) -- Russia was unlikely to reciprocate U.S. President Barack Obama's scrapping of a missile shield in Eastern Europe as it was not a political concession to Moscow, said a scholar in Russia studies and international security.
"The whole decision is much more complicated than simply the annulment of the missile shield," Dr. Marcel de Haas of the Dutch Clingendael research institute told Xinhua in an interview on Tuesday.
"For obvious reasons, Russia will explain this as a victory for their policy," he said. "It's short-time happiness on the Russian side because the program is still on, but in a different concept, not only with sea-based but also with land-based missiles in Europe by 2015."
Plans of the former Bush administration to build a strategic missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic had been vehemently opposed by Moscow, which claimed that such a shield would undermine its national security.
Now that the missile shield is abandoned, the United States might expect Russia to be more cooperative on important issues, such as Iran. But de Haas, who is a senior researcher at Clingendael, was less optimistic. "I have my sincere doubt about that," he said.
"I don't think that Russia, because of the U.S. decision, will make any steadfast stance against Iran to please the United States, because Moscow maintains close ties with Teheran in the fields of natural gas, nuclear energy and conventional arms deliveries."
Nor could de Haas see any movement on the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, which Russia suspended in December 2007. "There is no reason for Russia to stop this suspension -- there is no benefit."
He believes that NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen's proposal to ultimately link up the U.S., Russian and NATO missile defense systems is unrealistic. "It's a nice diplomatic, political proposal which creates a good atmosphere. But I see lots of problems."
He said there might be technical difficulties to connect the Russian system with the Western ones. And there were political problems as well.
"Russia has a different attitude towards Iran. Therefore, if Iran becomes more threatening, who is going to push which button?" he asked. "Is the United States going to push a button to launch Russian missiles? I have my doubts. And likewise, the other way around: Will the United States or NATO ever give permission to Russia to launch a missile? I don't think so."
De Haas is also pessimistic about the future of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's proposal for a new European security architecture. "I have my sincere doubts that NATO will ever agree with this," he said.
The Russian proposal suggests that individual European states will become members of the new security architecture, separate from their membership in the EU, NATO, or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which are the core of today's European security.
"I cannot imagine that Western nations will participate on a one-on-one basis in such a security organization, realizing that Russia, by its territory, will be the major power in Europe. That is fully unacceptable," said de Haas, who is also a lieutenant colonel in the Royal Netherlands Army.
The majority of European states would continue their cooperation in the existing formats -- EU, OSCE, NATO, he said. There might be a new cooperation platform on European security. But such a platform must not affect the current relationship as laid down in the current structures of CFE, NATO, OSCE and EU.
De Haas said, although the Obama decision was not a concession to Russia, it fit within his strategy of resetting the relationship with Russia. Therefore it might contribute to the rapprochement between Washington and Moscow.
Russia was expected to cooperate on the fight against piracy off Somalia, terrorism, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It would also help with the transport of military supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan over Russian soil.
Cooperation in these areas would benefit Russia as well, said de Haas. "We will only see improvement in security issues by Russia when it is in the interest of Russia to cooperate."
Progress might be expected in the negotiations between Russia and the United States on a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which are under way in Geneva. It was in the interest of Moscow to agree on a new START treaty to have reductions on both sides of strategic nuclear arms, as Russia wanted to get rid of its stockpile of obsolete nuclear missiles, said de Haas.
Despite the differences, de Haas believes that the West should talk with the Russians. The discussions should be expanded both in scope and depth, he said.
They should be able to talk about differences as well because the major problem between the West and Russia is lack of confidence. The NATO-Russia Council, which is composed of the 28 NATO allies and Russia, is a good forum for such discussions, said de Haas. "We have to be in contact with them (the Russians)."
