View Full Version : White House to Scrap Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield
And so it goes...;)
White House to Scrap Bush’s Approach to Missile Shield
Peter Baker and Nicholas Kulish, NYT, 17 Sep 2009
The Obama administration plans to announce on Thursday that it will scrap former President George W. Bush’s planned missile defense system in Eastern Europe and instead deploy a reconfigured system aimed more at intercepting shorter-range Iranian missiles, according to people familiar with the plans.
President Obama decided not to deploy a sophisticated radar system in the Czech Republic or 10 ground-based interceptors in Poland, as Mr. Bush had planned. Instead, the new system his administration is developing would deploy smaller SM-3 missiles, at first aboard ships and later probably either in southern Europe or Turkey, those familiar with the plans said.
The White House will announce the decision Thursday morning and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who was first appointed by Mr. Bush, will then discuss it with reporters at 10:30 a.m. It amounts to one of the biggest national security reversals by the new administration, one that will aggravate Czech and Polish allies and possibly please Russia, which has adamantly objected to the Bush system. But administration officials stressed that they are not abandoning missile defense, only redesigning it to meet the more immediate Iranian threat.
“The way forward enhances our homeland defense and protects our forces abroad as well as our European allies,” said an administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid upstaging the announcement by Mr. Gates. “Our review has been driven by an updated intelligence assessment of Iran’s missile programs and new advances in our missile defense capabilities and technologies.”
Administration officials said the Bush missile defense architecture was better designed to counter potential long-range missiles by Iran, but recent tests and intelligence have indicated that Tehran is moving more rapidly toward developing short- and medium-range missiles. Mr. Obama’s advisers said their reconfigured system would be more aimed at that threat by stationing interceptor missiles closer to Iran.
The Obama administration has begun briefing allies on the decision, and the Czech prime minister confirmed that he received a phone call from Mr. Obama informing him of the plans.
“Today, shortly after midnight, American President Barack Obama contacted me by telephone to inform me that his administration is pulling out of plans to build a radar for the anti-missile defense system on the territory of the Czech Republic,” Mr. Fischer said, adding that “Poland was informed in the same manner.”
A Polish diplomat said early Thursday that Warsaw was waiting to hear, but added that “it is clear that the administration has other priorities.”
Mr. Bush had developed a special relationship with Eastern Europe as relations between Washington and Moscow deteriorated. The proposal to deploy parts of the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic were justified on the grounds that they would protect Europe and the eastern coast of the United States against any possible missile attacks from Iran.
But the Polish and Czech governments saw the presence of American military personnel based permanently in their countries as a protection against Russia. Moscow strongly opposed the shield and claimed it was targeted against Russia and undermined national security. The United States repeatedly denied such claims.
Mr. Obama’s advisers have said their changes to missile defense were motivated by the accelerating Iranian threat, not by Russian complaints. But the announcement comes just days before Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet privately with Russia’s President Dmitri A. Medvedev in New York on the sidelines of next week’s United Nations General Assembly session.
The administration maintains that the switch in the Bush plans does not indicate any diminishment of its relations with Poland and the Czech Republic. “The United States stands by its security commitments to its allies,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Policymakers in Eastern Europe, however, are concerned about Mr. Obama’s priorities, viewing him as someone less interested in the region — and less willing to stand up to Russia — than his predecessor. Compounding sensitivities in Poland was that Thursday is the 70th anniversary of the Russian invasion of Poland, after the Nazis attacked from the west.
Andrei Nesterenko, a spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry, said Thursday that the ministry was aware of the reports, but would await the formal announcement before commenting.
The Obama review of missile defense was influenced in large part by evidence that Iran has made significant progress toward developing medium-range missiles that could threaten Europe, even as the prospects of an Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile that could reach the United States remain distant.
In May, Iran launched the Sejil-2, the first successful test of a solid-fuel missile. With an estimated range of around 1,200 miles, it could strike Israel or many parts of Europe. Unlike Iran’s liquid-fuel missiles, a solid-fuel missile can be stored, moved around and fired on shorter notice, and thus is considered by military experts to be a greater threat.
The Obama team relied heavily on research by a Stanford University physicist, Dean Wilkering, who presented the government with research this year arguing that Poland and the Czech Republic were not the most effective places to station a missile defense system against the most likely Iranian threat. Instead, he said, more optimal places to station missiles and radar systems would be in Turkey or the Balkans.
“If you move the system down closer to the Middle East,” it would “make more sense for the defense of Europe, Mr. Wilkering said in an interview.
Mr. Wilkering said the new administration did not want to simply abandon missile defense but orient it for a different threat than the Bush team saw. “The Obama administration is more interested in missile defense as a valuable instrument, a valuable aspect of our military posture than I would have thought,” he said. Beyond moving the system from Eastern Europe, the Obama team concluded that the advantage of using the smaller SM-3 interceptors is that they have been proven effective and can be deployed sooner than the ground-based interceptors that the Bush team was still developing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/europe/18shield.html?partner=rss&emc=rss
HowardCohodas
09-17-2009, 07:47
And the Secretary of State promised America's umbrella of protection to the Middle East if Iran goes nuclear. More change you can't believe in.
The Reaper
09-17-2009, 07:48
And Russia smiles
As Iran does.
TR
The retreat begins?
LINK (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125317801774419047.html#mod=WSJ_hps_LEADNewsColl ection)
WASHINGTON -- The White House is scrapping a Bush-era plan for an Eastern European missile-defense shield, saying a redesigned defensive system would be cheaper, quicker and more effective against the threat from Iranian missiles.
"After an extensive process, I have approved the unanimous recommendations of my secretary of defense and my joint chiefs of staff to strengthen America's defenses against ballistic-missile attack," President Barack Obama said in an announcement Thursday morning.
."Our new missile defense architecture in Europe will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America's allies," Mr. Obama said. "It is more comprehensive than the previous program, it deploys capabilities that are proven and cost effective, and it sustains and builds upon our commitment to protect the U.S. homeland."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the decision to abandon the Bush administration's plans came about because of a change in the U.S. perception of the threat posed by Iran.
Mr. Gates said intelligence experts concluded the short- and medium-range missiles were "developing more rapidly than previously projected" in Iran. The findings are a major reversal from the Bush administration, which pushed aggressively to begin construction of the Eastern European system before leaving office in January.
Mr. Gates said the previous administration's plans will be changed, moving away from the installation of a missile-defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland in the near future. He said a second phase to begin in 2015 could result in missiles being placed on land in Eastern Europe.
Russia on Thursday welcomed the news but said it saw no reason to offer concessions in return. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev threatened last November to station tactical Iskander missiles on Poland's border if the U.S. system was deployed.
"The Bush plans on the missile defense as we knew them until now were nothing more than a provocation of security in the European region," said Dmitry Rogozin, Russia's ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, in a phone interview.
Jan Fischer, the Czech Republic interim prime minister, said he got a phone call from Mr. Obama just after midnight Thursday about the plans.
The Polish government doesn't plan to make an immediate statement on its Thursday meeting with U.S. officials on the missile shield, Foreign Ministry spokesman Piotr Paszkowski said.
The Bush administration proposed the European-based system to counter the perceived threat of Iran's developing a nuclear weapon that could be placed atop its increasingly sophisticated missiles. There is widespread disagreement over the progress of Iran's nuclear program toward developing such a weapon, but miniaturizing nuclear weapons for use on long-range missiles is one of the most difficult technological hurdles for an aspiring nuclear nation.
The Bush plan infuriated the Kremlin, which argued the system was a potential threat to its own intercontinental ballistic missiles. U.S. officials repeatedly insisted the location and limited scale of the system -- a radar site in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland -- posed no threat to Russian strategic arms.
The Obama administration's assessment concludes that U.S. allies in Europe, including NATO members, face a more immediate threat from Iran's short- and medium-range missiles and is ordering a shift toward the development of regional missile defenses for the Continent, according to people familiar with the matter. Such systems would be far less controversial.
NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the U.S. decision is a positive step and would improve the involvement of all NATO nations. Mr. Fogh Rasmussen said he had talks with the U.S. top envoy to the alliance on Thursday morning, adding the full alliance would be debriefed later in the day.
Critics of the shift are bound to view it as a gesture to win Russian cooperation with U.S.-led efforts to seek new economic sanctions on Iran if Tehran doesn't abandon its nuclear program. Russia, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has opposed efforts to impose fresh sanctions on Tehran.
Security Council members, which include the U.S. and Russia, will meet with Iranian negotiators on Oct. 1 to discuss Iran's nuclear program.
Current and former U.S. officials briefed on the assessment's findings said the administration was expected to leave open the option of restarting the Polish and Czech system if Iran makes advances in its long-range missiles in the future.
The decision to shelve the defense system is all but certain to raise alarms in Eastern Europe, where officials have expressed concerns that the White House's effort to "reset" relations with Moscow would come at the expense of American allies in the former Soviet bloc. "The Poles are nervous," said a senior U.S. military official.
Earlier, a Polish official said his government wouldn't "speculate" on administration decisions regarding missile defense but said "we expect the U.S. will abide by its commitments" to cooperate with Poland militarily in areas beyond the missile-defense program.
Last week, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said he expected the Obama administration to drop the missile-defense plans. He said that Moscow wouldn't view the move as a concession but rather a reversal of a mistaken Bush-era policy.
Still, the decision is likely to be seen in Russia as a victory for the Kremlin. Mr. Medvedev will meet with Mr. Obama at next week's meetings of the U.N. General Assembly and Group of 20 industrialized and developing nations.
Although a center-right government in Prague supported the Bush missile-defense plan when it was first proposed, the Czech Republic is now run by a caretaker government. A Czech official said his government was concerned an announcement by the White House on the missile-defense program could influence coming elections and has urged a delay. But the Obama administration has decided to keep to its original timetable.
European analysts said the administration would be forced to work hard to convince both sides the decision wasn't made to curry favor with Moscow and, instead, relied only on the program's technical merits and analysis of Iran's missile capabilities.
"There are two audiences: the Russians and the various European countries," said Sarah Mendelson, a Russia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The task is: How do they cut through the conspiracy theories in Moscow?"
The Obama administration has been careful to characterize its review as a technical assessment of the threat posed by the Iranian regime, as well as the costs and capabilities of a ground-based antimissile system to complement the two already operating in Alaska and central California. Those West Coast sites are meant to defend against North Korean missiles.
The administration has also debated offering Poland and the Czech Republic alternative programs to reassure the two NATO members that the U.S. remains committed to their defense.
Poland, in particular, has lobbied the White House to deploy Patriot missile batteries -- the U.S. Army's primary battlefield missile-defense system -- manned by American troops as an alternative.
Although Polish officials supported the Bush plan, U.S. officials said they had indicated their primary desire was getting U.S. military personnel on Polish soil. Gen. Carter Hamm, commander of U.S. Army forces in Europe, said Washington has begun talks with Polish officials about starting to rotate Europe-based American Patriot units into Poland for month-long training tours as a first step toward a more permanent presence.
"My position has been: Let's get started as soon as we can with the training rotations, while the longer-term stationing...is decided between the two governments," Gen. Hamm said in an interview.
For several years, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency has been pushing for breaking ground in Poland and the Czech Republic, arguing that construction must begin so the system would be in place to counter Tehran's emerging long-range-missile program, which intelligence assessments determined would produce an effective rocket by about 2015.
But in recent months, several prominent experts have questioned that timetable. A study by Russian and U.S. scientists published in May by the East-West Institute, an international think tank, played down the progress of Iran's long-range-missile program. In addition, Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and an expert in missile defense and space-based weapons, said in a speech last month that long-range capabilities of both Iran and North Korea "are not there yet."
"We believed that the emergence of the intercontinental ballistic missile would come much faster than it did," Gen. Cartwright said. "The reality is, it has not come as fast as we thought it would come."
It is not an assessment that is shared universally. Eric Edelman, who oversaw missile-defense issues at the Pentagon as undersecretary of defense for policy in the Bush administration, said intelligence reports he reviewed were more troubling.
"Maybe something really dramatic changed between Jan. 16 and now in terms of what the Iranians are doing with their missile system, but I don't think so," Mr. Edelman said, referring to his last day in office.
There is far more consensus on Iran's ability to develop its short- and medium-range missiles, and the administration review is expected to recommend a shift in focus toward European defenses against those threats. Such a program would be developed closely with NATO.
The Reaper
09-17-2009, 10:56
Good thing the Iranians have agreed to shut down their nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.:rolleyes:
TR
President Obama decided not to deploy a sophisticated radar system in the Czech Republic...
Dumb. Dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb. We need an X-band in that part of the world, badly.
Praetorian
09-17-2009, 13:42
Good thing the Iranians have agreed to shut down their nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs.:rolleyes:
TR
Seriously..... I guess the logic is, if we dont do a shield, and we get rid of OUR nuclear weapons, we'll all be safer?
These people are totally insane.
More appeasement. And to announce it today...of all days? :rolleyes:
6.8SPC_DUMP
09-17-2009, 18:03
Wish my dumb ass was smart enough to be filled in - but why should we "spend" more to defend Europe when they are moving away from the reserve currency status that keeps us Americans from being destitute?
A political and economic 'hot potato' to be sure - but the reasoning makes sense for a myriad of issues and - after reviewing some of the technology mentioned - I don't see much wrong with it...except, of course, the perception of the US weakening and sliding into another faux isolationist phase.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Dumb. Dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb. We need an X-band in that part of the world, badly.
There are some at Grafenwoehr. Maybe 6 total if you don't count the batteries that are there for training. But I agree with you, we need more that are turned on and radiating on the right azimuth 24/7, 365.
How's that hopey -changey thing working out now?
What Germany's Leading Newspapers Are Saying. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
In Friday's newspapers, German commentators focused on the political risks facing Obama. As they see it, Russia might not interpret the move as a conciliatory gesture to improve strained US-Russian relations but, rather, as a sign of weakness and green light to continue with its aggressive and uncompromising foreign policy.
The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:
"That the president can venture to cancel the program shows courage, a willingness to take risks and decisiveness, though it might also mean that he's taking a big political gamble."
"Obama's biggest challenge is this: He has to quell the suspicion that he has buckled in the face of Russia. And he has to succeed in doing this not only in the US Congress, but also when it comes to America's allies in Eastern Europe. They are afraid that some people in Moscow will be able to misinterpret the decision to cancel the missile defense shield as a sign of weakness and to be emboldened to promote their interests with tanks in other places in the same way they did in Georgia."
"This is exactly where Germany's government might be able to help Obama. Germany has good relations with the Kremlin. It should show itself as an important neighbor of both Poland and the Czech Republic and that it is willing to listen to their worries about Moscow. Obama will have a hard time completing this transition to a new and more cooperative foreign policy if he doesn't have Europe's complete support."
The center-left Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"(The Czech Republic and Poland) had exposed themselves to a whole lot of criticism from their neighbors to the west, serious threats from Russia and the skepticism of their own populations. But, from now on, they'll give a lot more thought to working closely with America on such controversial issues and the consequences that doing so entails. Obama might have been thinking that canceling the plan would elicit some sort of quid pro quo from Moscow. The Russians are very happy about it, less because it can (presumably) improve US-Russian relations, and more because it means that Russia's tantrum has had its desired effect. … Russia's claim that the planned missile defense system harmed strategic stability was never meant seriously. It was rather intended as propaganda and a way to influence a public that was very touchy about this issue. So this means it pays to play hardball."
Conservative Die Welt writes:
"This is another signal that Obama is trying to prioritize confidence-building with Iran. And it fits well with his lofty project of pursuing a world without nuclear weapons. But it does raise the question of whether this policy is naïve and, in the end, dangerous."
"The other problem is that it leaves much of Central Europe disappointed. … People there are afraid of being abandoned again. Sandwiched between Western Europe (Germany, in particular) and Russia, the nations in Central Europe were for a long time the ping-pong ball of foreign powers. Having been admitted into NATO and the EU and having become visible partners with the US raised hopes in these countries that they really counted for something. After Obama's failure to appear at the ceremony marking the anniversary of the beginning of World War II in Gdansk, this will be the second blow to their hopes."
"Those who continue to believe that the freedom movement in the 1980s was right will enthusiastically welcome Obama's decision. But they need to remember just one thing: Communism came to a peaceful end because America was both civil and well-armed."
Left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:
"The Polish were not overly concerned with the fact that the missile shield was an expensive and most likely senseless American investment. At the end of the day, that wasn't their problem. Poland's goal was to get an American military base. With such a base, the US would have had to defend Poland not only because it was a member of NATO, but also because its military base was there. The majority of Poles are not convinced that NATO lives up to its name of being a 'defensive alliance' anymore. And Poland's government doesn't have much faith in NATO either. If Poland were attacked, NATO members would debate things for two weeks before doing anything to help."
"With no missile shield, there will be no US base in Poland. As a result, Poland's dream of having the US as a power that would protect it is shattered."
The Financial Times Deutschland writes:
"What's truly unusual about Obama's decision is that he is taking a huge step toward Russia without having any guaranteed quid pro quo to show for it. It's a rare thing for a US president to make a down payment like this. It either shows great courage in the face of risk or pure naiveté."
"Just how risky Obama's bet is can be seen from Moscow's celebrations of the cancellation of the missile plans. Diplomats are pounding their chests and boasting that Obama's buckling was the logical consequence of their refusal to compromise on this issue."
"For Obama, it will be a very expensive decision. In terms of domestic politics, he is exposing himself to accusations of being a wimp and damaging the country's security. In terms of foreign politics, he is snubbing two allies -- the Czech Republic and Poland -- who view the cancellation of the missile shield as a betrayal. It would be dangerous for Obama if people got the impression that he had genuflected before the Russians. He has no way of guaranteeing that they will respond to his gesture of friendship. Moscow has the upper hand now."
The business daily Handelsblatt writes:
"From the very beginning, the whole concept of having a missile defense shield in Central Europe was just a big, bad idea. Barack Obama is doing the right thing by pulling the plug on it. Any strategic advantage that would have been gained by the project would have never offset the political damage it would cause. In the end, a defensive shield in Russia's backyard was only a political relic of an era in which the world was divided into friend and foe."
"In political terms, Obama is tossing some inherited ballast overboard -- especially when it comes to US relations with Russia. Just one year after the conflict in Georgia -- which many thought would mark the beginning of a new Cold War -- the relationship between the two major powers has been put on a different footing. The Russians can now feel that their thoughts are taken seriously. And this gives the US some room to maneuver -- especially when it comes to Iran."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,649886-2,00.html
Red Flag 1
09-18-2009, 08:51
A political and economic 'hot potato' to be sure - but the reasoning makes sense for a myriad of issues and - after reviewing some of the technology mentioned - I don't see much wrong with it...except, of course, the perception of the US weakening and sliding into another faux isolationist phase.
And so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I have to wonder if Obama is getting too much credit for having "thought this through"?
Given the history of this administration's overreaching itself, and lack of depth, IMHO, I expect a simpler reason.
On his last visit to the former USSR, Zero sat quietly through a lecture from Putin. He revisits the region in about two weeks, if I recall correctly. Methinks Zero is just looking for a pat on the head from Putin for having rolled over for him; on second thought perhaps a scratch of the tummy.:rolleyes:
My $.02.
RF 1
I have to wonder if Obama is getting too much credit for having "thought this through"?
Given the history of this administration's overreaching itself, and lack of depth, IMHO, I expect a simpler reason.
The questions of what classes he took as an undergraduate and the marks he received remain more than a matter of intellectual curiosity.
IIRC, the president was in college between 1979 and 1983 and majored in political science with an emphasis on international relations. Access to his academic transcripts would lead to copies of course syllabi which would reveal his exposure to the historiography of the Cold War and (perhaps) allow us to understand that exposure within the context of contemporaneous debates over the ongoing American-Soviet rivalry.
My guess is that the future president was influenced by so-called revisionist interpretations of the Cold War. This interpretative approach argued that the U.S. provoked the Soviet Union towards a defensive posture towards the West and was therefore responsible for causing the Cold War. (This line of reasoning considered Stalin a person open to reasoned dialog and condemned millions of Eastern Europeans--including Poles--to live as slaves under the heel of Communism.) The future president may have also taken to heart contemporaneous arguments that personal diplomacy was a better way to conduct international relations under the shadow of nuclear annihilation, and that opportunities for disarmament should be seized.
From a chronological perspective, unless the future president was immensely curious intellectual as an undergraduate (a trait of which I see no evidence) he probably did not have the opportunity to observe the incubation of what one scholar has clumsily labeled 'the post revisionist synthesis' of Cold War historiography.*
____________________________________
* John Lewis Gaddis, “The Emerging Post-Revisionist Synthesis on the Origins of the Cold War” Diplomatic History 7:3 (Summer 1983): 171-190. Gaddis wrote a number of works during the 1970s and early 1980s that presaged this important article.
incarcerated
09-20-2009, 17:25
The Trial Balloons are up. (Marine Gen. James Cartwright is the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20gates.html?em
A Better Missile Defense for a Safer Europe
Op-Ed Contributor
By ROBERT M. GATES
Published: September 19, 2009
Washington
....Moreover, a fixed radar site like the one previously envisioned for the Czech Republic would be far less adaptable than the airborne, space- and ground-based sensors we now plan to use. These systems provide much more accurate data, offer more early warning and tracking options, and have stronger networking capacity — a key factor in any system that relies on partner countries. This system can also better use radars that are already operating across the globe, like updated cold war-era installations, our newer arrays based on high-powered X-band radar, allied systems and possibly even Russian radars....
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/09/what-a-revamped-us-missile-shield-might-look-like/
What a Revamped U.S. Missile Shield Might Look Like
By Nathan Hodge
September 18, 2009
....Intriguingly, the new plan might include deploying an X-band radar to the Caucasus — the region sandwiched between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea — to keep an eye out for missile launches from Iran. Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright said stationing a radar in the Caucasus might reassure Russia, which was vehemently opposed to the Bush administration’s plan to place assets in Eastern Europe....
....The idea of stationing an X-band radar in the Caucasus, however, is not new. Back in 2006, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) published a fact sheet that said mobile sensors for ballistic missile defense might be placed in an unnamed country in the Caucasus. The agency subsequently scrubbed the fact sheet to remove any mention of possible locales, although MDA spokesman Rick Lehner told me at the time that the region would be a “good location for a small X-band radar to provide tracking and discrimination of missiles launched from Iran.”
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/09/navy_missile_defense_091809w/
Move comes as Obama cancels land-based plans
By Philip Ewing and William H. McMichael - Staff writers
Posted : Sunday Sep 20, 2009 12:39:43 EDT
....A second phase of the U.S. missile-defense regime will be in place by 2015, Cartwright said, and will include land-based sensors and SM-3s, but it was not clear whether that would mean an end to the standing Aegis BMD presence in Europe.
Worldwide, the system eventually will integrate the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense missile, or THAAD, slated for operational deployment to Europe this year, and the Ground-Based Interceptor missile based at Fort Greely, Alaska, and at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., Cartwright said.
It also would include construction of a directional X-band radar somewhere in Europe, most likely in the Caucasus region, Cartwright said.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Background from June:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2009/space-090806-rianovosti01.htm
South Russia missile radar to be fully operational in October
RIA Novosti
17:40 06/08/2009
BALASHIKHA (Moscow Region), August, 6 (RIA Novosti) - A radar station in the southern Russian town of Armavir will become fully operational in October-November as part of the country's missile warning system, a military official said on Thursday.
....Russia has offered the U.S. use of radar stations at Armavir and Gabala in Azerbaijan as alternatives to a planned U.S. missile shield deployment in Central Europe, which Moscow has fiercely opposed as a security threat.
Washington has since shown little interest in the Russian proposal, but with the arrival of a new administration, led by President Barack Obama, has frozen its plans to open a missile interceptor base in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic.
During his visit to Moscow in July, Obama pledged to consider Russia's concerns and review the U.S.'s European shield plans.