Commentary
Over the past ten years, NATO has held almost as many summits as it did during the entirety of the Cold War. Are they still useful, or is it time to stop holding annual meetings?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
{
"authors": [],
"type": "pressRelease",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"U.S. Nuclear Policy"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"United States",
"Caucasus",
"Russia",
"Eastern Europe"
],
"topics": [
"Military"
]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE
Press Release
Obama was right to scrap the missile shield in Europe
Critics of President Obama’s move to reconfigure the proposed missile shield in Europe have accused the administration of kowtowing to Russia in the naïve hope of increased pressure from Moscow on Iran. Kimberly Misher contends that the president’s decision was the right one based on technical, financial, political, and security considerations.
Published on Sep 18, 2009
WASHINGTON, Sept 18—Critics of President Obama’s move to reconfigure the proposed missile shield in Europe have accused the administration of kowtowing to Russia in the naïve hope of increased pressure from Moscow on Iran. In a new policy outlook, Kimberly Misher contends that the president’s decision was the right one based on technical, financial, political, and security considerations.
Key Conclusions
- The previous plan fell short technologically against a potential missile threat from Iran.
- The proposed shield unnecessarily heightened tensions between the United States and Russia and exposed fissures among new NATO members over the Alliance’s collective security guarantees.
- The planned installations in Poland and the Czech Republic made both countries more vulnerable to Russian coercion yet provided neither with new capabilities to withstand Russian aggression.
- The United States should explore opportunities for joint missile defense systems to constructively engage Russia on European security, reinforce NATO’s security guarantees, and strengthen the deterrent against Iran.
“The Obama administration was right to evaluate planned missile defense deployments against tough standards of feasibility, affordability, and desirability,” writes Misher. “Its decision to reconfigure European missile defenses to meet a short- and medium-range Iranian missile threat demonstrates a commitment to European defenses, not an abandonment of its allies.”
###
NOTES
- Kimberly Misher is a research assistant in the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment. She conducts research on U.S. missile defense, extended deterrence, and Russian nuclear policy.
- The Carnegie Nonproliferation Program is an internationally recognized source of knowledge and policy thinking on efforts to curb the spread and use of nuclear weapons. Carnegie’s analysis consistently stays at the forefront of proliferation developments and nonproliferation policy debates.
- Carnegie Proliferation News provides synopses of top news stories related to preventing the spread and use of nuclear weapons every Tuesday and Thursday.
- Press Contact: David Kampf, 202/939-2233, dkampf@ceip.org
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Taking the Pulse: Enough with the Annual NATO Summits, Already?
- Are Russia’s Influential Rotenberg Brothers Headed for a Fall?Commentary
The security forces are targeting Arkady and Boris Rotenberg’s patronage network—and in Putin’s Russia, it’s extremely hard to stop a purge once it’s under way.
Mikhail Komin
- What’s Driving the Trump Administration’s Push to Dismantle the ICC?Commentary
The move is an escalation of its war on multilateralism.
Stewart Patrick
- Europe from Scratch: Visions for a New European OrderReport
As the EU confronts profound challenges, several leaders have called for fundamental reform to the union’s model—but only modest, superficial changes have resulted. What if Europe really could be reimagined from zero today: What should such a redesigned European order look like?
Richard Youngs, ed.
- What Should We Take From Andrey Melnichenko’s Essay in the Economist?Commentary
Andrey Melnichenko’s essay offers no answer to the fundamental question of how, under any kind of negotiated settlement, Europe can protect itself from the Russian ressentiment that is inevitable in all scenarios except for an outright victory for Putin.
Leonid Bershidsky
