• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "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

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.

Link Copied
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

  • Click here to read the policy outlook

  • 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
MilitaryUnited StatesCaucasusRussiaEastern Europe

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 Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Is Russia Winning the Perception War in Germany?

    In Germany, competing perceptions of Russia are highlighting a tension between public opinion and government policy. In the country’s east, where division is widespread, populist parties are taking advantage.

      • Gwendolyn Sasse

      Gwendolyn Sasse

  • Planetary Power: Geoengineering and the New Geopolitics of Climate Intervention
    Research
    Planetary Power: Geoengineering and the New Geopolitics of Climate Intervention

    Geoengineering is becoming a geopolitical question as much as a climate one. The way states and the private sector pursue these technologies, assess risks, and drive research increasingly appears focused on gaining a strategic edge. In a field where governance in lagging behind, Europe should keep track of the geopolitical implications if it is to develop effective regulatory frameworks.

      Olivia Lazard, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe Needs its own Sanctions-Enforcement Muscle

    The EU can impose sanctions but struggles to enforce them without the United States. With Washington increasingly disinterested in backing European interests, the bloc must now fend for itself.

      Nicu Popescu, Tiago Antunes

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Containing Escalation in the Black Sea

    Russia is testing the waters of NATO’s mutual defense clause. What do strikes in Romanian territorial waters mean for the alliance’s posture toward Moscow?

      Dimitar Bechev

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Trump Blindsides Ukraine But Gives Europe an Opportunity

    Ahead of a tough winter for Ukraine, Donald Trump’s swing back toward Russia bodes ill. But instead of panicking, Kyiv’s European allies are focusing on action.

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.