This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/world/europe/with-eye-on-north-korea-us-cancels-missile-defense-russia-opposed.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
U.S. Cancels Part of Missile Defense That Russia Opposed U.S. Cancels Part of Missile Defense That Russia Opposed
(35 minutes later)
MOSCOW — As part of its plan to deploy additional ballistic missile interceptors to counter North Korea, the United States has effectively canceled the final phase of a Europe-based missile defense system that was fiercely opposed by Russia and cited repeatedly by the Kremlin as a major obstacle to cooperation on nuclear arms reductions and other issues. MOSCOW — The United States has effectively canceled the final phase of a Europe-based missile defense system that was fiercely opposed by Russia and cited repeatedly by the Kremlin as a major obstacle to cooperation on nuclear arms reductions and other issues.
Russian officials here have so far declined to comment on the announcement, which was made in Washington on Friday by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Aides to President Vladimir V. Putin said there would be no reaction until early next week, when they expect to be briefed by American officials. Russian officials here have so far declined to comment on the announcement, which was made in Washington on Friday by Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel as part of a plan to deploy additional ballistic missile interceptors to counter North Korea. The cancellation of some European-based defenses will allow resources to be shifted to protect against North Korea.
But Russian news accounts quickly noted that the decision could portend a breakthrough in what has been a largely intractable dispute between Russia and the United States for years. A headline by the Itar-Tass news agency declared, “U.S. abandons fourth phase of European missile defense system that causes the greatest objections from Russia.” Aides to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia said there would be no reaction until early next week, when they expect to be briefed by American officials.
Pentagon officials said that those longstanding objections by Russia played no role in the decision to reconfigure the missile interceptor program, which they said was based on the increased threat from North Korea, and on technological difficulties and budget considerations related to the Europe-based program. But Russian news accounts quickly raised the possibility that the decision could portend a breakthrough in what for years has been a largely intractable dispute between Russia and the United States. A headline by the Itar-Tass news agency declared, “U.S. abandons fourth phase of European missile defense system that causes the greatest objections from Russia.”
“The missile defense decisions Secretary Hagel announced were in no way about Russia,” George Little, a Pentagon spokesman, said Saturday. “They were based on technological developments and increased threat of ballistic missiles from North Korea.” Pentagon officials said that those longstanding objections by Russia played no role in the decision to reconfigure the missile interceptor program, which they said was based on the increased threat from North Korea and on technological difficulties and budget considerations related to the Europe-based program.
Still, other Obama administration officials acknowledged potential benefits if the decision is well-received in Moscow, as well as the possibility of continued objections given that the United States is not backing away from its core plan for a land-based missile shield program in Central Europe. “The missile defense decisions Secretary Hagel announced were in no way about Russia,” George Little, a Pentagon spokesman, said Saturday.
“There’s still an absolutely firm commitment to European missile defense, which is not about Russia; it’s about Iran these days,” said a senior administration official. “If there are side benefits that accrue with Russia, so be it. But that wasn’t a primary driver of this policy change.” Still, other Obama administration officials acknowledged potential benefits if the decision was well-received in Moscow, as well as the possibility of continued objections given that the United States is not backing away from its core plan for a land-based missile shield program in Central Europe.
Regardless, some experts said it could provide a breakthrough by eliminating what the Russians had cited as one of their main objections — interceptors that would target long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles, which are part of Russian’s nuclear arsenal. “There’s still an absolutely firm commitment to European missile defense, which is not about Russia; it’s about Iran these days,” said a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “If there are side benefits that accrue with Russia, so be it. But that wasn’t a primary driver.”
American experts insisted that the Russians’ concern was exaggerated and that the system would not have jeopardized their strategic missiles, had the final phase been developed. But that Russian concern has now been addressed. Regardless, some experts said it could help relations by eliminating what the Russians had cited as one of their main objections — the interceptors in the final phase of the missile shield that might have the ability to target long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles, which are part of Russian’s nuclear arsenal.
The Obama administration has sought cooperation from Russia on numerous issues, with varying degrees of success. Russia generally has supported the NATO-led military effort in Afghanistan and has helped to  restrict Iran’s nuclear program by supporting economic sanctions. But the two countries have been deeply at odds over the war in Syria, and over human rights issues in Russia. Most recently, President Obama has said he would like further reductions in the two countries’ nuclear arsenals, something Russia has said it would not consider without settling the dispute over missile defense.
American experts insisted that the Russians’ concern over the antimissile program was exaggerated and that the system would not have jeopardized their strategic missiles had the final phase been developed. That Russian concern has now been addressed.
“There is no threat to Russian missiles now,” said Steven Pifer, an arms control expert who has managed Russia policy from top positions at the State Department and the National Security Council. “If you listen to what the Russians have been saying for the last two years, this has been the biggest obstacle to things like cooperation with NATO.”“There is no threat to Russian missiles now,” said Steven Pifer, an arms control expert who has managed Russia policy from top positions at the State Department and the National Security Council. “If you listen to what the Russians have been saying for the last two years, this has been the biggest obstacle to things like cooperation with NATO.”
“Potentially this is very big,” said Mr.Pifer, now of the Brookings Institution. “And it’s going to be very interesting seeing how the Russians react once they digest it.”“Potentially this is very big,” said Mr.Pifer, now of the Brookings Institution. “And it’s going to be very interesting seeing how the Russians react once they digest it.”
However, the change does not address the Russians’ political objections to the program, which centers on the deployment of American missile interceptors in Eastern Europe. That part of the program will remain. In Washington, many officials have said they believe  Russia’s real objections are not only about the particular capabilities of the missile shield but also about a more general political and strategic opposition to an expanding American military presence in Eastern Europe. Canceling only the final stage of the program does not address that concern, so it is possible that Russia’s position will remain unchanged.
Until the conflict over the missile shield program, the United States and Russia had been discussing the possibility of a jointly developed common missile defense program that the former cold war rivals would operate together to protect the world from an attack by a rogue state or by terrorists. If Russia’s says its concerns have been addressed, such talks could potentially resume, Mr. Pifer and other experts said. Sean Kay, a professor at Ohio Wesleyan University and expert in international security issue and Russian relations, said that the so-called fourth stage of the Europe-based missile defense program “was largely conceptual” and might never have been completed.
In recent weeks, Russia had also indicated that there was virtually no possibility of agreeing to further nuclear arms reductions beyond what was included in the New Start Treaty — a major priority for President Obama — without the United States first addressing Russia’s concerns about missile defense. Eliminating that portion of the program made sense, Mr. Kay said. “In effect, by sticking with a plan that was neither likely to work in the last stage but was creating significant and needless diplomatic hurdles at the same time, we gained nothing,” he said. At least some of the canceled interceptors were to have been based in Poland, which will still host less-advanced interceptors.
Sean Kay, a professor at Ohio Wesleyan University and expert in international security issue and Russian relations, said that the so-called fourth stage of the Europe-based missile defense program “was largely conceptual” and might never have been completed. Still, he said, it prompted “significant technological concern for Russia.” In the past, efforts to restructure the antimissile program provoked sharp criticism in Poland, but this time reaction from Warsaw has been more muted. Analysts have said Poland’s main goal in hosting the interceptors has been having an American military presence there as a deterrent to Russia.
Eliminating that portion of the program made sense, Mr. Kay said. “In effect, by sticking with a plan that was neither likely to work in the last stage but was creating significant and needless diplomatic hurdles at the same time, we gained nothing,” he said. “If in the process of eliminating a costly and non-effective element via stage four we might get more constructive engagement from Russia on Iran, we have the potential to make considerable national security gains.”
He added, “The bottom line is we sacrifice nothing for this.”

David M. Herszenhorn reported from Moscow, and Michael R. Gordon from Washington. Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington.

David M. Herszenhorn reported from Moscow, and Michael R. Gordon from Washington. Thom Shanker contributed reporting from Washington.