“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."
Showing posts with label missile defense. Show all posts
Showing posts with label missile defense. Show all posts
A memo from the past. For you of little patience Go to 12:17.
How anyone who knew anything about the Russians could not have predicted this is beyond me. Putin sized Obama up and came to the conclusion that he had a nice smile.
Hillary went to Moscow and met the wrong man. Clinton said she would have liked to have seen Putin but that their agendas did not coincide. Putin left for a trip to the Russian Far East and China before her arrival in Moscow. Imagine that. ___________________
Russia's Putin warns against intimidating Iran
By Darya Korsunskaya
BEIJING (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned major powers on Wednesday against intimidating Iran and said talk of sanctions against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear programme was "premature".
Putin, who many diplomats, analysts, and Russian citizens believe is still Russia's paramount leader despite stepping down as president last year, was speaking after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Moscow for two days of talks.
"There is no need to frighten the Iranians," Putin told reporters in Beijing after a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
"We need to look for a compromise. If a compromise is not found, and the discussions end in a fiasco, then we will see."
"And if now, before making any steps (towards holding talks) we start announcing some sanctions, then we won't be creating favourable conditions for them (talks) to end positively. This is why it is premature to talk about this now."
Clinton failed to secure any specific assurances from Russia on Iran during her visit, leaving her open to criticism at home that she had not received anything from Moscow after earlier U.S. concessions on missile defence.
Iranian, Russian, French, U.S. and U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency officials will meet in Vienna on Oct. 19 to discuss how to implement a plan agreed in principle at talks in Geneva for low-grade Iranian uranium to be enriched overseas to a purity suitable for nuclear reactors but not weapons.
The Geneva talks on Oct. 1 also produced Iranian agreement for international inspectors to visit a second enrichment plant now under construction near Qom. Apparent Iranian concession reduced pressure for a widening of economic sanctions some analysts said could be extended to the oil and gas industry.
Clinton said she would have liked to have seen Putin but that their agendas did not coincide. Putin left for a trip to the Russian Far East and China before her arrival in Moscow.
On the contentious issue of missile defence, which has divided Russia and the United States in the past, Putin said he hoped the United States would not renege on its promise to scrap plans for an anti-missile system in central Europe.
"We are being guided by what the head of the American state is saying," Putin said. "He said there would be no anti-missile shield in Europe. We are satisfied by this statement, and to make assumptions what happens next is not quite right."
Moscow had opposed plans by previous U.S. President George W. Bush to deploy interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic, viewing this as a direct threat to Russia's national security.
Putin said however Moscow "feels no euphoria" about Bush's successor Barack Obama's promise to roll back the shield plans.
"We treated this decision with reserve, calmly," he said. "In any case, the country's leadership accepted it with understanding and gratitude. We believe this was Obama's right and courageous decision."
(Writing by Guy Faulconbridge and Dmitry Solovyov, editing by Michael Stott and Janet McBride)
Community organizer, KGB to the core, getting his way with the shallow-rooted American President. ( and as DR noted with men of his ilk, wearing a funky hat.)
Barack Obama surrenders to Russia on Missile Defence
By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: September 17th, 2009 Telegraph Hattip Rufus
I blogged a couple of weeks ago that the Obama administration was about to abandon its plans for Third Site missile defence installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. I wrote then that “if enacted, this would represent a huge turnaround in American strategic thinking on a global missile defence system, and a massive betrayal of two key US allies in eastern and central Europe. Such a move would significantly weaken America’s ability to combat the growing threat posed by Iran’s ballistic missile program, and would hand a major propaganda victory to the Russians.”
It now looks as though the president has surrendered to Russian demands to kill off Third Site. Michael Goldfarb at The Weekly Standard is reporting that: “According to reliable sources, Obama administration officials are on their way to Poland and the Czech Republic to deliver very bad news. The administration intends to cancel completely the missile defense sites that had been promised to these governments by the previous administration.”
Goldfarb also links to a post by leading defence expert Gary Schmitt, who writes: “Guess who’s coming to dinner (in Warsaw)? Four senior Obama officials, including Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Ellen Tauscher and Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security “Sandy” Vershbow, are apparently in the air right now on their way to Poland. Why? If the Washington hot rumor mill is right, to deliver the news to the Poles and then the Czechs that the administration has decided not to go forward with a missile defense system for Europe and the United States against the budding missile threat from Iran.”
This is bad news for all who care about the US commitment to the transatlantic alliance and the defence of Europe as well as the United States. It represents the appalling appeasement of Russian aggression and a willingness to sacrifice American allies on the altar of political expediency. A deal with the Russians to cancel missile defence installations sends a clear message that even Washington can be intimidated by the Russian bear.
What signal does this send to Ukraine, Georgia and a host of other former Soviet satellites who look to America and NATO for protection from their powerful neighbour? The impending cancellation of Third Site is a shameful abandonment of America’s friends in eastern and central Europe, and a slap in the face for those who actually believed a key agreement with Washington was worth the paper it was written on.
Remember how well the US 4th Mechanized Infantry Division performed in the attack on Iraq? Oh that's right, they weren't allowed transit rights over Turkey. Our stalwart lion (Where have I heard that term before?) our so-called ally, Turkey, stabbed us in the ass. (Turks are major ass stabbers in case you didn't know.)
Well our shallow-rooted so called American president is thinking that missile defense should be moved to Turkey from Poland. That is his latest thinking about US missile defense.
You see, the thing is, if a missile defense system is in Poland and we really need to use it, the Poles will allow it. The Turks on the other hand, ass-stabbing knife in hand, may have other ideas if the system is needed against either the Russians or an Islamic neighbor.
The brilliance of our affirmative action, community organizing POTUS becomes clearer with each passing day.
Poland, watch your ass. Obama has your back.
____________________________
U.S. Mulls Alternatives for Missile Shield
By JUDY DEMPSEY and PETER BAKER NY Times Published: August 28, 2009
BERLIN — The Obama administration has developed possible alternative plans for a missile defense shield that could drop hotly disputed sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, a move that would please Russia and Germany but sour relations with American allies in Eastern Europe.
Administration officials said they hoped to complete their months-long review of the planned antimissile system as early as next month, possibly in time for President Obama to present ideas to President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia at a meeting in New York during the annual opening at the General Assembly of the United Nations.
But they cautioned that no decisions had been made and that all options were still under discussion, including retaining the Polish and Czech sites first selected by President George W. Bush. The Obama review team plans to present a menu of options rather than a single recommendation to a committee of senior national security officials in the coming weeks. Only after that would the matter go to cabinet-rank officials and the president.
Among the alternatives are dropping either the Polish or Czech site, or both sites, and instead building launching pads or radar installations in Turkey or the Balkans, while developing land-based versions of the Aegis SM-3, a ship-based anti-missile system, officials said. The changes, they said, would be intended not to mollify Russia, but to adjust to what they see as an accelerating threat from shorter-range Iranian missiles.
People following the review, including anxious officials in Eastern Europe, said they thought that the administration was preparing to abandon the Polish and Czech sites. “It is clear that Eastern Europe is out of the epicenter of this American administration,” said Piotr Paszkowski, a spokesman for Poland’s foreign minister. “The missile defense system is now under review. The chances that it will be in Poland are 50-50.”
Dmitry O. Rogozin, Russia’s ambassador to NATO, said Moscow anticipated news from Mr. Obama in September. “I hope that Medvedev will take some good result from this bilateral discussion in New York, and maybe in October we will live in a new world in Russian-American relations,” he said.
Administration spokesmen said it was premature to discuss what the review would conclude or when it would be finished. “Our review of our missile defense strategy is ongoing and has not reached completion yet,” said Philip J. Crowley, a State Department spokesman.
The proposed system inherited by Mr. Obama envisioned stationing 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a sophisticated radar facility in the Czech Republic to defend against potential ballistic missile threats from Iran or other hostile nations. But Russia has long objected to what it sees as a threat in its own backyard and has insisted that the Obama administration abandon the plan as a sign that it is serious about improving relations.
Shifting an anti-missile system out of territory once dominated by Moscow might mollify Russian concerns without jettisoning the missile shield altogether. At the same time, it could set off criticism both at home and in Eastern Europe that Mr. Obama was caving in to Russian pressure.
Polish fears that the United States was having second thoughts were heightened after diplomats learned of a meeting last week in Huntsville, Ala., that included generals who oversee missile defense, including Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Kevin P. Chilton, head of the United States Strategic Command.
“What was revealing about such a high-level gathering was that the speakers did not discuss how and when the missile shield would be deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic,” said Riki Ellison, chairman of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, a Washington-based lobbying group, who attended the meeting.
But administration officials rejected the assertion that a reformulated missile defense system would forsake Eastern European security. “We definitely are not abandoning our commitment to defend our European allies from a missile threat from Iran,” said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the review was not complete. “We are exploring options that will enhance the defense of our European allies.”
The cost of building the complexes in Poland and the Czech Republic could increase to more than $1 billion from $837 million, according to the Government Accountability Office, which published a report this month on preparations to deploy the system.
The cost estimates do not include support at the sites or the development, testing and procurement costs. The overall cost of establishing a modest ballistic missile system in Europe would exceed $4 billion through 2015, according to the G.A.O. report. Even at that, it said, “Congress does not have accurate information on the full investment required for ballistic missile defenses in Europe.”
The Bush administration strongly advocated a missile shield. Mr. Obama has been more skeptical, saying he will proceed only if it is financially and technically feasible. He has also told the Russians that the system would not be needed if they used their leverage to persuade Iran to drop its suspected nuclear weapons programs.
The discussions in Huntsville caused a stir among diplomats in Poland. Eastern European leaders worry that the Obama administration is playing down their security needs even though, they contend, Russia’s war with Georgia last year and increasing tension between Russia and Ukraine show the need for a strong American presence in the region.
“You can see that compared to the former Bush administration, the Obama administration is more interested in Russia, China and of course Afghanistan than Eastern Europe,” said Slawomir Debski, director of the Institute of International Affairs in Warsaw.
In Huntsville, General Cartwright made clear that the administration was focusing on the relevance, adaptability and affordability of any new programs, including missile defense, according to people who were at the meeting.
He also said that the United States had to take into account Russian sensitivities toward the missile shield for Eastern Europe.
Judy Dempsey reported from Berlin, and Peter Baker from Washington. Ellen Barry contributed reporting from Moscow.
There is nothing more dangerous than a leader that doesn't know what he doesn't know. Obama, experienced at not much, is using his telepromted veneer of knowledge to dazzle the media and damage US interest at home and abroad.
Blinded by his own cleverness, Obama foolishly permitted the Russians to exchange their nuclear relics for the best of American nuclear deterrence. Obama seems not to have noticed recently past Russian aggression in Georgia and the reassertion of a so-called Russian sphere of influence. Putin's Russia is no friend of the US and never will be. They will never do anything to help the US, anywhere. The touted allowance of Russian air space to the US military for access to Afghanistan is diabolically sinister. Of course the Russians want to see US assets, manpower and military prestige wasted in Afghanistan.
Obama in all his sartorial splendor believes he won a big one. We didn't.
____________
Plumage -- But at A Price
By Charles Krauthammer Washington Post Thursday, July 9, 2009; 8:53 PM
The signing ceremony in Moscow was a grand affair. For Barack Obama, foreign policy neophyte and "reset" man, the arms reduction agreement had a Kissingerian air. A fine feather in his cap. And our president likes his plumage.
Unfortunately for the United States, the country Obama represents, the prospective treaty is useless at best, detrimental at worst.
Useless because the level of offensive nuclear weaponry, the subject of the U.S.-Russia "Joint Understanding," is an irrelevance. We could today terminate all such negotiations, invite the Russians to build as many warheads as they want and profitably watch them spend themselves into penury, as did their Soviet predecessors, stockpiling weapons that do nothing more than, as Churchill put it, make the rubble bounce.
Obama says that his START will be a great boon, setting an example to enable us to better pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs. That a man of Obama's intelligence can believe such nonsense is beyond comprehension. There is not a shred of evidence that cuts by the great powers -- the INF treaty, START I, the Treaty of Moscow (2002) -- induced the curtailment of anyone's programs. Moammar Gaddafi gave up his nukes the week we pulled Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole. No treaty involved. The very notion that Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will suddenly abjure nukes because of yet another U.S.-Russian treaty is comical.
The pursuit of such an offensive weapons treaty could nonetheless be detrimental to us. Why? Because Obama's hunger for a diplomatic success, such as it is, allowed the Russians to exact a price: linkage between offensive and defensive nuclear weapons.
This is important for Russia because of the huge American technological advantage in defensive weaponry. We can reliably shoot down an intercontinental ballistic missile. They cannot. And since defensive weaponry will be the decisive strategic factor of the 21st century, Russia has striven mightily for a quarter-century to halt its development. Gorbachev tried to swindle Reagan out of the Strategic Defense Initiative at Reykjavik in 1986. Reagan refused. As did his successors -- Bush I, Clinton, Bush II.
Obama, who seeks to banish nuclear weapons entirely, has little use for such prosaic contrivances. First, the Obama budget actually cuts spending on missile defense, at a time when federal spending is a riot of extravagance and trillion-dollar deficits. Then comes the "pause" (as Russia's president appreciatively noted) in the planned establishment of a missile shield in Eastern Europe. And now the "Joint Understanding" commits us to a new treaty that includes "a provision on the interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms." Obama further said that the East European missile shield "will be the subject of extensive negotiations" between the United States and Russia.
Obama doesn't even seem to understand the ramifications of this concession. Poland and the Czech Republic thought they were regaining their independence when they joined NATO under the protection of the United States. They now see that the shield negotiated with us and subsequently ratified by all of NATO is in limbo. Russia and America will first have to "come to terms" on the issue, explained President Dmitry Medvedev. This is precisely the kind of compromised sovereignty that Russia wants to impose on its ex-Soviet colonies -- and that U.S. presidents of both parties for the past 20 years have resisted.
Resistance, however, is not part of Obama's repertoire. Hence his eagerness for arcane negotiations over MIRV'd missiles, the perfect distraction from the major issue between the two countries: Vladimir Putin's unapologetic and relentless drive to restore Moscow's hegemony over the sovereign states that used to be Soviet satrapies.
That -- not nukes -- is the chief cause of the friction between the United States and Russia. You wouldn't know it to hear Obama in Moscow pledging to halt the "drift" in U.S.-Russian relations. Drift? The decline in relations came from Putin's desire to undo what he considers "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century -- the collapse of the Soviet empire. Hence his squeezing Ukraine's energy supplies. His overt threats against Poland and the Czech Republic for daring to make sovereign agreements with the United States. And finally, less than a year ago, his invading a small neighbor, detaching and then effectively annexing two of Georgia's provinces to Mother Russia.
That's the cause of the collapse of our relations. Not drift, but aggression. Or, as the reset master phrased it with such delicacy in his Kremlin news conference: "our disagreements on Georgia's borders."
I can hardly wait to hear from Obama advisor"Know it all" General Tony McPeak.
The Bush Administration has been developing plans to deploy interceptors and radar systems in Poland and the Czech Republic as part of a missile defense system designed to protect against the potential threat of Iranian nuclear armed missiles. If we can responsibly deploy missile defenses that would protect us and our allies we should – but only when the system works. We need to make sure any missile defense system would be effective before deployment. The Bush Administration has in the past exaggerated missile defense capabilities and rushed deployments for political purposes. The Bush Administration has also done a poor job of consulting its NATO allies about the deployment of a missile defense system that has major implications for all of them. We must not allow this issue to divide “new Europe” and “old Europe,” as the Bush Administration tried to do over Iraq.”
This is a huge win for George Bush and John McCain and Donald Rumsfeld. It is a huge win for national security.
Today NATO leaders endorsed a controversial US missile shield for Europe yesterday, and US and Czech officials agreed on deployment of the first element – an advanced radar, despite strong Russian opposition. Had Barack Obama been President, this never would have happened.
US officials have confirmed a final communique on the missile defence system, parts of which will be stationed in Poland and the Czech Republic, and said the deal would "recognise the substantive contribution to the protection of the allies".
_____________________________
In case it sounds easy let's see what was said in the NY Times on February 4, 2001: U.S. Tries Defusing Allies' Opposition to Missile Defense
MUNICH, Feb. 3 — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, the first senior Bush administration official to visit Europe, tried today to defuse opposition to the administration's antimissile plans by offering to help European nations and other allies to deploy missile defenses.
But while Mr. Rumsfeld assured European allies that the United States would consult with them on its antimissile plan, he did not address in any detail one of the Europeans' principal concerns: how an antimissile defense can be reconciled with strategic arms control and a productive relationship with Moscow.
"The United States intends to develop and deploy a missile defense designed to defend our people and forces against a limited ballistic missile attack, and is prepared to assist friends and allies threatened by missile attack to deploy such defenses," Mr. Rumsfeld said in a speech to a conference of top political officials and defense specialists.
Mr. Rumsfeld underscored that the Bush administration was determined to proceed with an antimissile defense of United States territory even if it could not overcome the objections from the Russians, the Chinese and the Europeans. He described a missile defense as nothing less than a moral imperative.
Missile defense was hardly the only sensitive issue today. The European Union's move to develop a 60,000-member rapid reaction force by 2003 has drawn a wary reaction from the Bush administration.
While not opposing the initiative, Mr. Rumsfeld was clearly skeptical, and stressed the need for great care to ensure that the European Union does not detract from NATO.
Mr. Bush's fatigue with the Balkan peacekeeping mission also remains a continuing source of anxiety in Europe. Mr. Rumsfeld said little on the subject today, saying that the matter was under review at the White House. The United States and Europe also have to decide how to proceed with NATO expansion, a topic that greatly worries the Russians.
But as European leaders have challenged the missile defense plan in recent weeks, the issue has risen to the fore. The main European concern is that deployment of an antimissile shield will undermine the framework of nuclear arms control and spoil relations with the Russians. Or as President Jacques Chirac of France put it last month, an American missile defense "cannot fail to relaunch the arms race in the world."
Mr. Chirac has not been the only critic. Rudolf Scharping, the German defense minister, has questioned the technological feasibility of the missile defense plan, and on a recent visit to Moscow urged that arms control agreements be preserved.
The Russians have sought to stoke the Europeans' fears, warning that they may abandon the strategic arms constraints they have negotiated with Washington if the Bush administration abandons the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty and deploys an antimissile system.
The head of the Russian Security Council, Sergei Ivanov, is due to address the conference on Sunday, raising the specter of an American-Russian tussle for European opinion.
In his attempts to sway European opinion, Mr. Rumsfeld presented several arguments. He suggested that antimissile defenses could be reconciled with some arms control treaties, avoiding the bluntness of comments he made in Congressional hearings — and even on the plane flying to the conference — that the ABM treaty was an anachronism.
Mr. Rumsfeld also sought to turn long-standing European concerns about American isolationism or military intervention into arguments for missile defenses.
Without a missile shield, he suggested, future American leaders might turn isolationist in a crisis and shrink from confronting a missile- wielding third world aggressor. Alternatively, he warned, America might have to carry out a pre-emptive strike against a rogue nation.
"A system of defense need not be perfect, but the American people must not be left completely defenseless," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "It is not so much a technical question as a matter of a president's constitutional responsibility. Indeed, it is, in many respects, a moral issue."
Mr. Rumsfeld's case was helped by Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, who told the meeting that there was a general consensus in Washington that some sort of missile defense should be deployed. "The question from an American point of view is not whether we will have a national missile defense but when and how," Senator Lieberman said. "This is not a technologically feasible program now. We are some years away."
Senator John McCain and former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger also called for missile defenses, adding to the sense of inevitability.
The European response to Mr. Rumsfeld's proposal today was respectful, if restrained. Joschka Fischer, the German foreign minister, appeared to speak for most of his fellow European foreign ministers when he said that European nations were glad that Washington wanted to consult with them on the antimissile plan but that a missile defense must not come at the expense of arms control. That is a difficult balancing act that neither the Americans nor the Europeans were prepared to discuss in detail.
In general, neither European nor American officials seemed inclined to quarrel openly today about missile defense or the European Union's rapid reaction initiative.
"The United States has made it clear it intends to develop a missile defense system," said George Robertson, the NATO secretary general. "We have to take the sincerity and commitment of the United States seriously."
European officials cling to the hope that an American missile defense might be compatible with a modified version of the ABM treaty. Mr. Rumsfeld was careful not to exclude that option, but it may well be put to the test once the scale of the administration's plans are known.
Former President Bill Clinton proposed limited defense, involving 100 interceptors and a battle management radar in Alaska, which he planned to reconcile with an amended ABM treaty. There is no reason to think, however, that the Bush administration will settle for such a limited system, which was still too much for the Russians.
Mr. Rumsfeld, a former American ambassador to NATO, has only been in office for two weeks, and the Bush administration as a whole has not yet had time to develop comprehensive missile defense proposals.
Still, Mr. Rumsfeld's offer to help the Europeans and other allies deploy defenses raised a number of tricky questions, such as which land- based, sea-based or space-based systems might be used. As a result, it is impossible to say how long it would take to develop a system, what it would cost or to what extent it would require modification of the ABM treaty.
Mr. Rumsfeld did not say how much the Europeans would have to pay for antimissile defenses of their territory — no small concern for a continent whose military spending has lagged — and what Washington might contribute.
Mr. Rumsfeld has been something of a hard-liner on arms control. While Bush administration officials have previously talked of making deep, even unilateral cuts in the American nuclear arsenal, he had no specific arms control proposals to offer Moscow today. Yet he insisted that the Russians were mistaken to perceive an antimissile defenses as quest for strategic advantage.
He said a limited American defense could not neutralize the Russian nuclear arsenal, and he suggested that the Russians understood that but were pretending not to understand to build opposition to the American plan in Europe.
"The idea of an arms race between the United States and Russia ought not to be front and center in our thinking," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "It is something that is a leftover, a relic in our thinking."
Some day soon, one can hope that the Star Trek lobby will have waned and we can end international cooperation in space stations. (We do not need international space stations. We need a reliable cargo launching US missile platform.)
Meanwhile Russians and Chinese are separately planning sending men to the moon. The Russians say they plan a permanent moon base. You will recall that the Russians recently claimed the North Pole and one can assume they will do the same with the moon. Meanwhile back on earth, some leading US technical authority thinks it would be a good idea to allow the Russians to help us pick a site for missile defense radar sites in areas that they control. This sounds like moon thinking.
Is our technical expert aware that the Russians have recently decided to use oil pipelines as political weapons? Where is good dot-joining when we need it? Could it be possible that some future Russian commissar might say to the US ," the road to your radar site is temporarily closed for repairs. We will call you when it is fixed, how about a nice cup of tea?"
U.S. specialist favors Putin's missile logic By Rachel Kaufman September 1, 2007
A leading U.S. technical authority on missile defense said this week that geography and topography would make Azerbaijan a better site to defend the United States and its allies from terrorist rockets than would the locations in Eastern Europe preferred by the Bush administration.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, a harsh critic of the original U.S. basing plan, has strongly pushed for the Azerbaijan site. U.S. officials cite a potential missile strike from Iran — thought to be seeking nuclear arms — as a key reason a shield is needed.
U.S. planners continue to express deep doubts about the Russian plan, but a senior Russian official said yesterday that American, Russian and Azeri specialists had agreed to meet in Baku on Sept. 15 for another round of technical talks on the issue.
The Baku meeting would discuss "the joint use of the radar and the question of anti-missile defense as a whole," Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Naryshkin told Agence France-Presse on a visit to the Azerbaijan capital. U.S. and Azerbaijan officials did not confirm the Sept. 15 date, but acknowledged that expert discussions have been held.
Theodore Poston, a professor of science, technology and national security policy at MIT, said he favored NATO member Turkey as a possible location for interceptor missiles.
The most effective system to guard Europe from a terrorist missile would allow a U.S. missile-interceptor system to work with Russian radar already situated in Azerbaijan, Mr. Poston said at a Washington conference on missile defense Tuesday.
A joint system, he said, would combine the strengths of each system, and balance out their weaknesses.
Mr. Putin has argued that U.S. plans to establish a radar base in the Czech Republic to guide interceptor missiles based in Poland would directly threaten Russia's national security by neutralizing its nuclear arsenal. Bush administration officials counter that the modest system is no threat to Russia's vast nuclear stocks.
Mr. Putin expressed his anxieties at a meeting with President Bush before the June Group of Eight summit in Germany and made a surprise offer that the United States use a former Soviet base in Gabala, Azerbaijan, instead.
Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, who heads the Pentagon missile defense agency, said the Azerbaijan radar site is too close to Iran to replace the system planned for Eastern Europe.
The Russian radar could track a missile early in its flight from Iran, but would have trouble directing interceptor missiles once the missiles were launched, he said.
"It's like having a car coming at you on the [highway]," the general said in Huntsville, Ala., on Aug. 16. "By the time you see it, you wouldn't be able to react to it."
Mr. Poston said the main issue in the U.S.-Russia talks is trust.
"People don't trust us; not only the Russians, but a lot of people," he said.
Some in the Bush administration argue that Mr. Putin floated his alternative plan as a way to undercut the U.S. effort. Gen. Obering said he could not judge the "sincerity" of the Russian offer, but noted that technical talks have proceeded despite the doubts.
Mr. Poston said there is a strong geographical argument for placing a ground-based interceptor in Turkey or Azerbaijan.
An interceptor placed in either location would be closer to any potential launches — from neighboring Iran or from Central Asia — and would work well with the curvature of the Earth, he said. Missiles could be intercepted more quickly.
Mr. Poston said it would be best if Russia and the United States could work out a joint plan, but added that a ground base for the missile shield in Turkey could be perceived as a threat by the Russians.
"If the Russians could somehow be assured that that wasn't the case, my guess is they might well be happy to work with us," Mr. Poston said.
