Ukraine should support the initiative of Russia to set up a joint European antimissile defense system if, of course, other European states take part. This is the opinion of General Oleksandr Stetsenko, commanding officer of the Ukraine’s Antiaircraft Defense. This is in fact the first reaction of the Ukrainian side to Moscow’s call on other CIS countries “consider” the Russian air defense proposals made public on the eve of the summit of CIS heads of state and government.
Only two CIS countries, Belarus and Ukraine, have adequate military and technological potential to satisfy Moscow’s intentions to defend Europe from a missile threat. The Ukrainian air defense commander, Gen. Stetsenko, told The Day that Ukraine had in fact received no specific proposals from Russia to this effect. But, “...this is a positive decision. And if Ukraine gets an invitation, I think it will agree. Of course, if we are to bring in our own equipment and armaments, we’ll have to assess the situation further.” The general is certain Ukraine would do well to join all the existing and future agreements. “We must join them if we are to keep an eye on what is going on around Ukraine. For instance, we are a party to the ABM Treaty and have all the information on the efforts the US and Russia make in antiballistic missile defense.”
As we know, Russia proposes Europe an option such that Western civilization can be protected from enemy missiles by means of an antimissile umbrella based on S-300 antiaircraft missile systems and their upgraded versions. In Soviet times, this weapon was manufactured in cooperation by Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus. The same systems also constitute the basis of Ukraine’s air defense today. Perhaps this is why Ukrainian air defense generals accepted so favorably the Russian plans: this could simplify the solution of such priority national tasks as modernization of the Ukrainian S-300 systems, which would involve Russian factories.
But there is a juridical nuance. Until now, Ukraine has refused to admit that the S-300 antiaircraft system our armed forces are equipped with is capable of shooting down not only enemy airplanes but also ballistic missiles, i.e., is an antimissile, not just antiaircraft, weapon. The point is that if Ukraine admitted this, it would have to share with the US and Russia information about the places they are deployed. Nonaligned Ukraine considers this condition unacceptable. Kyiv is not going to drop this stand in future, although, in theory, this may create certain difficulties for Ukraine if the US and Russia or Russia and Europe achieve notable progress in implementing joint antimissile projects. But the probability of such progress is very low.
The proposal to establish together with the US and Europe an antimissile umbrella against a threat from countries like North Korea or Iraq is a kind of politically nimble move by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Since it is very difficult technically to put into practice, Russia suggests that enemy missiles be intercepted at the initial stage of flight, when the flame of a working engine is a good target for an antimissile. But this lasts only three to five minutes, requiring extremely sophisticated antimissile hardware. In addition, in this case S-300 systems or their modifications would have had to be deployed near the very sources of missile threats, about a hundred kilometers away, which is highly problematical.
The American approach suggests that enemy missiles be shot down at a different, ballistic, stage of the flight path. This is simpler and more reliable. Experts have estimated the Russian project can only be implemented ten years later, with due account of the fact that Russia lacks the technological and financial resources to carry it out. And the US thinks North Korean missiles could threaten it as soon as 2005. By then, the US hopes to set up an antimissile defense on its own.
