Safe Mode: On
Russia wants to test Obama on missile defense: Rood

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Russia has hardened its stance toward US plans for a missile shield in an apparent bid to "test the mettle" of incoming President Barack Obama, US arms negotiator John Rood said Wednesday.

"My assessment is the Russians intend to test the mettle of the new administration and the new president," said Rood, acting under secretary of state for arms control and international security.

"And the future will show how the new administration chooses to answer that challenge," Rood told reporters after returning from talks Monday in Moscow on missile defense and other arms control issues.

Obama has made no commitment to pursue the administration of President George W. Bush's plans to build a missile shield in eastern Europe as it questions whether the technology is "workable."

The plans by the Bush administration envisage establishing rocket interceptors in Poland and a linked radar in the Czech Republic.

The United States insists the facilities are needed to protect against "rogue states" like Iran, but Moscow has portrayed them as a threat to its security.

Rood told reporters in November that Washington had sent new proposals to Russia that built on previous ones that would allow Russian liaison officers access to the missile shield sites.

Rood said the Russians showed "some interest" during talks Monday between teams headed by Rood and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov.

However, he said the Russians "have paused I think with the election of a new administration in the United States and they are looking carefully at the position of the new time."

They still want to talk, but "in some ways their position is less flexible than it was before and, I think that therefore leads to me the conclusion that they would like to determine the posture of the new administration.

He referred to the "transparency and confidence-building regime" that includes allowing Russian officers to visit the missile sites.

He said the Russians also wanted to test the reaction of the Obama administration on subjects other than missile defense but did not identify them.

During his talks in Moscow, Rood said there no breakthrough in talks for a follow-on agreement to replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires at the end of 2009.

Rood said a new US proposal on START focuses on limiting nuclear warheads, but Russia wants to open up the negotiations to limits on conventional forces and missile defense.


Added: Dec-17-2008 
By: eneffigy
In:
Iran, News
Tags: us, russia, iran, israel
Views: 8687 | Comments: 13 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Good idea. Test a black guy to see how crazy he is.

    Posted Dec-17-2008 By 

    (3) | Report

  • Test Obama you test America...

    Posted Dec-17-2008 By 

    (1) | Report

  • i would like to know how 10 or 12 anti ballistic missles that only kill other missles not people are a threat to russia and its thousands of nuclear missles some with 10 warheads on each and having megaton payloads so large they make ours look wimpy.
    russia is basically telling europe and nato they arent allowed to defend themselves. gee thanks, but no thanks.
    all so russia can stroke its ego and show it has power to influence beyond its borders and on the world stage.

    Posted Dec-18-2008 By 

    (0) | Report

    • > all so russia can stroke its ego

      [sarcasm]

      Putin and Co. are obviously so driven by narcissistic motives, they would think nothing of geopardising the all-important relationship with EU over a non-issue.

      Nevermind that a working ABM system means a profound shift in the balance of nuclear deterrent, which current Russian security doctrine heavily relies upon. Who cares about such things, anyway.

      [/sarcasm]

      Posted Dec-18-2008 By 

      (0) | Report

    • i said 'i would like to know...' and i get sarcasm.
      thanx for wasting my time. apparently you dont know either.

      oh now i see that 'profound shift' that 12 abms make to 3,000 or 4,000 or 5,000 nuclear warheads when all as it would take is a couple hundred to blot the sun out for a year or 2 and cause crop failures(not that any of it would be safe to eat anyways) worldwide and kill everybody on the planet within 3 years.

      *sarcasm*

      Posted Dec-18-2008 By 

      (0) | Report

    • If you think that an unlimited mutual exchange is the only scenario that matters, a dozen interceptors here or there don't change the outcome all that much. However, people who are thinking about these matters full-time obviously have a different opinion. And even a few interceptors change limited exchange scenarios drastically.

      Example: if (God forbid) Russia ever goes head to head with a fully deployed NATO force in Europe, the only way it can withstand it right now or in the foreseeable futu More..

      Posted Dec-19-2008 By 

      (0) | Report

  • The missile defense system is overhyped. I doubt it coul shoot down a ballistic missile.

    Posted Dec-17-2008 By 

    (-1) | Report

    • Comment of user 'HeavensMan' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • Than get encouraged to discourage Iran from developing nuclear weapons and constantly having to develop missiles with extended ranges.

      Now why the fuck would Iran attack Europe?
      Ok than ask the same queston
      Why would Iran need to constantly develop missiles with ever increasing range?

      Anyways its always funny to see the Russians at this since they have mostly helped these guys with material and building their nuclear facilities.

      I think it will be good once we have our missile shield deploye More..

      Posted Dec-17-2008 By 

      (0) | Report

    • Comment of user 'uNsToPpAbLe' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
    • Not true. Not anymore. The success rates are high. And this is irrelevant. Russia won't attack anyone in NATO. They have nothing but loud talk and the threat of nukes that they can't use. Will they drive an arms race? Perhaps, and they'll lose like they always do.

      Posted Dec-18-2008 By 

      (0) | Report

    • Will *they* be driving an arms race??? You gotta be kidding. Would it be to much to ask you google some info on US vs Russian military spending for the last 20 years?

      Posted Dec-18-2008 By 

      (0) | Report