The fact that Russia put forward the idea of creation of sectoral collaboration with NATO missile defense system has been rejected, said a senior source in the Russian delegation at the talks, answering the question "b". "Thought sectoral missile defense discussions are no longer, "- he said. According to him, Moscow hopes to determine future plans for missile defense by May 2012, when the Chicago NATO summit will take place." From a political point of view to determine the Chicago summit. If we are going there, "- said the diplomat.
The fact that the idea of sectoral missile defense is not on the agenda of negotiations with Russia, confirmed the "b" a source in the NATO headquarters. "We have long been read as Moscow that are not ready to create a sectoral missile defense. Union can not give the security of its own members to outsource outside player," — he says. According to the source "b", this position was strongly represented by 4 July during a meeting with Dmitry Medvedev in Sochi with the management NATO, Also this week during the visit of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Washington.
Thought sectoral missile defense was the first time put forward by Dmitry Medvedev in November last year at the Lisbon NATO summit. According to "Kommersant", the concept was proposed by the Defense Ministry. Its essence was to ensure that our homeland committed itself to shoot down any rocket soaring through the terrain in the direction of its member countries NATO, but a union in response guaranteed liquidation running through the objects in the RF missiles soaring through NATO area of responsibility. In addition, sectoral approach suggests that our homeland and NATO missile defense facilities will have to contact the band's own borders, and to guide them friend against each other.
According to the Special Representative of the President of the Russian Federation on missile defense dilemma, Dmitry Rogozin, the West has so far only rent the original plan of the sectoral approach. "Dismissed only the first thought, from which we came out last fall — he said "b." — Then it was about to make the four sectors in Europe missile responsibility. Our homeland took to east direction, the United States — South Germany — North and France — West. "Objections, according to the sovereign Rogozin, began to sound in the winter," Balts shouted that this is a new Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. U.S. doubted the ability to give the sector at the mercy of the Germans and the French, in which there are no suitable technology. We also found the opponents of this approach. Our homeland from the beginning recognized the danger only from the south, and came out here to the problem — would go, that there is a danger from the East. "In the end, according to the views of the permanent representative of the Russian Federation, not all cut off sectoral approach, only one of the versions. "The president from the start did not go into detail, at the summit in Lisbon he would not be superfluous to explain this formula. Towards a more detailed analysis we started in January, so we have more in store offers," — he says.
According to Dmitry Rogozin, Now Our homeland NATO offers two versions of events. The first of them — the creation of a missile defense system is deeply integrated with the data center and a unified management system that is built on the basis of a general analysis of missile threats. "Then we stood back to back and protected each other. Speech in Lisbon was specifically about it, and only later became NATO members to give the brakes — squealing skeptics in Europe in relation to the Russian Federation, and the United States sharply increased opposition in Congress," — says Dmitry Rogozin. Meanwhile, already at this point in the conversation with "b" Russian diplomats acknowledged that the chances to agree with NATO until the spring of 2012 under the optimistic scenario is so small.
Second option involves the creation of Russia and NATO-independent missile defense systems. With all of this, Moscow and Brussels will have to ensure that their systems are not oriented friend against each other. "NATO members can do then anything, have any means. Main thing is that the coverage area of the system is not crept up for our area and the water area, and we will not creep into their area of responsibility, — says Dmitry Rogozin. — This is not an option involves the integration of , but at least it covers the negative consequences of the deployment of European missile defense. "
Guarantees for the views of Moscow, has become a special contract, which could be carefully painted with the technical properties of the strategic defensive arms 2-states, including the area of placement of radars and interceptors, the number of missiles and their speed ("b" wrote about Russia's proposal for such an instrument June 6).
If, however, and this option will be cut off, Moscow is preparing a military-technical answer. "We will deploy missile forces on the western borders and aim our missiles at targets European missile defense", — says Dmitry Rogozin. To substantiate this Our homeland is even ready to get out of the contract START (see "Kommersant" on July 4). "Such a response will be given in any case, if the creeps mug of anti-Russian technology, if we try to deny the very cheap, there is a Russian man — our nuclear shield" — threatens Russian president's special.
In the meantime, Moscow hopes to convince NATO to take one of the 2-positive options. "We will negotiate until the initiative of President Medvedev is not rejected. Time until May 2012 at diplomacy is, and immediately after that we will need to find our strategic response", — says Dmitry Rogozin. According to him, on Wednesday, he will go to Washington with the Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, a July 29 report on the results of negotiations at a meeting of the Russian Security Council.
However, the sources of "b" in NATO are looking at the prospect of making suiting Russian version was very skeptical. "We are willing to cooperate, but at the moment it has to go first on the exchange of data. Catch agree on a contract for a couple of months, we just do not have time" — says a NATO diplomat said. Another source "b" shows that even with overall political safeguards may appear due to the problem of stiff opposition to this idea from a number of NATO members. "It is not necessary to speak the language of threats. At Lisbon, we agreed that we want to work together. So let's do it, and do not measure the size of arsenals," — he concludes.