Tag: Missile defense

Turkey-Russia relations and missile defence

The ruling Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) pursuit of a more muscular and independent foreign policy has helped change the perception of Ankara in Moscow over the past ten years from being in step with NATO aims to a more independent foreign policy actor.

Turkish President Abdullah Gul (left) greets Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Turkey-Russia economic relations are a key component of bilateral ties. Reuters
“There have been some remarkable milestones that affected Turkish-Russian relations and paved the way for further co-operation,” Habibe Ozdal, a researcher at the International Strategic Research Organisation, specialising in Russia and Black Sea Studies, tells SETimes.

One of these significant milestones was the Turkish parliament’s refusal to allow the United States to invade northern Iraq from Turkish territory in 2003.

After this decision, “Ankara started to be evaluated as an independent actor in the region. From this standpoint, Moscow began to evaluate Ankara as an important actor that can stand for its national interests, even against a longtime ally,” according to Ozdal.

On the local level, growing bilateral trade and tourism has contributed to the thawing of relations. However, close relations with Moscow are still new, and the two sides are working to build trust at the upper echelons of government.

“It [Turkey] has been a member of NATO since 1952, that together with the EU integration process, has built up a certain level of trust [with the West] … between Turkish policy spheres, state agencies, security, military and business elites,” European Geopolitical Forum founder Marat Terterov tells SETimes.

“They don’t have the equivalent of that in the Turkish-Russian relationship. They are in the process of building it.”

One potential point of contention is Russia’s stringent opposition to the NATO decision to deploy an anti-ballistic missile system, which includes the forward based radar on Turkish territory.

“While [most] Russians generally accept the US and NATO concern about countries with missile capability, such as Iran, they do not see that capability emerging in the near future,” Vienna Centre for Disarmament and Non-proliferation senior fellow Nikolai Sokov told SETimes.

“According to Russian assessments, Iran is still pretty far from long-range missile capability. Hence they suspect that the real reason for missile defence is not the reason that is publicly declared.”

The recently concluded agreements for the launch of the newer Phased Adaptive approach with Turkey, Romania, Poland and Spain has been met with sharp criticism in Moscow.

“This is not about the radar itself — it clearly does not have capability vis-a-vis Russia. It was rather seen as further evidence that NATO proceeded with implementing missile defence plans without co-ordinating with Moscow,” Sokov said.

“People are making the argument that the missile defence would undermine the Russian strategic potential,” Pavel Podvig, director and principal investigator of the Russian Nuclear Forces Project, tells SETimes.

“There is no way the system can be a threat to anyone,” according to Podvig, but “the military and defence agencies [in NATO member states] are using it as a pretext for new programmes and for more money.”

This content was commissioned for SETimes.com.

October 21, 2011
NATO fears spy missiles

Alexei Chernichenko

Jul 29, 2011 15:45 Moscow Time

S-300. Photo: RIA Novosti

The United States is urging Turkey not to buy Russian S-300 long-range surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems, threatening to cease cooperation. Washington claims this deal jeopardizes NATO secrets.

Turkey declared a tender to buy S-300 missiles for its national air defense system back in 2005. Director of the Center for strategy and technology analysis Ruslan Pukhov explains their importance for Ankara:

“Until recently, Turkey had almost no air defense facilities of its own. Rearmament issues, including air defense means, are becoming increasingly important in view of this country’s role in the region and its president’s ambitions to make it a regional leader,” Ruslan Pukhov said.

By the way, S-300’s only rival in terms of the tender is the American Patriot PAC-3 surface-to-air missile system. Russian expert Viktor Litovkin has this to say on S-300 characteristics and features:

“S-300 complexes are considered to be the best long range SAMs in the world, destroying not the target missile’s body but its warhead, unlike US Patriots. As for defending targets, one S-300 is comparable to four Patriot PAC-3 missiles. The latter are launched at a particular angle to each of the four sides of the world, whereas the S-300 is fired vertically upward without being preliminary turned towards the target,” Viktor Litovkin explains.

American experts say that interaction between Russian and NATO systems will lead to information leakages. Military analysts polled by the Voice of Russia argue this is far from the truth, given that all systems work autonomously. Military observer Viktor Baranets is sure it’s all about lobbying arms dealers.

“Turkey, being a NATO member state, is living under constant pressure from the United States which decides what it should buy and what it should not. America acted the same way during military exhibitions in Malaysia, as well as in England, France and Germany. The key role has always been played by rivalry between Russia and the US. Now that Russia is not only exporting but also importing weapons, NATO is getting indignant over Washington’s dictating to Italy, France and other countries which arms and hardware models they may sell,” Viktor Baranets says.

Experts point out that Turkey may also dislike US attempts to influence its choice, especially when it comes to national security.

via NATO fears spy missiles: Voice of Russia.

July 30, 2011
Turkey in a quandary over missile threat

As Iran develops technologies associated with ballistic and cruise missiles, neighbouring Turkey faces an emerging security threat.

By Aaron Stein for Southeast European Times in Istanbul – 05/07/11

”]Recent war games in Iran have again attracted attention to the significant resources the Islamic Republic is devoting to extending the range of its current stockpile of ballistic missiles and the development of cruise missiles to overcome existing ballistic missile defences (BMD).

“Iran’s long-range missiles have been worrying Ankara for more than a decade,” Sebnem Udum, an associate professor of international relations at Hacettepe University, told SETimes, adding that ballistic missile defence (BMD) has become more important for Turkey’s future defence plans.

At the same time, “Ankara does not want to send the wrong signals to Iran,” she says.

For this reason, Turkey objected to the naming of Iran and Syria as specific threats to the Alliance during negotiations with its NATO Allies in 2010, out of concern it would actually spur both Iran and Syria to speed up their missile programmes.

The Turkish leadership “aims to solve problems within a ‘co-operative security’ framework based on talks, improved relations, and trade”, Udum says.

NATO eventually agreed to remove Iran and Syria from its final declaration of specific threats and, as part of this compromise, Turkey agreed to host one radar installation for the Alliance’s missile defence shield.

Despite agreeing to the shield, Ankara has shown it is intent on pursuing an independent BMD capability.

The proposed independent BMD system has potential drawbacks, however, according to Dennis Gormley, a security studies professor at the University of Pittsburgh and author of “Missile Contagion”.

“Turkey might not have access to ballistic missile warning information, as well as the benefits of working with NATO partners in training on tactics and procedures related to perfecting missile defence operations,” he told SETimes.

According to Gormley, neither Turkey nor NATO should focus on ballistic missiles at the expense of guarding against other risks. “The threat of land-attack cruise missiles is also growing and is much more demanding than that of defending against aircraft,” he said.

Cruise missiles are essentially small-unmanned aircraft designed for offensive missions. Their low trajectory, terrain masking capabilities and 360-degree route of attack make it difficult for current BMD sensors to track and identify these targets. Despite having a theoretical capability to intercept low-flying cruise missiles, “significant improvements are needed in airborne sensors and radar data sharing to provide defence,” Gormley said.

Iran is known to have imported 18 Kh-55 cruise missiles with a range of 3,000km in 2001, and is developing a cruise missile based on the Chinese Silkworm that could conceivably carry a well-designed nuclear warhead 105km, according to the Nuclear Threat Initiative.

Turkey has not announced any plans to defend against the growing threat of cruise missiles, choosing to focus solely on ballistic missiles.

Advanced fighter jets, like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, have some capability to defend against cruise missiles, but improvements are needed to adequately defend against a cruise missile attack.

According to Gormley, “the F-35’s active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar could track low-flying cruise missiles.” If equipped with advanced medium range air-to-air missiles, “they could destroy such missiles, including the Kh-55 and Ra’ad,” he said.

Turkey is a member of the US-led consortium building the plane and has indicated a willingness to buy 100 F-35s over the next 15 years.

While such a capability would be good for small volume attacks, the limited range of the plane’s radar would present problems for larger attacks, says Gormley.

This content was commissioned for SETimes.com.

via Turkey in a quandary over missile threat (SETimes.com).

July 6, 2011
Bulgaria to Host Elements of NATO Missile Defense if Turkey Refuses

Bulgaria is likely to host elements of the US/NATO missile defense system in Europe instead of Turkey if Turkey refuses to host them, according to Bulgarian Deputy Defense Minister Avgustina Tsvetkova.

Turkey’s position about hosting elements of the US and NATO missile shield, most likely its radar system, should be clear by the fall of 2011, Tsvetkova told journalists in Pamporovo Friday. Should Turkey decide against hosting part of the missile defense, then Bulgaria could start talks with NATO to host the same elements, she explained.

Tsvetkova did say that for the time being there are no plans to station elements of the US and NATO missile defense system in Europe on Bulgarian territory. She reiterated the official position of the government, which insists that Bulgaria’s entire territory must be covered by the future missile shield.

The past few months since the NATO summit in Lisbon in November 2010 took a decision to adopt the project for the US missile system in Europe as an Alliance-wide shield have seen occasional reports that Bulgaria might host elements the radar of the system.

The original missile defense in Europe plan of George W. Bush administration provided for stationing interceptors in Poland and the radar station in the Czech Republic. The modification of the plan by the Obama Administration switched it to sea-borne missiles and, later on, locations in southeastern Europe. Initially, there were reports and expectations that Romania and Bulgaria will replace Poland and the Czech Republic, respectively.

During its summit in November 2010 in Lisbon, NATO agreed to adopt the previously purely US missile shield project as its own. The summit did cast some serious doubts over Turkey’s participation in the missile defense system because it insisted that its Muslim neighbor Iran should not be mentioned as a source of threat in the respective documents, and eventually prevailed.

In May 2011, the US State Department and Romanian President Traian Basescu announced that the interceptor missiles of the future NATO/US missile shield in Europe will be stationed at the Deveselu Air Base near Caracal, Romania.

The System employs the SM-3 interceptor (also referred to as the “Aegis Ashore System”) while the deployment to Romania is anticipated to occur in the 2015 timeframe as part of the second phase of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) – the US national contribution to a NATO missile defense architecture.

The US Ballistic Missile Defense site is approximately 430 acres (175 hectares) and is located within the existing Romanian Air Base at Deveselu.

Deveselu is about 50 km away from the Romanian-Bulgarian border. The closest Bulgarian location is the village of Zagrazhden between the towns of Oryahovo and Nikopol.

via Bulgaria: Bulgaria to Host Elements of NATO Missile Defense if Turkey Refuses – Novinite.com – Sofia News Agency.

June 26, 2011
‘Turkey does not regard Iran as a threat to the region’

By Mohammad Amin Mokarrami

BANDAR ABBAS – Turkish political analyst Bilgehan Alagoz says Turkey does not regard Iran as a threat to the security of the region.

“Turkey does not perceive Iran as a threat to Turkey or to NATO, so that is why Turkey made a great effort to not name Iran in this document (the NATO proposal for deployment of a missile defense system in Turkey),” Alagoz said in an interview with the Tehran Times on November 23 on the sidelines of the 20th international conference on the Persian Gulf in Bandar Abbas, in the southern province of Hormozgan.

The 20th international conference on the Persian Gulf, entitled Comprehensive Cooperation in the Persian Gulf: Mechanisms for Development and Regional Stability, was held on the shores of the Persian Gulf from November 22 to 23.

Alagoz presented an article entitled “An opportunity or threat for Iran: Turkey’s improving relations with the (P)GCC” to the conference and gave a presentation on her article at one of the four expert panels held at the conference.

Alagoz holds a B.A. degree in international relations from Istanbul University and an M.A. degree in Middle Eastern studies from Marmara University. She is currently a Ph.D. candidate at Marmara University and a full-time faculty member as a lecturer at the Institute of Middle East Studies of Marmara University.

Following is the text of the interview with Ms. Alagoz:

Q: Some people in Iran criticize the government for expanding relations with Turkey because it is a U.S. ally and a NATO member. At the same time, there are some Turkish secularists that do not approve of the expansion of relations with Iran because Iran has a religious system. How do you assess this situation?

A: Actually, we have allayed these concerns in both of the parties because we are not living in the Cold War period. Turkey is part of the Western world in terms of being a NATO member and in terms of being a candidate to (join) the European Union. The reason which makes Turkey a unique country is that it can create a mutual dialogue between the West and Iran. So we need to compromise at international levels in terms of relations with the international system and Iran. Turkey seems to be a unique partner for creating this kind of platform, so I guess we have allayed all of these concerns. Yes, there are some secularists in Turkey who are skeptical about relations with Iran, but it is not a great part of the population. Even in the Turkish military, there are generals who are motivated to enhance relations with Iran… So I guess we don’t have those kinds of doubts recently.

Q: Governments try to adopt foreign policies that serve their national interests. How is aligning with Iran beneficial to Turkey?

A: Recently we have had many bad experiences. I mean the Iraq war. We have experienced that when something happens in our region like a destabilizing event, it affects all of the countries in this region. Turkey and Iran, as the most important countries in this region, can play a major role in terms of creating stability in the region. Turkey also believes that if something happens in Iran, it will directly affect its external relations and also internal stability. I mean, you all know that Turkey is struggling against the PKK (Workers’ Party of Kurdistan) terrorist activities. Also, we experience great economic problems. So if anything happens to Iran, it will affect our political stability and economic stability. So Turkey believes that Iran should be part of the international community and not be excluded from the international community. That is why Turkey stands with Iran.

Q: It is clear that instability in the region will negatively affect Turkey, but it doesn’t seem that this concern is the only reason behind Turkey’s policy of establishing closer relations with Iran. It seems that Turkey is seeking to raise its profile in the international arena by mediating between Iran and the West. What is your view?

A: I guess the main reason is to eliminate the destabilizing factors in the region. Furthermore, Turkey and Iran also have deep cooperation in terms of energy and trade, so excluding Iran in any platform will also affect Turkey’s economy. These can be mentioned as the reasons why Turkey is standing with Iran.

Q: Can Turkey’s improving relations with the (Persian) Gulf Cooperation Council ({P}GCC) countries be considered a threat to Iran?

A: Actually, during the (PGCC) summit in 2009, a declaration was issued, and in this declaration there were some articles which could be (considered to be) critical about Iran’s situation… maybe Iran could get the impression that Turkey is trying to confront it through these Arab countries of the Persian Gulf. I don’t get that sense. But Iran may be concerned in terms of Turkey’s membership in NATO and in terms of the improvement in relations with these Arab countries, so this could be perceived as a kind of threat, but I believe that it does not pose a threat.

Q: As you know, Israel is the only player in the Middle East that possesses nuclear weapons. What can Iran and Turkey do to compel Tel Aviv to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to visit its nuclear facilities and to convince it to dismantle its nuclear weapons?

A: Several times, the current prime minister, Mr. Erdogan, emphasized that Israel should also think about its nuclear activities… I believe that in order to take Israel to mediation, it would be better to act with the Western world not with Iran, because Israel directly perceives Iran as a threat. At the moment, we have some problems with Israel, but in general, Turkey also has important relations with Israel. Israel should not be confronted by Turkey and Iran together. Israel’s nuclear situation is a great problem for the region, but for Turkey it is not good to act together with Iran in terms of Israel. For Turkey, it would be better to take the European Union and the United States to the same platform and not Iran.

Q: As the last question, Iranian officials are concerned about the proposed NATO missile defense shield that is going to be deployed in Turkey. What is your view?

A: I had the opportunity to listen to our president, Abdullah Gul, before I came to Iran, and he put great emphasis on the fact that Turkey does not perceive Iran as a threat to Turkey or to NATO, so that is why Turkey made a great effort to not name Iran in this document. But you should accept that Turkey is a NATO member… and has the right to conduct various activities with NATO. Maybe this missile system will raise some concerns for the Iranian side, but Iranians should keep in mind that Turkey has stood with Iran in many important platforms and Turkey has always confronted (Iran’s adversaries) during all these discussions

Tehran Times

November 27, 2010
Analysis: Turkey hesitates on missile defense

By DESMOND BUTLER
The Associated Press

Thursday, October 21, 2010; 3:15 AM

In this Oct. 18, 2010, photo, Defense Secretary Robert Gates speaks at the American-Turkish Council's 29th annual conference on U.S.-Turkey relations, Monday, Oct. 18, 2010, in Washington. Gates said this week at the conference on U.S.-Turkish relations that the United States is not pressuring Turkey on the missile defense issues. Still, a Turkish refusal of the radar or problems negotiating the NATO statement could spike tensions.(AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) (Pablo Martinez Monsivais – AP)

WASHINGTON — Turkey finds itself once again in an awkward position between fellow NATO members and Iran as it considers a proposal to place a key component of a U.S. missile defense system on its soil.

Depending on how it is resolved, the issue could heighten or quell concerns in Washington that Turkey is drifting away from the West.

The U.S. would like Turkey to host a radar installation for its European missile shield and to back a proposal to make missile defense a core mission for NATO. After initial enthusiasm about the radar, Turkey has hesitated. Its main concern is that it does not want the missile defense system to explicitly target Iran. Turkey also doesn’t want NATO to go on record at its summit in Lisbon, Portugal, Nov. 19-21, identifying Iran as a ballistic missile threat.

But U.S. and NATO officials have clearly identified Iran as the most immediate threat, even pegging the timing of building a missile defense to projected advances in Iran’s missile capabilities. And Turkey offers an advantage over other U.S. allies for the placement of the system’s radar: its proximity to Iran.

Turkey has an interest in not alienating Tehran. It is increasingly dependent on Iranian energy resources and eager to expand trade. But the relatively close relationship with Iran has been an irritant to Washington. A last-minute nuclear-fuel swap deal with Tehran brokered by Turkey and Brazil ahead of a United Nations Security Council vote on sanctions in June was swiftly rejected, and U.S. officials reacted with anger when Turkey voted against the sanctions.

The disagreement has bolstered doubt about Turkey’s commitment to Western institutions at a time when its bid for membership in the European Union has stalled. With a booming economy and growing regional clout, Turkey has been cultivating its ties to neighboring countries and powers outside the West.

Turkey says the concerns reflect a misunderstanding. It says its relations with Europe and the United States won’t suffer as it expands its influence in other directions, and it has sought to position itself as a broker between the West and the Middle East. Turkish officials argue that their country’s ties with Tehran provide unique influence that the West should make use of.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this week at a conference on U.S.-Turkish relations that the United States is not pressuring Turkey on the missile defense issues. Still, a Turkish refusal of the radar or problems negotiating the NATO statement could cause tensions to spike. Both sides say they are looking for a solution.

“We do want to reach a deal,” Selim Yenel, deputy undersecretary in the Turkish Foreign Ministry, said in an interview. “We don’t want any problems at the NATO summit. It should be finalized by then.”

A solution could involve playing down any mention of Iran as the motivation for building a missile defense system. With anger at Iran running high in the United States, however, the Obama administration may find that an uncomfortable compromise.

EDITOR’S NOTE – Desmond Butler covers foreign affairs for The Associated Press.

The Washington Post

October 22, 2010