Firing in all directions, or none at all?

Missile defence is an issue that rears its ugly head every few years, emitting much heat and fear then dropping off again, somewhat like a dozy dragon that is prodded into a fiery roar by a crowd of buzzing insects.

Not that the US and Russia like to think of themselves as insects, but at least they buzz: the Europeans, caught between them, just hum and haw hoping as ever that everything will just go away.

In reality missile defence encompasses three separate issues, which have now been conflated. The US ballistic missile defence, Russia’s place in the world and European attitudes to defence. The first dates back to the heady days of the Regan administration, which first showed interest in developing a scheme for missiles to intercept missiles and ever since the US has sunk billions into developing it.

Though the efficacy of the system has yet to be properly proven - a lot depends on how you read the statistics of the test launches regarding the success rate of interception at each stage of a missile flight - there are now interceptor missiles in California and Alaska, and a network of relevant industrial and military facilities in the US and other parts of the world has begun to emerge. This network was always intended to include at least one European site, but probably more. But in the wake of the Iraq war and, especially the deteriorating relations with the possibly-soon-to-be nuclear-armed Iran, the urgency for deploying the missiles into Europe has been massively increased from the US perspective. It is this urgency which has driven it to call upon European allies to accept the missiles on their territory - which is ultimately quite understandable.

Less understandable, but hardly surprising from the current US administration, is the high-handed manner in which the deed is being done: the potential sites for radars and interceptors are in Poland and the Czech Republic, and discussions with both have been conducted on a purely bilateral basis - with complete disregard for either the wider context of allies in Europe, or the sensitivities of Russia.

Russia still considers central and eastern Europe its own backyard. But it also has genuine security concerns regarding its western border with states that were once its possessions in the Soviet empire and are now members of the EU and Nato, its historic enemy. It was precisely in order to defuse such concerns that the Nato-Russia Council was created and it is precisely in that forum that the issue of sites for missile defence could have been discussed, if the US had not sought to be needlessly provocative - especially at a time when Russia is seeking to re-exert itself globally and could therefore use any excuse to suggest a slight. To hand over such an excuse is sloppy diplomacy, at best, and dangerous, not least to most Europeans, at worst.

Europe has no missile defence system, nor at this point does it plan to - largely due to its inability to work out its strategic imperatives. Nato now has in development a Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence programme (TBMD) worth many hundreds of millions of euro, which is ultimately intended to defend alliance troops anywhere they deploy. The reason there is a TBMD programme is that all alliance members, European and otherwise, could agree on a list of common threats to deployed troops. But, among themselves, Europeans cannot agree on a list of common threats to their citizens. A curious state of affairs.

It is this strategic lacuna that the US has both despaired of in terms of seeking a collective partner for its own missile defence purposes - and decided to exploit by dividing and ruling between the European allies. The end result is a messy impasse, which could have a long-term negative impact upon EU-Russia relations, since ultimately the sites are in Europe and both potential hosts are in the EU.

• Ilana Bet-El is an academic, author and policy adviser based in Brussels.

Missile defence is an issue that rears its ugly head every few years, emitting much heat and fear then dropping off again, somewhat like a dozy dragon that is prodded into a fiery roar by a crowd of buzzing insects.

• Primary Source