The National Interest
> Also On This Region:
> Also On This Topic:

 

 

The Gabala Gambit
by Nikolas K. Gvosdev

06.07.2007

By proposing to base an anti-ballistic missile defense system in Azerbaijan—and to have it be a joint operation between Russia and the West—Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to have caught the White House off guard. And the Russian leader whose penchant for judo is well known now appears ready to flip some of Washington’s own arguments and statements to strengthen the case against the deployment of any such system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

The Gabala radar installation covers precisely the areas of the world where the threat from rogue states (or accidental launches) is most acute—the Middle East and Indian Ocean basin. It is a bit more difficult to argue that a system based in the Czech Republic and Poland is somehow more effective at covering Iran than one located in the southern Caucasus. (Interestingly, the Gabala station was once offered by Azerbaijan, in the late 1990s, to NATO for use as a possible base.)

After weeks of talks with senior U.S. officials declaring they were perplexed by Russia’s unwillingness to consider cooperation, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, commented today in Germany, "We asked the Russians to cooperate with us on missile defense, and what we got was a willingness to do so."

Sentiment in Europe about deploying the system is quite divided. No one wants to completely discount a possible threat from Iran, but many were concerned about the resurgence of tensions between Russia and the West if an East European deployment went forward. Putin’s proposal now gives such critics—including those in the Czech Republic, where support for the U.S. proposal hovers at only about 30 percent—a way out. They can cite, as Putin did, that an Azerbaijan based system will cover all of Europe and that debris would not pose a risk to populated areas.

If Washington demurs from the Putin proposal, it then calls into question whether or not the United States had other "hidden" motives behind its desire to site the system in Poland and the Czech Republic—the so-called "beachhead" argument; that a small system directed against Iran could then be expanded, over time, to be directed against what is a shrinking and less effective Russian nuclear arsenal.

Putin may also be wanting to demonstrate to the government of Ilham Aliyev in Baku the "fair-weather" nature of the Americans. For years, the Azeris were quite interested in forging closer strategic ties with Washington. Putin, who claims to have discussed the Gabala proposal with Aliyev and said he received Aliyev’s approval to make the offer, may also want to remind the United States that the easy distinction between "free" nations supporting the U.S. and "unfree" ones being satellites of Moscow doesn’t quite work when it comes to the Caucasus.

Putin now looks a lot more reasonable on the issue of missile defense than he did even a day ago.


Nikolas K. Gvosdev is editor of The National Interest.

One addendum: In 2004 Ian Bremmer and I argued that NATO and Russia should work together more closely on matters of joint security. Although we were thinking about Kyrgyzstan, not Azerbaijan, we wrote in the International Herald Tribune:

Creating a joint U.S.-Russia base under the aegis of a NATO-Russia partnership … could lay the basis for practical cooperation that could then be extended, both to the countries where Russia has prevailing influence (such as Armenia) and those seeking greater integration into Euro-Atlantic structures (such as Georgia, Uzbekistan or even Azerbaijan). It would send a clear message to all countries in the region that cooperation with Russia does not jeopardize their progress to full membership in the Euro-Atlantic community.

If Putin is sincere in his offer, and if the West takes him up on it, perhaps this might come to pass after all.

Other Articles by Nikolas K. Gvosdev:
02.08.10
Ukraine’s election results aren’t a repudiation of the West. Kiev will still pursue the middle course it always has, courting both Europe and Russia.
02.02.10
It’s foolish for America to assume selling weapons to Taipei won’t harm our relationship with Beijing.
01.25.10
As engagement fails, it looks like the White House is considering regime change in Tehran.
01.12.10
America and Russia shouldn’t try to be friends. Cooperating in areas of common interest is the way to go.
12.28.09
Diplomacy isn’t working. Covert paramilitary action may be the only way to curb Tehran’s nuclear program.
12.02.09
This isn’t the campaign. Obama should have given a policy speech instead of one filled with rhetorical flourishes.
11.30.09
Four points the president should address in his new Afghanistan policy.
Subscribe Now

Copyright © 2006 The National Interest All rights reserved. | Legal Terms
P: (800) 344-7952, Outside the U.S.: (856) 380-4130 | backissues@nationalinterest.org
P.O. Box 9001, Maple Shade, NJ 08052-9662

The National Interest is published by The Nixon Center

The Nixon Center
1615 L Street, Suite 1250
Washington, DC 20036
www.nixoncenter.org