IKI Seminar

Moscow, Russia
January 17, 2002

On January 17, 2002, The Eisenhower Institute convened a meeting at the Space Research Institute (IKI) in Moscow to gain a Russian perspective on US plans for military space use. The event was part of a weeklong series of meetings and seminars in which the Institute met with leading Russian space scientists, economists, policymakers, and industry personnel to discuss US-Russian cooperation in space, nuclear threat reduction, and numerous other key strategic issues. The meeting, attended by 30 people, took place only one month after President George W. Bush's announcement that the US will soon withdraw from the ABM Treaty, a move that will eliminate one of the few legal foundations upon which previous norms governing the military uses of space had been based. With this development as a backdrop, several Russian experts offered their views on military space policy.

The Strategic Nature of Space Weapons

In the course of the past few years, space assets have come to play a central role in US military operations. US policy states that these space assets serve tactical purposes and are directed primarily against terrorists and rogue states, as opposed to major states like China or Russia. The Bush administration has also claimed that a major part of the new strategic framework it is promoting will be based on missile defenses and unilateral cuts in its nuclear arsenal, which implies a de-emphasis of the concept of a Russian threat. But although the Russian participants did not view US military space policy as overtly directed against their nation, they felt it poses a threat to stability.

According to them, Russia's opposition to space weapons continues to be driven by issues surrounding the strategic balance rather than by the worry that the US is achieving overwhelming technological superiority over the rest of the world through a space-supported Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA). For example, they felt that one of the most threatening aspects of US space policy was the prospect of the US placing in orbit a weapons platform that would give it the capability to launch a surprise attack from directly over Moscow at an hourly interval. Also of concern is the effect that deployment of space-based ballistic missile defense systems could have for reigniting the arms race, especially given the potential that even a limited missile defense system has for negating the Chinese nuclear arsenal. One of the seminar participants, a Russian General, went further, stating that even conventional, non-ABM space weapons systems can all be considered to be strategic-class due to their ability to destroy strategic global information systems.

A high ranking defense expert and Duma member acknowledged that Russia's modern concept of national security was influenced heavily by the superior command, control, communications and intelligence capabilities demonstrated by the US in the NATO campaign in Kosovo. For example, during that war many Russian experts were impressed that only one conventional weapon is enough to destroy a bridge, whereas before a similar mission would require the use of many planes and potentially would involve great losses. But in his eyes, the growing reliance on the use of non-nuclear, tactical weapons does not make the issue of nuclear stability a moot point. He said that Russian military documents now place greater emphasis on the possibility of using nuclear weapons in tactical and general situations, which would allow munitions with an accuracy of 500 meters to accomplish the same military objectives as GPS-guided missiles that have an accuracy of eight meters.

This account was indicative of the general consensus of the Russian meeting participants: even though the US is no longer viewed as a military rival, US space policy cannot be separated from the strategic issues that have traditionally been of concern to Russia. An Eisenhower Institute representative added that President Bush's announcement only days earlier that the US would not be dismantling, but rather storing its nuclear warheads as part of the long-awaited nuclear reductions made it all the more inevitable that the discussion on the future military uses of space during the coming months will take place within the context of a renewed debate over strategic stability.

Russian Assessment of the Potential Threat to Assets in Space

The general consensus of Russian experts at the Space Research Institute was that there are indeed security concerns on the horizon that should be addressed, but threats to the survival of existing space assets are not imminent. The use of space for reconnaissance and early warning was acknowledged as necessary for global stability. But none of these concerns warrant the major policy innovations in space recently undertaken by the U.S. Department of Defense, they said.

Russia does not take seriously the threat from rogue states that both the first and second Rumsfeld Commissions recognized as sufficient to justify the development of missile defense and the deployment of anti-satellite weapons. One participant stated that if a nuclear attack from one of these sources were to occur, it is more likely to be delivered in a suitcase than by a ballistic missile. He suggested that a better way to handle the ballistic missile threat would be to discuss a system of rules with the rest of the world and work together to enforce them. Another participant added that if a terrorist act is perpetrated against US space assets, Russia will do all in its capability to help the US take countermeasures. Such aggressors will be able to be stopped without the need to resort to space-based weapons. He observed that the second Rumsfeld Commission offered no proof of a threat to justify its recommendations, just a declaration. It is precisely the lack of a threat to US space assets that is a source of concern to Russia and other countries, he said.

Although the Russian participants did not see a direct connection between the rogue state threat and the need for a hasty withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, they still did not seem to believe that US space policy targets Russia. One participant said that despite his concern, the gravity of today's situation is not as intense as was the Russian sense of frustration and hopelessness that marked the arms race in the 1980s. "Then the Strategic Defense Initiative was underway and there was talk of deploying lasers. We were in a panic; the situation was very gloomy." Today there is only one superpower. Although it is unfortunate that there is an atmosphere of overconfidence, he said, at least this atmosphere is not plagued by the imminence of war. "What is at stake today, however, is the destruction of the entire regulatory regime for international space activity."

The same participant alleged that the Bush administration's objective with regard to space is to maintain full control of the military and commercial activities of other states by, for example, dictating what types of satellites can be launched or which satellite transmission frequencies are permissible. He mentioned the reference to the possibility of a new international agreement in the second Rumsfeld report, but expressed skepticism about what such an agreement would entail. "It would be undertaken in the same unilateral spirit with which the US entered discussions on the Kyoto Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention and the other global initiatives that the Bush administration has rejected," he said.

Another expert concurred. "My feeling is that the current administration is against any form of restraint in any activity of its own. It wants to be completely free from the UN Security Council, the opinion of its allies, the opinion of China and Russia and even the opinion of its own Congress. Otherwise I cannot explain the abrogation of the ABM. There is no other possible rationale, especially since Russia was absolutely ready for the modernization of the Treaty."

Attitudes toward Cooperation

Despite their opposition to US policy, the Russians were eager to continue working toward a solution that meets the security interests of both the United States and Russia. One of the experts acknowledged that since India will soon be joining the club of space-faring nations and others are not far behind, an element of uncertainty will indeed be introduced into the international security equation. He urged that instead of jumping to a unilateral military solution, rules should be created that preempt the threat from developing. "Those who would attack a satellite are the enemies of all of us," he said. "We must together determine what measures we can introduce to make the situation more stable for us all."

The Russians present at the meeting viewed the chances of the development of a multilateral dialogue and the formation of a cooperative security regime as minuscule under the current US administration. Nevertheless, most believed it important to endeavor to retain existing treaties and work toward a world that operates on the rule of law rather than on the politics of power. "Public sentiment and the work of the various non-governmental organizations and congressmen who are opposed to the administration's space policy will persist long after the current administration leaves office," said one optimist. In reference to the disarmament efforts of the 1980s, he concluded, "That's why he have to do what we did 20 years ago and hope that the world will function as we think it should."