Many of us watched with outrage several weeks ago as the Russian Army launched a brutal thrust into the Republic of Georgia, ostensibly in defense of the break-away regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.  As I write this, the invasion has ended, but Russian forces still have not left Georgian soil.

Not only was Russia wrong to invade in the first place but, of course, they also left behind no Russian Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Georgia and no efforts underway by Russia to rebuild or train Georgian armed forces; nor have the Russians developed any budget to rehabilitate the Georgian people or their infrastructure. 

Laid bare to the free world are the lengths to which Russia is willing to go to in order to recapture its lost strategic depth, as it imposes its will on former Soviet satellite states.

Ukraine, another fledgling democracy that was once a Soviet state, has watched events unfold in Georgia with great concern.  As another success story in Eastern European democracy that has developed ties with the West, Ukraine also seeks eventual entry into the European Union and membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  Ukraine has also contended with a separatist movement encouraged by the Russians. 

Former Soviet states are not the only ones who must contend with Russian belligerence.  Of the many former Warsaw Pact states who joined the European Union and became members of NATO, two stand out for their willingness to brave the condemnation of Russia and contribute to the common defense of the Alliance. 

Negotiations began in early 2007 to place elements of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (or European Site) in Poland and the Czech Republic in recognition of a growing ballistic missile threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran, a nation I fervently believe to be pursuing nuclear weapons.  NATO has spoken out in favor of the European Site initiative, and the Secretary of State has signed agreements with both the Polish and Czech governments to base interceptors and a tracking radar in their respective countries.

In the space of nearly two years, Russia has continued to condemn the European Site initiative as a challenge to its nuclear deterrent.  But the fact remains that it is Iranian ballistic missiles for which the system will be built, not Russian ones.  The European Site never was and still is not intended to defend Europe or the United States from a Russian ballistic missile attack. 

The Russians possess thousands of nuclear missiles— many times more than the system was designed to intercept.  Furthermore, the geometry of the radars that support the interceptors in relation to the interceptors themselves does not allow defense against such an attack.   Ten interceptors, or ten times as many, cannot undermine the Russian nuclear deterrent. 

The Bush administration has offered numerous confidence-building measures to the Russians to assuage their stated concerns.  Nothing short of abandoning the European Site initiative appears to be a sufficient measure for the Russians.   The irony should not be lost on us that our domestic critics try to convince us that missile defense will not work at all, while Russian critics try to convince us that it will work too well. 

Early on in our negotiations, Russia announced that it would target Poland and the Czech Republic, should either state opt to host interceptor missiles for the European Site.  Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin stated: “Our General Staff, our experts believe this system threatens our national security, if it is deployed, we will have to react appropriately. In that case, we will probably be forced to target some of our missiles at the objects threatening us.”  

A top Russian military officer was quoted: “I do not exclude the missile defense shield sites in Poland and the Czech Republic being chosen as targets for some of our intercontinental ballistic missiles.” 

When discussing Poland’s agreement with the US to host interceptors, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stated earlier this week that “Poland appears not to have understood that it has become a party to a very dangerous game." 

In spite of these naked threats, as well as Russian action in Georgia, neither Poland nor the Czech Republic has backed away from their commitment to the European Site. These are sovereign states who owe no fealty to Russia and they will not be cowed by its words or its actions.  The ratification of our agreements by both the Polish and Czech parliaments is anticipated by the end of 2008.

Congress has an opportunity to demonstrate its commitment to NATO— namely to Poland and the Czech Republic— by meeting both nations’ courageous stand against coercion with a commitment of its own.  By fully funding the European Site initiative, Congress can demonstrate to the Islamic Republic of Iran that the United States takes that regime’s ballistic missile threat seriously and we intend to actively defend ourselves and our allies against it. 

The House and Senate have to work together before this session expires. Congress can demonstrate to its allies that the U.S. takes its commitment to missile defense as seriously as they do.  Lastly, Congress can demonstrate to Russia that they will not dictate the national security policies of Poland, the Czech Republic, or any other NATO member; nor will Russia dictate the security policy of the United States of America.

Rep. Trent Franks, a Republican, represents the 2nd District of Arizona in the U.S. Congress. He is a member of the House Armed Services Committee, the House Judiciary Committee and vice chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee.

###

1237 Longworth HOB, Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-4576