Tytti Erästö und Roger L. Hale Fellow haben für den Ploughshares Fund die Studie “Between the Shield and the Sword: NATO’s Overlooked Missile Defense Dilemma“ veröffentlicht. In einem Artikel für das European Leadership Network argumentieren sie, Russland habe allen Grund, die NATO-Raketenabwehr skeptisch zu beurteilen, da Washington keinerlei Begrenzungen zu akzeptieren bereit sei. Außerdem sei man weiter wild entschlossen, die Aktivierung von „Phase 3“ des Schildes fortzusetzen, deren Notwendigkeit früher immer mit Verweis auf den Iran begründet worden sei, wovon aber die NATO inzwischen selbst nicht mehr spreche: “If missile defences indeed were limited, Russia would have no reason to be worried. The problem is that there are no guarantees that this will be the case. Largely due to opposition by the U.S. Congress, the United States has repeatedly rebuffed Russian calls for legally binding limits to the anti-missile project. […] The Alliance seems to have completely abandoned the association between missile defence and Iran. As stated in NATO’s official website in late 2015, NATO’s ‘missile defence is not about any one country, but about the threat posed by proliferation more generally.’ […] It is in the interests of regional security that the United States reinstate adaptability to EPAA by suspending Phase III in Poland.” (jw)
