Missile Defense, Military Doctrine and the Connection Between the Two (if Any)

The fact that you should be careful when reading Russian papers is a common place and I find it boring when foreigners complain about it much. Especially because most foreigners who live in Moscow do not even speak Russian well enough to afford such comments. However this time I found it quite exciting how the lecturer at my “Introduction to the Applied Analysis of Foreign Policy Measures” class, Professor B. managed to convince the audience that they should never trust the author an article entirely, be it published in Kommersant, the Economist or the New York Times. It had nothing to do with finding excuses for the pathetic standards of the Russian press, the lecture was supposed to make it clear that information could be the trickiest thing, that while we were trying to produce reliable information ourselves, we had to stay alarmed that what we were reading was not important or reliable enough. I wouldn’t have found it so interesting if it hadn’t been for the way he illustrated it.

Professor B. is known for being the best teacher at the faculty, but he is also an impossible person, he hates women, looks down on political science students (although he wrote most of our textbooks) and tries to show off at any occasion.

When the class started he immediately noticed that I hadn’t been there the first time and made it clear that he was not about to forgive me for that. A friend of mine, in an effort to save me, told him that I had still been in Budapest. This didn’t really help. “Oh. So in Hungary people don’t go to university, I presume.”

There were two texts we were supposed to analyze: one was about the US administration confirming the news about its plans to station ground-based interceptor missiles in Romania, the other was about Medvedev informing Russian Security Council members that he had affirmed the new military doctrine of the Russian Federation and the “Outlines of State Policies in the sphere of Nuclear Non-proliferation up to 2020”, in which the following threats are listed as most alarming:

1. NATO extension and its aspiration to acquire global military functions

2. Deployment of ballistic missile defense elements in neighboring states

3. The Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism

Quite provocatively, Professor B. asked which one of the statements might have been issued first, to which the audience unanimously answered that the news of the BMD came first and Medvedev commenting on the new military doctrine second. B. made an irritated face when someone implied that this was quite obvious then asked whether one might have actually caused the other. I thought he just paraphrased the same question but I guess he didn’t since this time a loud debate broke out as people were eagerly trying to voice their opinion.

Some of my classmates said this must have all happened by chance because military doctrines had to be prepared for months if not years. (Now he looked at me. “ I bet you are scared now” I guess he implied that I couldn’t follow because not only was I a foreigner with a thick accent, but I also dared miss his lecture. I wasn’t, though.) Another one was convinced that Medvedev was so cross at the Americans that he fast included the NATO extension among the most fearful threats. Others were animatedly trying to prove that the Russians just waited until the right moment for the statement to be issued. 

This is when Professor B. struck. “Now will you please look at the Medvedev statement again. Does it say the military doctrine was signed? No it doesn’t. It was “confirmed” by Medvedev. He might have nodded. Has it come into force? No it hasn’t. Let’s say it is not going to be signed at all. Then what are these articles about? Bullshit. That’s what they are about. What are they published for? For the show. Information is never where you expect it to be. Not where it is anticipated by drum rolls. You have to be able to exclude all the noise, and the noise is always very aggressive.” (At this point, his cell started ringing. It was incredibly annoying, but he wouldn’t answer. Then it went off again, he looked at it, and said in a matter of fact tone: “excuse me, it’s from The Ministry, it must be very important, I’m going to answer it”. He does show off at any occasion.)

“However, there are signs to be found it these texts. What can be a sign?” The timing, I said. “Yes.” I could tell he was impressed. “A sign for whom?” (For the U.S. Administration, we all answered.) “Oh, so in your opinion there is only us and the U.S? Is there anyone else at all? Isn’t it rather a signal for states who are in for forming an anti-American coalition?

But if you insist, it can be a signal for the Americans too, especially the timing. It tells that the door is closing for them to come to terms with us on the issue of Iran.”

I have to say that although I agree with his message that we have to beware of insignificant information, I find the conclusion rather manipulative. To start with, what door? It implies that the Russians have been patiently waiting for the Americans to take action for some time, but now they’ve had enough of their dithering. Secondly, the door was never really open. There was a brief moment there in the summer when they said they might cooperate but when it came to actually signing an arms reduction agreement, Medvedev backed out. Saying that a state’s sovereignty comes first he refused to impose sanctions on Iran, too.

(Not so long ago I did think they were open to negotiations, though. I was so enthusiastic after the summer that in September when I was taking an exam in global politics and the elderly professor asked me what should be expected in U.S.-Russia relations, I actually tried to convince him that now things were really going to change. He was very nice to me, and yet he couldn’t help but laugh in my face. “But Medvedev said he might sign a bilateral treaty…” “Promises, promises…wait until he signs anything. I didn’t want to disappoint you, I’m sorry. I started teaching here in the Khrushchev era – I’ve seen a lot, believe me” he said, when he saw the startled expression on my face.)