Why does Russia want to be a part of a U.S. led anti-missile shield? The truth is out there.
There are a number of possible reasons. Several of them overlap and intersect:
1. Russia is genuinely interested in reducing the missile threat to their homeland through participation in an anti-missile system.
2. The idea of a security free-ride and getting some anti-missile capability at little or no cost is appealing.
3. They might want to entangle/insidiously position themselves to have a veto capability over the U.S./NATO anti-missile system, increasing their power and authority.
4. They see what China is doing with their anti-missile efforts as well as China’s general military build-up and know the deterrent value of their own military will be diminished without a better missile defense capability.
5. They see an opportunity to have some beneficial technologies transferred into Russia.
The most important questions to ask are these: what’s in it for Russia and how would it help them?
If you hold that Russia is now (more realistically) viewing themselves as a regional (and no longer superpower) power, the reasons of holding effective veto over NATO and concerns over rising Chinese power hold the most explanatory power for their desire to participate in a U.S./NATO anti-missile system.
France and Germany are concerned that Russia feels NATO is “aimed” at them and would like to add Russia as a partner in order to reduce this tension.
Hmmm. So the Russians appear to have hurt feelings over the whole deal. How about this for a laugh your guts out statement?
Our NATO partners are refusing to assign Russia an equal role in the general design of a European missile defense system," Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said…
“Our NATO partners”? I know this is traditional disingenuous diplo-speak but please.
Were Russia to join NATO, then perhaps China would feel NATO (plus Russia) is “aimed” at them. Maybe China would also want to be a partner in the expanding alliance/relationship.
This process, if true and if fully followed to its logical conclusion would lead one to think there should be a global security alliance. How such a NATO-like alliance (where an attack on one is an attack on all) might would in the real world seems to have questionable efficacy.
At some point, entanglement becomes paralysis. If a rogue, miscreant, criminal, or the likes is paralyzed from doing bad, things are great. However, it seldom seems to work in such a way.