BRUSSELS — The United States and Russia have opened discussions about using sophisticated American electronic equipment, developed by the Pentagon to counter improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan and Iraq, in a new effort to help secure the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi next month.
The potential for a technological exchange was part of an extensive discussion here Tuesday when Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, held his first face-to-face meeting with his Russian counterpart, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, chief of the general staff.
The Defense Department would be willing to provide equipment designed to detect and disrupt cellphone or radio signals used by militants to detonate improvised explosives from a distance, General Dempsey said. But he cautioned that technical experts from both nations first needed to make sure that the American systems could be integrated into the communications networks and security systems being set in place by Russia.
In discussing the Pentagon’s technology to counter improvised explosives, General Dempsey noted that this was “something that we’ve become extraordinarily familiar with.” Homemade bombs planted by militants have been the leading cause of deaths and injuries to American service members in Afghanistan and Iraq.
But especially during the early implementation of the technology, the American military found it had created a muddle of electronic signals in which competing and overlapping systems canceled out the effectiveness of other systems in use at the same time and in the same area.
“If you’re not careful, you can actually degrade capability, not enhance it,” General Dempsey said.
The discussion between Generals Dempsey and Gerasimov came one day after Pentagon officials disclosed that the United States European Command was drawing up plans to have two Navy warships in the Black Sea at the time of the Sochi games, should they be needed in case of emergency. The games begin Feb. 7.
During their meetings here, the American and Russian military chiefs sought to advance an agenda of exchanges and continued cooperation on counterterrorism and antipiracy operations even as diplomatic relations between Washington and Moscow swing between caustic disagreement and cautious cooperation.
Both the American and Russian generals share a history of having commanded large tank and armored units — and both stressed the importance of improving communication between their armed forces.
“I think we have an opportunity to advance the relationship on areas of common interest,” General Dempsey said.
General Dempsey said his Russian counterpart was deeply concerned about the potential for further instability in Afghanistan after the NATO combat mission there officially ends this year. General Gerasimov has asked for updates on the American and NATO effort to train, advise and equip Afghan National Security Forces, General Dempsey said, as well as Afghanistan’s ability to maintain and control transportation lines in and out of the country.
“He is absolutely concerned, as I would be in his place,” General Dempsey said.
In brief remarks welcoming General Dempsey to the Russian mission to NATO in suburban Brussels, General Gerasimov endorsed “regular contacts” between the militaries as “quite useful.” He noted that the two generals were set to approve a “plan of contact” to strengthen military relations between the two countries; the plan calls for more than 60 exchanges and joint exercises.
This first meeting between the American and Russian military chiefs came against a strained political backdrop. Moscow’s decision to shelter Edward J. Snowden, the former National Security Agency contractor, prompted President Obama to call off a one-on-one meeting he had scheduled with President Vladimir V. Putin while in Russia last year. And American efforts to build a missile-defense architecture to protect the territory of NATO allies in Europe continue to provoke protests from Russia.
General Dempsey, in an interview, said it was important for the two militaries “not to foreclose on conversations, even if at some points there are disagreements that prevent the forward movement” in other parts of the relationship, whether political or diplomatic.
No comments:
Post a Comment