The nuclear stand-off in Europe between US and Russia

Vladimir Putin's threat to once again target western Europe with Russian missiles brought back the spectre of the worst days of the Cold War and the start of a new arms race.

Taken at its bleakest interpretation this would mean that a whole swathe of military targets, some in cities such as London and Brussels, will in future be considered legitimate targets for Russian attack.

But the current strategic positioning between Russia and Nato, and the working relationship by the two sets of military, does not support such an apocalyptic scenario.

Russian and Western analysts agree that President Putin's declaration shows anger at the US plans to build a missile defence system in eastern Europe, and aims to please hardliners in the Russian administration. But it is hardly a declaration of war.

The Americans say they are putting the radars and interceptor missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic as a shield against possible nuclear strikes by so called "rogue" states, especially Iran and North Korea. They pose no threat, says Washington, to the massive Russian nuclear arsenal across the border.

For the Russians, however, positioning the missiles on their doorstep, in former Warsaw Pact countries, is a provocation which, if not countered, may be followed by the stationing of more offensive strike capabilities.

Last week Russia conducted the test launch of a new intercontinental ballistic missile capable of penetrating US anti-missile defences. In theory, they could in the future be passed on to a third party. Moscow has also been carrying out exercises with its mobile rocket launchers and strategic bombers.

The US, in response, has insisted that the Polish and Czech projects were to combat threats not from Russia but further afield. And it is, indeed, the case that Iran would have to fire missiles to the west if it aims at America, across Europe and the north Atlantic.

However, Col Christopher Langton, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London, points out: "They did not have to be in Poland or the Czech Republic. They could, just as well, have been in Scotland. So, in a sense, by putting them in those two countries the Americans are showing that they will go ahead and do what they want and they don't care overmuch for Russian sensibilities.

"What is interesting is that Putin has not really complained about the American missile shields being put up in the Asia Pacific region, also close to Russian territory. Is it the case that because they are in the east, away from Moscow and St Petersburg, and thus he is not that bothered, or is it because he is keen to try to detach European Nato opinion away from America by saying it is the Americans creating a dangerous situation. While these threats are being made by Putin, we have Nato officers in Moscow discussing European missile defence in talks which appear to be quite constructive."

Robert Emerson, a security analyst, added: " The Americans admit that they have been slow to explain the shield to the rest of Nato, and Putin is trying to exploit this. If Russian missiles really are re-targeted on the West then military installations close to cities like London could obviously be hit and there would be a ballistic missile exchange. But this is highly unlikely."

A Russian observer of the Kremlin, now in London, agreed: "This is more a political than a military problem. Putin's comments were given to selected journalists from the G8 countries but it was really meant for effect. It was also meant for internal consumption. President Putin is now surrounded by some powerful nationalist hardliners and they want to test Nato's will."

Interesting? Click here to explore further