It is obvious that the deployment of a U.S. antimissile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic would fundamentally change the structure and philosophy of continental and even global security - as well as threatening the entire edifice of relevant international accords.

This is not just a question of Russia's concerns. The situation is rather humiliating for the European Union as well: After the scandal of the secret CIA prisons, this is the second time that doubts have been cast on Brussels' authority and ability to keep its own house under control. Without asking the EU, two of its newest members have agreed with "third parties" to deploy strategic military systems on EU territory.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel proposed, after the event, that NATO be brought in to conduct consultations with Russia on antimissile defenses. She called the Alliance "the best place for discussion of this issue." In this connection I would like to recall an episode during the recent Munich Security Conference, when I asked the chancellor whether NATO was theoretically capable of responding to the new challenges of today, and her answer went along the lines that, while NATO was still underachieving and insufficiently active, things would nonetheless be even worse without it.

But the problem is that Russia - like most of the world's states which are not members of NATO - has the ever-firmer impression that NATO is not failing to cope with the problems of today's world because of a lack of energy, but rather is causing these problems by its actions and by its very existence in its current form.

It's like the bull in the china shop: The problem is not that the bull is insufficiently energetic. This is unavoidable for a structure which has not become global and universal but continues to function as a military bloc of the last century.

There is another aspect to this, which First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov has rightly pointed to: During the first wave of NATO expansion, we were categorically assured that no NATO military infrastructure would be deployed in the new member states. We were simply duped. To be quite frank: How can we talk about such serious problems with an organization that shows such lack of conscience?

This doesn't mean we don't want dialogue. But I think we have a right to expect a certain change in NATO's position on the vital question of the Continent's security. We are convinced that a dialogue of equals and respect for one another's interests are not just diplomatic niceties but mutual obligations. If Russia acts in this way, it does not mean it is the weaker party in the dialogue. It means it is the more honest party, because it calls a spade a spade.

When Russia openly states that the deployment of new elements of an American missile-defense system will undermine the entire system of continental security, we are accused of being afraid of the approach of "democracy."

Is the deployment of a missile-defense system, to a chorus of protest and negative opinion polls, a symbol of that democracy? In other words, "listen to your people, then do as America tells you!" Still, the missile defense shield has brought progress of a kind: At least people were informed of the plans, unlike the scandalous CIA prisons.

The main difference between now and the Cold War era is that Russia does not see itself as an opponent of the United States, far less as its enemy. We are not talking about specific Russian fears, but about the problems of the whole world.

Remember how the leaders of Russia, Germany and France all warned about the dangers of starting a war in Iraq? I am convinced the world would look a little different now, in a positive way, if Washington had listened to the opinion of those three powers at that time.

Russia is not challenging America, but giving a friendly warning, that in an unstable world the United States will face more threats to its own interests. No bin Laden can fuel anti-American sentiment the way Washington itself is doing today. If we really wished America ill we would urge it to carry on with its adventurist policies!

As for the military aspects of the missile defense plans, we have not tired of pointing out that the system is useless against missiles from Iran or North Korea for the simple reason that these countries do not possess such long-range arsenals - and even the most dictatorial regime would not think of firing a rocket across Europe at the United States.

As far as Russia is concerned, it will find an asymmetrical response capable of overcoming the antimissile defenses. This is an appeal, first of all, to the Europeans who are directly affected by this, and also to the American taxpayers, whose cash will be poured into expensive and pointless schemes.

But this is not the main thing. Even if one were to imagine hypothetically that North Korean missiles might one day be fired at targets in Europe, one doesn't have to be an expert in geography to realize that the greater part of their trajectory would be over Russia. Does anyone suppose that Russians want nuclear warheads flying over their heads - particularly carried by missiles of dubious quality?

Russia has every reason to be interested in close cooperation in creating Eurasian missile-defense systems. And any attempt to build them without Russia (which is not only an interested party but also geographically and technically the most suitable place for an effective antimissile defense) automatically means they are being built against Russia.

The news that the United States may want to extend the antimissile arc to Ukraine and Georgia (and so on around Russia's perimeter) merely confirms the true object of America's missile-defense system in Eurasia.

Our ideas about creating a joint security system involving the EU and Russia remains in force. It goes without saying that we are also ready to discuss any other ideas for cooperation, including the one discussed in the telephone conversation between Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush on March 28.

Our colleagues in Europe should understand this basic principle: Any attempt to build a security system without Russia (still less against it) by definition cannot be comprehensive or effective. Instead of security for Europe's people we will have a new division and new targets on our densely populated Continent.

Is that a sensible price to pay for the ambitions and phobias of the remaining political dinosaurs from Europe's Ice Age?