But that is a reason for increased security of another sort than a missile shield.
Well, apparently the Russians also saw through the charade about how the missile shield was to protect against Iran. But the thing is, the missile shield is set for 10 interceptor missiles in Poland. As Vader pointed out, the only good it can do in regards to Russia is as a bargaining chip. If we can get cooperation from the Russians regarding Iran as well as easier supply lines into Afghanistan then it'll be worth the trade-off (not to mention, Euro's would certainly be happy with better relations between the West and Russia. Especially the thousands who froze during the recent gas dispute).I don't believe for a second that the European missile shield was intended to protect Europe from just Iran. The reemergence of Russia as a strategic military power broker was an influencing factor.
If Obama trades this away I'll have no choice but to question his judgment. Negotiating with Russia and co-existing with them peacefully is a great goal, but giving them our back on this is simply not good juju.
While Russia is emerging from the post-Cold War slump they are nowhere near the capabilities they had before the fall, especially in regards to their Navy, nuclear submarines in particular. I was wary of hearing Cheney introduce the idea of a 'new cold war' a few years back (likely in part to justify defense contracts for obsolete, ultra-expensive cold war weapons), and am optimistic that can be avoided.