If we don't need to build a missile shield in Europe, then why are the Russians talking about creating a "sword" that can pierce it? I'm not privy to high-level strategy, of course, and so I don't know whether it's true that the shield is being built to defend against rogue states like Iran and North Korea. I'm guessing that given today's technology, it probably is true. A shield to protect against a handful of medium-range missiles is one thing; a shield to protect against hundreds or thousands of ICBM's is another.

Nevertheless, it's difficult to tell whether this is merely typical Russian bellicosity, or if it should be taken at face value. If the latter, then it's a very thinly veiled threat, and indicates that Russia dislikes the missile shield precisly because it limits some future option that they'd like to retain.

Overall, to me, it sounds a lot like a return to the days of Soviet expansionism.