Since the first ABM debate in the 1 960´s developments related to ABM defenses have gone through many phases. The current debate is the third since the 1960´s. Questions concerning the difference between treaty compliant and banned ABM defenses or the meaning of the 1997 demarcation accords in respect to the original ABM treaty must for this reason be analysed from political, legal and technical perspectives. The USA and the Soviet Union both respected the general restrictions that the ABM treaty dictated. However, details and underlying meanings of the treaty were dealt with differently. The Soviet Union, in parallel with the development of a tactical nuclear arsenal, acquired non-strategic ABM defenses. The real trigger for aquiring non- strategic missile defense in the Soviet Union was the euro missile crisis of the 1980´s, for the western powers it was the Gulf war of 1991. Today both the U.S. and Russia possess working non-strategic missile defense systems. However the U.S. is due to its economy far ahead in R&D. The current U.S. administration will go ahead with some kind of strategic defense despite Russias objections. Russia´s primary goal is to keep the U.S. locked in arms control agreements such as the ABM treaty. Moscow sees this treaty as a cornerstone in Russia - U.S. relations. It legitimises Russia´s perceived parity with the U.S. as a leading power and Russia Will therefore be exceedingly reluctant to jeopardise the treaty. The agendas of Russia and the U.S. make it highly probable that a political solution will be found to the missile defense controversy.