Russia Archives
Russia's next attempt to reassert itself ?
By Charlie
First its satellites with Georgia, now in Latin America? A great column at the WSJ pokes some holes in this:
As two Russian Tu-160 bombers landed in Venezuela last week on a training mission, President Hugo Chávez took to his nation's airwaves to celebrate. It was the first time since the Cold War that military jets sent from Moscow touched down in the Western Hemisphere. "Yankee hegemony is finished," Mr. Chávez declared.What the Venezuelan did not mention was the fact that, according to a State Department official, "the U.S. Air Force picked up the Russian aircraft just west of Norway and escorted them all the way to Venezuela."
That American top guns could toy with Russians sent to show solidarity with Venezuela is not surprising. Vladimir Putin has been trying to rebuild his military, but it is no match for U.S. might. Nor is it believable that Russia seriously expects to challenge the U.S. in the Caribbean with the flotilla it says that it is sending next month for joint exercises with Venezuela.
Despite the recent policy drift in Latin America, will Russian military exercises really answer the fundamental economic problems and security concerns in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Cuba? This may have gone over during the cold war, but I'm not sure how it will play in 2008.
The Arctic
By Lt Col P
Came upon this discussion yesterday, by accident almost. Although it unintentionally reveals much about the commenters and their odd notions-- I looked in vain for Skippy-san, perhaps he was using an alias-- it brings up a good point.
An interesting briefing by the Northcom Commander General Victor Renuart has flagged cyber and arctic threats as priorities for the next President. Reportedly, the National Security Council is debating drafting a new strategy document on the Arctic. We have already discussed cyber threats a couple of times, but not the Arctic. Ironically, Russia's behavior in Georgia may have ripple effects of national security thousands of miles away in the Arctic if we really are seeing the resurgence of an aggressive Russian bear. For that matter, one of the near-term security implications of global warming is to make the Arctic more in play for geopolitics. The Arctic mission is also one that would have interesting inter-service rivalry implications, since it would be primarily a Navy and Air Force mission. How important is the Arctic and should an increasing portion of defense resources be directed to it? My own sense is that the bipartisan push for energy security will make the Arctic a higher priority for future Administrations than it has been for decades, and its importance will grow in the decades to come. Given the long lead-times for some weapons purchases, it would be foolish not to make at least some investments in improving our capacity to project power in that region. The priority still should be on other near term concerns, winning the wars that we are in, as Gates puts it, and ensuring our capacity to respond to more urgent challenges, but it is smart strategy to be thinking anew about the Arctic. How big a factor should the Arctic be in US military planning?
At the top of the world we are cheek by jowl with Mother Russia. The end of the Cold War (supposedly) brought the end of the existential threats the old regime presented, the ICBMs, the bombers, the subs. Well, since the new boss in the Kremlin is the same as the old boss, welcome back to a new Cold War in the cold.
All of this has flown below our DEW Line, but it is a frequent topic over at The Torch...
Missile Defense suddenly popular...
By Charlie
...In Europe! As we dust off the Russia analysts from various think-tank basements, we seem to be seeing a replay of many Cold War Soviet vs US conflicts. First up: STAR WARS. From the Economist:
THE east Europeans have little reason to fear a strike from Iran. So why are they eagerly signing up to America’s system to intercept Iranian missiles? Because they are scared of Russia. Within days of Russia’s invasion of Georgia, Poland had agreed to host ten American interceptors. Ukraine offered to link up its early-warning radars and contribute to surveillance in space. The Czech Republic had already agreed to host the missile-tracking radar.
What's next? Russia putting mid-range missiles in Cuba or Venezuela? Russian support of insurgencies in Africa? What about Iran? Hold on as we travel back to the future...
Dug In
By Lt Col P
All indications are that Imperial Russia the Soviet Union modern Russia's seizure of a good part of Georgia is taking on an air of permanence. Even if we grant the nine-tenths of the law (!) that is possession, and accept Russian hegemony over Abkhazia and greater Ossetia, their occupation of Georgia proper is ugly, unacceptable, and at the moment unanswerable. Even if they pull back completely, their ability to dominate the scene has been established.
Unfortunately, it's also unsurprising. This crisis has had me asking, like Ted Nugent grasping a bloody arrow, "Where have we seen this before?" This is a recreation of the old Czarist quest for empire, and the re-enactors are frightfully realistic. By chance I was scanning one of my favorites, Peter Hopkirk's The Great Game; the parallels are striking. Hopkirk describes the slow, steady, calculated, three-steps-forward-and-two-steps-back advance of the Czar's armies, and British government's repeated realizations that St Petersburg could willingly say one thing while its generals in the field did quite another. (And in Theodore Rex, Morris describes how TR was astonished during the negotiations over the end of the Russo-Japanese War, at how the Russian delegates would pile lies on top of lies utterly without shame.)
Once installed, difficult to dislodge. Where have we seen this before?
The Georgia campaign also sent me rummaging through my shelves for another old favorite, On Infantry, because I recalled the author's discussion of the Russian soldier as "the master digger." It only took me a few minutes to find the passage-- the actual quote is "the champion digger"-- and to confirm my recollections. The German found that the stolid Russian peasant soldier had a talent for going to ground, and with no more than his entrenching tool and ox-like endurance he could turn a small gain into a strongpoint overnight. And once installed he was difficult, almost impossible, to dislodge. The obvious lesson was that if you give them an inch, they'll take at least a mile. And you won't soon get it back. Of course, this was all meant in the tactical sense, but I think we can safely extend the analogy up the chain through operational all the way to strategic.
The Russian seizure of the parts of Georgia that the Kremlin deems part of Mother Russia was planned well in advance, and carefully kept in hand until the most advantageous time presented itself. It was done in the knowledge that it would embarrass the U.S., put gas-starved Europe on notice, and send an oh-so-subtle message to the various old satrapies of the Czar.
We can expect more of the same. Let's hope that we are up to the challenge.
More From Georgia
By Richard S. Lowry
This is an all out twenty-first century invasion:
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/video-russian-m.html
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/georgia-under-o.html
LtCol P says...
It is indeed. It's increasingly clear that the Russians had this on tap for quite sometime, and had bided their time-- and cloaked their intentions well-- for the right moment. Ugly, very ugly. It is difficult to place blame on the Georgians, although they might have (vastly) underestimated the Russian response. I feel very sorry for them, because they're getting a heavy dose of old-style Red Army firepower. And there's not much we can do to help them in the direct sense. The Black Sea is closed to us, in any case.
There are a couple of good posts at B5. The best is this one, with some illuminating comments from our frequent reader, Olga. And this one too, is right in the money.
Imperial Russia spent hundreds of years expanding its territory into the Caucasus and Central Asia, a policy pursued with equal fervor by their Soviet successors. Apparently, they'd like to turn the clock back.
As many have said there and on other good sites, the Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Estonians, Lithuanians, Latvians, Georgians, etc etc, have much to be concerned about. And Western Europe too, if they can get their heads out of their asses.
Read More »
Yes to Georgia, No to Russia
By Lt Col P
They're going at it hammer and tongs in an obscure corner of the Caucasus, but there is much more at stake than the finer points of sovereignty over a dusty patch of not-quite-Europe-not-quite-Asia.
Georgia has steadily advanced along the path to responsible government and stability, and has been a real ally in the war. For years now, US forces have been exercising and training with the Georgians, and have made considerable inroads in helping them emerge from the gross darkness of Soviet rule.
Russia has been steadily sliding back into its old ways, and making everyone nervous in so doing. They've been remarkably unhelpful with Iran.
Time to stand up for an ally, and stand up to the neighborhood bastard.
Russia vs US arms sales Abroad
By Charlie
No, that title is not breaking news from 1984. Over at Popular Mechanics, they outline 6 "hot spots" where US/Russia weapons are still pointed at each other. PM explains:
...equipment designed by the two nations remains on opposite sides of 21st-century battlefields. This isn't surprising: America is the top vendor of major conventional weapons, and Russia ranks number two. Both countries share a legacy of making military equipment to counter the other's capabilities and a long history of parlaying arms sales into geopolitical influence. These deals, sanctioned by both national governments, are extensions of foreign policy. A resurgent Russia wants cash and international influence, while the United States hopes to link its defense industries with foreign customers and simultaneously offer perks to allies.
I'll comment on the situations they outline:
1. Colombia vs Venezuela: We are supplying UH-60 helicopters to our allies in Colombia, while Russia is providing HINDs to Chavez. The air mobility that medium lift helicopters provide in the dense jungle is certainly an advantage against local threats like the FARC. HINDs are certainly a fearsome system if properly employed, and also have limited transport capability. It is difficult to say which side benefits most by these deals.
2. Chile vs Peru: We supplied the AMRAAM to Chile, Russia supplied the A12 ADDER to Peru. I'd call this one a draw, as a conflict between these two Andean powers would likely remain below the radar screen.
3. Israel vs Syria: AH-64D Apaches by us to Israel vs SA-19 ADA systems to Syria. We are all familiar with the successes Israel has had against Syria ADA, so these mobile systems may be nothing more than mobile pop up targets in any future conflict. Also, attack aviation may be more useful to Israel over its Gaza and Lebanese borders, vice Syria, as peace talks may at least stave off any future Israel/Syria open conflict.
4. Israel vs Iran: Israel also received "bunker busters" from the US, and Iran the "TOR" ADA system. given Israel's past success against IADS, it is tough to make a call on who benefits from this sale. Add to that the sheer distance that pilots would have to fly to hit the Iranian reactors, and this sale registers a draw.
5. Pakistan vs India: We have sold Pakistan Orion aircraft, which can perform ISR over the Pakistani coast, and Russia has sold ballistic missile subs to India, which give it a second strike capability against nuclear Pakistan. However, given the current government priorities of Pakistan (northwest frontier and Kashmir) and India (the economy) it is unclear if these sales will significantly alter the strategic balance.
6. Taiwan vs China: Its destroyers vs subs in this standoff, but it is unlikely that this fight will ever materialize, with the new China-friendly government in Taiwan.
Overall, these sales to nation-states by the US and Russia do not seem to significantly alter the strategic balance in any of these 6 cases, with Israel and Colombia being two net beneficiaries. As far as "value added" to the defense of foreign nations, I would speculate that training and equipping foreign ground, air, and maritime forces for internal defense and COIN missions may be of more use to the majority of world nations rather than marketing high-end defense items that are only useful in an unlikely conventional conflict -for either Russia or the US.
Russians: Your Satellite Shoot-Down Plans are Lies
By Charlie
The Russian IO campaign continues, broad messages: the US is untrustworthy. The Russians have no evidence of their wild claims, but there is enough anti-US sentiment in th world (especially in the Middle East) for this type of lie to catch on.
MOSCOW — Russia's Defense Ministry said Saturday that U.S. military plans to shoot down a damaged spy satellite carrying toxic fuel could be a veiled test of U.S. missiles' capability to down enemy satellites.The Ministry accused the U.S. military of failing to provide "enough arguments" to back its plan to smash the satellite next week with a missile so other countries could assess possible dangers.
"There is an impression that the United States is trying to use the accident with its satellite to test its national anti-missile defense system's capability to destroy other countries' satellites," it said in a statement.
The U.S. has insisted that the goal of the operation is simply to protect people.
Putin: I'll Aim Rockets at the Missile Shield
By Charlie
No question about it, after the carrier over-flight with a nuke-capable bomber, followed up by this, the Russians are rattling the saber:
MOSCOW: President Vladimir Putin on Thursday repeated his threat to aim Russian rockets at former Soviet satellite states if U.S. missile defense facilities are deployed there.Speaking about U.S. plans for interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic , Putin said, "Our experts consider that this system threatens our national security, and if it appears, we will be obligated to adequately react to this."
"We are warning people ahead of time: if you take this step, then we will make this step," Putin said at his annual news conference in the Kremlin.
Putin also said Russian missiles could be aimed at Ukraine - a former Soviet republic whose pro-Western leadership is pursuing NATO membership - if it were to be host to a missile-defense facility. Putin had issued the same warning in a meeting with the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yushchenko, this week.
This seems like a big deal to me, as a threat of an offensive missile attack based on a host country’s cooperation in a defensive network may undercut public support for the program. Although, this is different from the deployment of missiles to Europe in the 1980’s –this is just a DEFENSE system. While this threat may damage diplomatic efforts, it strains credulity that people would protest a defense system with the same gusto that the Minuteman [nope, Pershing IIs and GLCMs -see update] missiles generated for Reagan –then again, this is Europe . “We demand the right to not be protected” may again be a rallying cry. It will be interesting to see how this deal progresses.
At least the article ended on a humorous note:
[Putin] suggested that the United States and the leaders of Poland and the Czech Republic were going ahead with plans for the missile defense system without asking for public approval, which he called undemocratic.Ah yes, that age-old Russian commitment to democracy and freedom. I hope Putin’s anointed successor continues this proud Russian tradition after the next election.
UPDATE: My bad, GLCM and Pershing IIs, not Minuteman missiles. Thanks, Steve.
Ruskies Buzz US Carrier
By Charlie
And they expressed "surprise" that we thought it was a big deal. Wow:
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia expressed surprise on Tuesday that the United States had scrambled fighter jets at the weekend to intercept strategic Russian bombers, one of which flew over a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Pacific.Four U.S. F/A-18 fighters were launched after Russian Tu-95 Bear bombers flying south of Japan were detected turning towards the Nimitz aircraft carrier and its escort, a U.S. defense official said.
One of the Russian bombers flew over the deck of the Nimitz, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity. The U.S. fighters escorted the Russian bombers out of the area.
"It is standard operating procedure for U.S. planes to escort aircraft flying in the vicinity of U.S. Navy ships," the U.S. defense official said.
The Tupolev Tu-95 is the most successful and longest-serving Tupolev strategic bomber and missile carrier built by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.
So is this an opening shot in Putin's new "arms race" with the US? This smacks of an attempt to remain relevant, and a poor one at that. The Russians just are not the global threat they once were, and their aging military equipment is not the fearsome Red Army that it once was, poised to storm into Germany. As Russia struggles for relevance, this type of dangerous nonsense may continue.
