Connect with us

Defense

The Russian military posture

Giancarlo Elia Valori

Published

on

The big parade organized on May 9, 2016 to commemorate the 71st anniversary of the USSR victory in the Great Patriotic War – as the Soviet struggle against Nazi invaders was called – was an opportunity for Russia to display its new or recent Russian weapons and, above all, to understand their strategic use.

10,000 soldiers, 135 units of military hardware and 71 aircraft paraded.

An evident show of strength and a clear, but hidden, threat to the Russian Federation’s enemies.

There was, at first, the Yars RS 24 long-range nuclear missile (the one that NATO currently calls SS 27 Mod.2), a MIRV system (that may contain multiple independent warheads, probably ten in this case) which is deployed in a regiment consisting of three battalions.

A missile needed to ward off the United States and its allies from the traditional areas of interest for the Russian Federation, such as Ukraine or the Western border following the Cold War.

But also needed to make it difficult to manage any anti-Russian tensions in the Middle East, in Central Asia and in the peripheral seas.

Many years ago, Zbigniew Brzezinski had already assumed that Ukraine was basically close to the West and, therefore, it would become an unacceptable vulnus for Southern Russian security.

All the Russian weapons showcased in the parade are powerful weapons for strategic deterrence, which will enable Russia to have a “free hand” where the Westerners’ less heavy threats cannot arrive.

Also the new National Guard security force, recently created by President Putin to combat terrorism and organized crime, paraded.

The National Guard, of which we have already spoken, is armed with the new AK74M assault rifle.

The parading tanks included also the new T-14 Armata battle tank, which has an unmanned remote control of the various guns and is now considered superior to the Leopard and Abrams 2 tanks – and this, too, is a clue.

Furthermore the T-14 tank is supposed to be shortly fully robotised.

Here the issue lies in making any escalation along the old Cold War borders dangerous.

The old aircraft which flew over the sky during the military parade were the solid Su-25, but also the new Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA was showcased, namely the 5th generation aircraft which is said to be superior to the F-22 and, above all, to the US F-35, which is still a generation 4++ aircraft.

The new Sukhoi aircraft features excellent stealth characteristics, high attack speed and radar equipment using original nanotechnologies.

Another aircraft displayed was the Tupolev Tu22M3, that NATO called backfire, which is operating optimally in Syria.

Two other missile systems were showcased, namely the S-400 and Pantsir.

The former, the S-400 “Triumph” (NATO code SA 21 Growler) is a new generation anti-aircraft/anti-missile SAM, already sold to China and Iran, which can simultaneously intercept 36 missiles and planes (indeed, 80 in the latest versions) flying at a speed of up to 17,000 kilometres.

The Pantsir S1 (NATO code SA Greyhound) is a combined system of surface-to-air missile launching and anti-aircraft artillery.

They are both already operating in Syria, especially in the Latakia base.

In his speech before the 71st military parade, President Putin called for an international system not based on opposing blocs, but overcoming the tendency – present in many Western countries – to resume the Cold War.

In other words, Vladimir Putin wants, at first, to dissuade Western countries from trying to split Eurasia which, in Russia’s opinion, should feature geopolitical continuity from Moscow up to most of the European peninsula and China, as well as geopolitical continuity between Europe and the great Central Asian Heartland, the area of the largest economic growth in the future.

Furthermore, Russia does not want US single supremacy at global level – a US supremacy that Russia wants to divide into new and different geopolitical areas: Japan, China, the Shi’ite region with Iran and Iraq, the large African areas, Latin America.

Furthermore, while the Americans adapt every area over which they have supremacy to the same uniform political and cultural model, the Russians plastically conform to the various economies, strategic threats and cultural patterns.

From this viewpoint, suffice to recall Russia’s actions in Syria.

All strategic areas already mentioned in which the Russian Federation wants to expand its power and, above all, to show for each of them a possible alternative to the US hegemonic policy.

Hence Russia thinks that, in the future, no country will be in a position to gain clear military superiority: in its opinion, security regards also economic, mass health and social order issues.

These are the factors that Russia can currently interpret as a direct threat to its stability and, above all, to its sovereignty.

In fact, Russian analysts were impressed by the initial effectiveness of the “colour revolutions” and the “democratic” ones in the Maghreb region.

Obviously the results have gradually proved to be disastrous, but the management of non-military techniques to destabilize a country, together with Gene Sharp’s old theories which were a study subject of study for the Muslim Brotherhood during Mubarak’s fall, are the focus of the current Russian strategic thinking.

These are the Russian themes to respond to non-military subversion: 1) to immediately avoid the “cultural contagion”; 2) to strengthen the national identity and, where possible, the Welfare State; 3) to steadily increase the level of the possible military threat; 4) to develop strategies designed to avoid hidden hostile actions against Russia on the financial or commodity markets – and this holds true also for China.

The economic and financial destabilization has been well studied by Russian analysts and even military superiority is needed to avoid it.

Moreover, there is also what I would call the identity strategy: the rejection of the ideological globalist mix designed to protect the Russian symbols, traditions and popular culture from the attack of the US pop culture.

This goal, too, is reached with the great military parades, the soldiers’ joyful and proud faces, as well as with a credible strategic threat.

Moreover, Russian strategic thinkers know all too well that the modern strategy is full spectrum and regards the economy, the political and cultural stability and the technological evolution at the same time.

The reason why Russia maintains a superpower’s military structure, with some technologies largely superior to its competitors’, is that President Putin wants to make the whole new Russian hegemony to be inferred from military power.

This is the primary theme raised by Russia against NATO’s enlargement: Russia is opposed to it and it is even ready to   block it, as happened with Ukraine and Crimea, as well as with the network of NATO radar stations surrounding the Russian Federation, from Poland up to Romania.

Any limitation to the Russian autonomy and sovereignty will always be fiercely opposed, at first with non-military actions, and later even with surgical military strikes.

The US analysts’ idea of repeating the old Cold War game, in the current strategic imbalance situation, unfavourable to the United States, will be the harbinger of many difficulties for the Americans.

Advisory Board Co-chair Honoris Causa Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr. Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “International World Group”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France. “

Continue Reading
Comments

Defense

Is this the end of NATO-era?

Published

on

Money is a very powerful tool, which can easily ruin relations. Different views on money spending can ruin even good relations between countries in such huge and powerful organization as NATO. It should be noted that European defence spending will surpass $300 billion a year by 2021, according to new research from Jane’s by IHS Markit.

Defense expenditure is a highly sensitive topic in the region. U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly criticized NATO member countries in Europe for not respecting a rule that says 2% of GDP should be spent on defence.
At a NATO summit in 2017, Trump ramped up that pressure by noting the U.S. had allocated more cash to defense than all the other NATO countries combined.

The U.S., as the leader of the Alliance, keeps close eye on those of them who try to oppose the need to rapid increase on defence spending.
In particular, this month Germany displeased the U.S. by a conflict that erupted between Finance Minister Olaf Scholz of the Social Democrats (SPD) and Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, chair of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU).

The finance minister insisted that an increase in the defense budget to 2 percent of gross domestic product, as NATO member states have pledged to do, not be anchored in the coalition government’s midterm assessment. The discord between the two apparently grew so heated that the Chancellery had to step in. President of France also shocked the NATO supporters when said about “the death of NATO brains”.
Judging by opinion polls, many residents of the European countries, including the Baltic States, consider military expenditures of this size unnecessary and dangerous.

The authorities of the Baltic States, in contrary, strive to increase defence spending. But the reason why the Baltic States support US requirements is their active cooperation with the U.S. The dependence on the U.S. is so high that they simply can not oppose U.S. initiatives. Though even 2 percent of gross domestic product on defence is a heavy burden for the Baltics’ economy.

Within the EU, the Baltic States and Poland are considered close U.S. partners and are doing everything to really benefit the United States, no matter how the EU looks at it. These are the main reasons why the Baltic countries support a requirement that they themselves are not able to fulfill.

Latvian journalist Māris Krautmanis in his article in Neatkarīgā Rīta Avīze discussing the adoption of the budget for next year, writes that there is no money for the promised salary increase for doctors and teachers. Krautmanis finds an explanation for why this is happening. “The tremendous sums from the state budget eat up defence spending so that NATO generals do not reproach that Latvia spends little. This is a taboo topic at all, it is not even discussed,” the author writes.

Another Latvian journalist Juris Lorencs writes in Latvijas Avīze about disturbing trends in world politics for Latvia and about what position should be taken in Latvia.
He writes about slogans which sound louder and louder: “Our home, our country comes first!” He thought they weaken both NATO and the EU. He also calls the U.S. unpredictable in its political behaviour.

Misunderstanding of the role and amount of financing could lead to the NATO destruction on the inside. At least there are two reasons for the collapse of the NATO: the U.S. can stop its financing or European member states such as Germany and France will decide to quit the organization themselves in favor to strengthening defence in the framework of European Union. Let’s see… 

Continue Reading

Defense

As Kashmir simmers the IOR too stands as a potential Nuclear Flashpoint

M Waqas Jan

Published

on

This year has seen tensions between Nuclear armed Pakistan and India reach unprecedented levels with both countries flirting with a dangerous escalation spiral. February’s aerial engagement between the two countries’ air forces, sustained exchanges of small arms and artillery fire over the LOC, as well as the ongoing curfew and communications blackout (now in its 100th day) have all left many to contemplate the long-term consequences of these altercations on the stability and overall security of the entire South Asian region.

These include consequences leading to as far as the Indian Ocean Region, which despite being more than 1300kms away from the LOC remains witness to a series of dangerous developments, especially within context of the current scenario. For instance, India’s recently planned test of its K4 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM) represents a key part of India’s long-held desires of developing a robust second-strike capability. While the test itself is meant to signal a major tipping point within the overall strategic balance of the region, the worsening situation in Kashmir carries the risk of unnecessarily heightening tensions at a time when the regional situation is already quite complex. This is largely because the K4 with its purported range of 3500 kms is capable of targeting most of mainland China in addition to Pakistan from the relatively safer distance of India’s coastal waters. Its value as a strategic deterrent is evident from its planned deployment on India’s nascent fleet of nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). These include the INS Arihant and the recently commissioned INS Arighant for which the K4 has been designed to spec. With the Indian navy planning to induct even more SSBNS over the next decade, there are soon likely to be dozens of K4 missiles deployed on these subs, which themselves are likely to remain scattered across the IOR.

While the planned deployment of these missiles was to supposedly herald India’s coming of age as a major global power, the current context in which these actions are being taken presents a troubling scenario. Particularly keeping in mind the apparent shifts in India’s nuclear doctrinal and policy framework, the very thought of such nuclear weapons being readily deployed across the Indian Ocean represents a major cause for concern the world over. Unlike India’s land-based nuclear arsenal where its nuclear warheads are largely demated from the several delivery systems available to its military, India’s sea based nuclear arsenal is likely to be deployed at a much more heightened state of alert. As a result, it is also likely to be subject to an altered or more sophisticated command and control structure which in itself requires seamless communications not only between the Indian state and military but also within the many arms of the Indian military itself. Such integration is further conditional on India acquiring highly robust intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities that leave absolutely no margin for error considering the immense risks at stake in one of the world’s most volatile regions. Add to that the Indian government’s now institutionalized approach to nuclear brinkmanship and its steady revocation of its ‘No First Use’ policy, there exists a highly dangerous mix of hubris and recklessness where the entire human race risks being annihilated from even the smallest of missteps.

While some may argue that India is still quite a few years away from deploying a notable fleet of SSBNs armed with its K4 SLBMs, the nuclear weapons already deployed by the Indian Navy already pose quite serious challenges to regional stability. In addition to the K4 which is still under testing, India has equipped several of its surface and sub-surface platforms with a number of other nuclear capable missiles such as the Dhanush and the K-15 Sagarika SLMBs. Considering their relatively short ranges (the Dhanush has a target range of 350kms, while the K-15’s range is around 750-800 kms) these weapons are unlikely to be able provide an adequate second-strike deterrent. However, being mostly Pakistan specific, they still contribute immensely to converting the entire Indian Ocean Region to a nuclear flashpoint in addition to the LOC.

In fact, considering the direction in which India’s military thinking has evolved over the last decade, the IOR’s potential as a nuclear flashpoint is arguably even greater than that of the LOC. The sea’s vastness, lack of terrestrial boundaries and potential lack of collateral damage makes a nuclear detonation in the IOR all the more likely. This can range from a non-targeted nuclear detonation as a mere show of force to a tactical nuclear strike on a specific naval platform and its crew in a bid to achieve escalation dominance early on in a conflict. As has often been the case with Indian military thinking, such a scenario can arise from a gross overestimation of its capabilities. Derived from its conventional military superiority(which is already more manifest at sea), such conditions make for an attractive option for India to conduct a limited war against Pakistan at sea.

However, considering how both the Indian and Pakistani navies have opted to commingle conventional and nuclear weapons across a large section of their naval platforms, the risks of any conventional engagement escalating to the use of nuclear weapons remain unacceptably high. As such, even thinking that escalation from a small engagement or skirmish at sea can be managed by either side is downright illusory at best. Yet, based on the Indian state’s most recent actions and statements, whether the hubris coming out of India’s leaders extends to the manic delusions of a winnable nuclear war is unnervingly open to question.

One hopes that the world never has to contemplate, let alone face, the consequences of such an appalling possibility.

Continue Reading

Defense

Macron is wrong, NATO is not brain-dead

Iveta Cherneva

Published

on

Right before the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall this weekend, French President Macron decided to make another staggering statement in a series of gaffes over the past weeks. “NATO is brain-dead”, he said in an interview for the Economist yesterday and everyone gasped. Europeans more than anyone need the alliance alive and well.

Macron also said that he didn’t know if he still believed in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty – the part on collective defense which says that an attack on one is an attack on all. The French President was worried about whether the US was still committed to the alliance.

This is not the first time that NATO has been kicked. The alliance has been scorned over the years, many doubting its reason d’etre. The transatlantic alliance has proven to be a resilient one over the decades, however. It is a mathematical constant, if you wish.

If the transatlantic alliance didn’t break on the rocks of the Iraq war, it surely can survive Trump.

Macron’s concern is that historical forces are pulling the transatlantic allies apart but that perception is a product of Trump’s rhetoric, nothing more – it is not indicative of the pattern of transatlantic relations over the decades. Transatlantic relations are not Trump. 

President Trump is facing an impeachment and elections, all within the next months to a year. The assessment of transatlantic relations cannot be based on the rhetoric of a person who might be gone soon. No one in the Washington community believes that Trump would withdraw from NATO, even after all the tough rhetoric. NATO is here to stay, and that is the belief among virtually all US officials and diplomats. Transatlantic relations will soon normalize after President Trump is out of office because that is the pattern. The transatlantic partnership is deeply ingrained in the American political psyche. There is no need for apocalyptic statements that rock the boat.

The US has guaranteed Europe’s security since the end of the Second World War. Europe cannot do it on its own. What is true is that Europe needs to start contributing more to its own defense.

For a third of NATO’s European member states in proximity to Russia, NATO is anything but obsolete. From the Baltic States, through Poland, Slovakia, Romania, down to Bulgaria, NATO’s enhanced military presence since the Crimea war has been felt as a counter-measure to Russian ambitions. That of course is far away from France, but European NATO is not France. Macron doesn’t speak for all the NATO European states most of who cannot imagine political life and even survival without NATO.

What is apparent is that French President Macron is rolling out a gaffe after gaffe this week. He caused a diplomatic scandal with the Bulgarian and Ukrainian governments, by saying in a far-right magazine that he preferred legal African migrants to Bulgarian and Ukrainian criminal gangs. The week before that, he blocked Albania and North Macedonia from starting accession talks for EU membership, which drew a lot of criticism from all corners of Europe. Yesterday, Macron called Bosnia a jihadists ticking bomb, of course ignoring that France is a jihadist force itself. Macron’s “brain death” comment angered Angela Merkel who warned him to cut down on the drastic remarks.

So Macron, not Trump, is the one with the divisive, anti-European role, judging by the past weeks. Macron, not Trump, is turning into the European anti-hero.

The claim that the French President’s series of inflammatory statements is a strategy to position France as the alternative leader of the European Union could be as true at the hypothesis that all this is a part of Macron pandering to the French far-right.

The truth is that NATO is alive and kicking. Its very existence serves as deterrence against a potential attack on a NATO member, so that Article 5 does not even have to be tested. NATO should not be taken for granted; only when something no longer exists will one get to appreciate all the invisible deterrence benefits.

If the history of Article 5 shows us one thing, is that it was used for the first time by the Americans in the aftermath of September 11th. This is a common reminder, anytime someone in the US questions the value of NATO.

So, Macron is wrong on NATO. It will be good if he toned down the lunatic rhetoric of the past weeks, to show that he himself is not brain-dead. If Macron’s intention was to make waves, he is succeeding. If his intention was to be vying for the European Union top leadership spot, he is failing.

Continue Reading

Latest

Middle East2 hours ago

Middle Eastern protests: A tug of war over who has the longer breath

Mass anti-government protests in several Arab countries are turning into competitions to determine who has the longer breath, the protesters...

EU Politics4 hours ago

Rwanda: EU provides €10.3 million for life-saving refugee support measures

During his visit to Rwanda, Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development Neven Mimica has announced a €10.3 million support package...

South Asia6 hours ago

The era emerged from “RuwanWeliSaya”: Aftermath of Presidential Election in Sri Lanka

Authors: Punsara Amarasinghe & Eshan Jayawardane Civilizational influence in shaping national political consciousness is an indispensable factor   that one cannot...

Urban Development12 hours ago

Banking on nature: a Mexican city adapts to climate change

The Mexican city of Xalapa is surrounded by ecosystems that not only harbor stunning flora and fauna, but also provide...

Reports14 hours ago

Africa: Urgent action needed to mobilise domestic resources as tax revenues plateau

The average tax-to-GDP ratio for the 26 countries participating in the new edition of Revenue Statistics in Africa was unchanged at 17.2%...

Europe16 hours ago

U.S. President Trump to meet Bulgaria’s Prime Minister at the White House: What to expect?

Next Monday, 25 November, President Trump will welcome Bulgarian Prime Minister Borissov at the White House for a bilateral meeting....

Americas18 hours ago

Poll Shows Trump’s Israel Policy Is Opposed Even by Republicans

On Monday, November 18th, Reuters headlined “U.S. backs Israel on settlements, angering Palestinians and clouding peace process” and reported that,...

Trending

Copyright © 2019 Modern Diplomacy