Connect with us

Defense

Indian Force Modernization: A Threat to Strategic Stability in South Asia

Published

on

Hans J Morgenthau in his classical work of Politics Among Nations stated that the aspiration for power on part of several nations, each trying to maintain or overthrow the status quo and policies aim to preserve it, leads to a necessity of configuration that is called balance of power.[1]This concept lead to coining the terms of strategic stability and arms race following competing states ambitions to maintain balance and stability. The evolving cycle of new arms race in international arena among major powers has ensued rapid force modernization at conventional and strategic level. The global defense spending has reached  $1.917 trillion in 2019according to SIPRI, while, US ($732billion) China ($261billion), India ($71.1billion), Russia ($65.1 billion), KSA ($62 billion)  remain among the highest military spenders.[2] Indian defense spending due to its hegemonic ambitions has increased by6.8%in 2019 as compared to $66.5 B in 2018. The Indian MoD has spent and allocated over  $ 16.91 billion for acquiring new weapon systems for its armed forces. During the first 50 days of Modi second term BJP government spent over USD 1.23 billion on armed forces. While, amid current India china military standoff Indian government approved $67,365,400 ($67 million) on emergency bases.  Thus, the build-up and expansion of forces by India is impacting the delicate balance of power in the South Asia. 

The Indian Army has been the major focus of force modernization which include acquiring and procuring new weapon systems across the force spectrum for infantry soldier to mechanized infantry, artillery, and armored branches. One of the major modernization project is Indian Army’s Future Infantry Soldier System (F-INSAS)which has seen an investment of over $ 6-8 billion by the DRDO for equipping infantry soldiers and upgrading 325 Battalions with  new weapon systems, armor protection and communication systems along with network centric capabilities.[3] The Indian Army has also made deals worth of $5 billion to acquire battle rifles of various calibers including 650,000 units of AK-103, 72,000 units of  SIG 716 and 94,000 units of Caracal 816.The Indian Army has allocated $3.4 billion (80% of its capital budget) for procurement of artillery and howitzer guns under Field Artillery Rationalization Program with aim to equip 169 artillery regiments with 3,000 155mm howitzers in self-propelled, tracked, ultra-light configuration by 2025. The Indian army is planning on inducting:

  • 1,100 units of 55 km range Dhanush ATAGS copy of French Bofors FH-72B howitzers worth $2.9 bn by 2021.
  • 100 units of K-9 Vajra-T self-propelled howitzer guns.
  • 140 units of M777 howitzer guns for $700 Million with US.[4]

Indian Army currently fields 65 armored regiments consisting approximately 3000 MBTs and is beefing them up. For this purpose Indian Army has initiated various deals.

  • A deal for 464 units of T-90MS MBTs has been made with Russia which worth $1.93 billion and has furthered order for 1345 units of T-90S Bhishma MBTs to be developed indigenously.
  • Deal worth of  $1.7 B for acquiring Milan 2T ATGMs from France, subsequent deals for Spike ATGMs are in pipeline with Israel.
  • Indian Army is also negotiating with South Korea for Hanwha K-30 Biho mobile ADS worth of $2.5 billion.

The Indian Air Force has embarked upon a major force modernization process.        Purchases worth Rs USD 1.088 billion cleared for IAF in just last 2 months from May-July 2019.

  • IAF has processed the deal of procuring 170 air crafts worth $22 billion for 114 Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) with contenders from Boeing F/A-18, Lockheed Martin F-21, Saab Gripen-E, Russian Su30 and Mig 29 and 56 twin turbo C-295 cargo jet under joint venture of TATA-Air Bus.
  • Apart from this a $8.6 billion deal for 36 Rafale fighter jets is underway which will be inducted in IAF by 2022.
  • A deal worth of $ 2.43 billion for 33 Russian fighter jets including 21 Mig-29 and 12 Su-30 MKI including upgradation of 59 existing Mig 29 jets amid military standoff with China. [5]
  • IAF project on Tejas Mk I, II which costed $1 billion and has inducted only 16 out of 123 planned jets.
  • The Indo-Russian deal for S-400 BMD of $5.5 billion will materialize till October 2020-2023.[6]
  • The IAF is also procuring gunship helicopters from Boeing with 22 Apache AH-64E  and 6 Chinook CH-47F (I) utility helicopters worth of $ 3.1 billion.
  • The IAF has initiated project for stealth Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle named Ghatak and allocated $37 million developed by DRDO by 2025.[7]
  • India has given tender to HAL for USD 1.415 billion to develop Indian Multi Role Helicopter (IMRH) replacing its fleet of Russian Mi-8/17.

The Indian Air Force is procuring BVR Stand-off missiles such as METEOR and SCALP along with R-37 RVV-BD missiles to target AWACS and support aircrafts within hostile air space. IAF has also tested and inducted BrahMos Cruise Missile with extended range upto 500 km launched from Su-30 MKI. IAF has also conducted tests of BVR Astra missiles with a range of 100 km, a Mach speed of 4.5 with payload capacity of 15 kg to be deployed on Su-30 MKI.

Under its hegemonic ambitions India has been heavily investing in its navy and embarking on equipping over 200 vessels by 2027 under its force modernization process.

  • India has signed deals with Russia including development of two guided missile frigates worth $950 million under Project 11356. Akula Class Nuclear powered attack submarine SSN worth $3 billion for leasing by 2025.Further procurement deal for Naval EWACS helicopters Kamov 31 for $ 521 million is also underway.[8]
  • India also plans on procuring 6 next generation missile vessels worth $2 billion.
  • The development of 4 out of 6 Kalvari Class/ Scorpene Class diesel-electric, AIP, submarines is underway with a net cost of $3.4 billion by 2020 under P75 project at Mazagon Docks Mumbai.This will be followed by six more conventional submarines under project  P-75I for which the Indian government has placed tender for global ship-builders including French, German, Swedish, Spanish and Russian companies for a worth for 6.6 billion USD by 2030. Moreover, a tender worth USD 291 million for critical heavy-weight torpedoes for the under-construction Scorpene Class subs has been made to global manufacturers.[9]
  • Indian Navy’s Advance Technology Vessel (ATV) project worth $13 billion is underway to develop six Arihant Class SSNsand seven Project 17 A class stealth frigates to be delivered by 2022.
  • INS Vikrant which costs about $2.4 billion is under construction at Cochin Shipyard in Kerala will enter into sea trails by 2021 and inducted by Indian Navy in 2023, while proposed project of INS Vishal a 50,000 tonnage vessel is under negotiation with Royal Navy for $5 billion.[10]
  • India is also procuring 24 MH-60 Seahawk helicopters from US for $2.4 billion for anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare. Procurement of 10 P-8 Poseidon maritime aircraft for $3 billion signed with US, maturing from 2020-2023.[11]
  • Turkish TAIS has secured a tender worth of $2.3 B for manufacturing five support tanker vessels with 45,000 tonnage.
  • The DRDO has also carried out test trails of Electro Magnetic Rail Gun EMRG for the Indian Navy. The EMRG can fire projectiles with a speed of Mach 6.
  • ISRO would be developing $ 231 million military satellite GSAT-7R for communications between warships, aircraft and shore based units, to be launched in 2020.[12]

Indian indigenous defense production corporations are also engaging in various joint ventures with international defense industries. Indian Missile and Defense equipment manufacturer Baharat Dynamics Limited (BDL) has procured orders worth $ 3.63 billion including $ 1.1 billion currently on hand to be executed by 2023-24. BDL is also engaged in joint venture with DRDO for QR SAM, Akash 1S-NG, ATGMs and sonobuoys. The company has an MoU with Thales, UK for STARSTREAK HVM for air defense. Israeli firm Rafael Advanced Defense Systems has awarded Kalyani Rafael Advanced Systems a $100 million contract to supply missile kits for Barak-8 medium-range surface-to-air missiles and  MRSAM worth USD 50 million with IAI. Under a $2.5 billion program launched in 2017, the IAF will induct 18 firing units and 450 missiles while the Indian Army will induct 14 firing units and 500 missiles.[13]

India has maintained an unsafeguarded nuclear program by manipulating the Atoms for Peace program and carrying out nuclear tests in 1973. India over the years has developed significant nuclear weapons program, increasing stockpiles for fissile materials. The currently under construction Indian Nuclear City project at Challakere, Karnataka would host largest nuclear site in Asia upon its completion. This facility will be able to produce enriched uranium fuel for nuclear weapons and for hydrogen bomb also.It is estimated that India maintains30%-45%highly enriched Uranium HEU U-235 with stocks ranging to 4.0±1.4 at various sites maintaining lare centrifuge plants mainly at Rattehalli and Cgitradurga plant under Rare Materials Project, operational since 1990.

India also maintains a considerable amount of weapons grade plutonium which is being produced in two major reactors located near Mumbai in Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC). In BAC complex two reactors produce weapon grade plutonium; a 100 MWt Dhruva plant commissioned in 1985 and another 40 MWt CIRUS which was decommissioned in 2010. India is also planning to construct a 100 MWt reactor in Vizag located in Andhra Pradesh. The estimated amount of weapon grade plutonium maintained by India is around 0.6 + 0.15 tonnes, while 6.5+3.5 tonnes of reactor grade plutonium which is produced from unsafeguarded heavy-water reactors used for power production which can be used for producing military grade plutonium in future. India is also using over 2 tonnes of plutonium as fuel for fueling the core of under construction Fast Breeder Test Reactor. The estimated nuclear weapons of India are around 125+  with sufficient fissile material to manufacture 300 to 492 weapons.[14]

India maintains a considerable space program with over 55 satellites in space including designated military satellites which are around 8 and over 17 dual use satellites. These satellites are laden with electro optical, and radar imaging, electromagnetic and cartographic sensors used for various ISR missions. Indian space program has a budget of over $1.6 billion and has recently embarked on launching manned mission to moon. India on March 27, 2019 conducted an Anti-Satellite mission which created debris and threatened the peace in outer space which is a global common.[15]

The hegemonic ambitions and destabilizing actions to peace and strategic stability of India are evident from Indian rapid force modernization. The rapid restructuring of the armed forces, shifts and changes in nuclear doctrines from No-First Use to First Use and issuance of Land Warfare Doctrine 2018 an evolution of Cold Start Doctrine CSD, indicates the hostile and belligerent ambitions of India. Modi regime has spent billions of dollars for upgrading its armed forces in India is on a spree to force modernization for quenching its hegemonic desires while projecting its actions to counter China, while in reality its force projection and modernization is aimed against Pakistan at the cost of destabilizing strategic balance in South Asia. Thus, the irrational decisions and aggressive posturing of India has placed Pakistan in a position to secure its own national interests and security by countering potential Indian military capabilities. The major areas of concern for Pakistan would be apart from conventional and nuclear domain would be cyber and space domains where India has been excessively investing and developing its capabilities. Pakistan due to its economic constraints and conventional asymmetry vis-à-vis India must invest in force multiplier platforms, long-range and deep strike capable weapon systems including strategic and  cruise missiles along with developing redundant and survivable command, control, communications, computer, cyber, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C5ISR) systems. For this purpose Pakistan should focus upon developing and increasing its indigenous capabilities, investing in research and development and enhancing human resources in emerging technologies, and enhancing bilateral cooperation with allies in various sectors to attain strategic advantage against Indian hegemonic ambitions to maintain the strategic balance in the South Asian region.


[1] See, Morgenthau, Hans J, ”Politics Among Nations”, (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1948)

[2]“Global military expenditure sees largest annual increase in a decade—says SIPRI—reaching $1917 billion in 2019,

SIPRI, April 27, 2020, https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2020/global-military-expenditure-sees-largest-annual-increase-decade-says-sipri-reaching-1917-billion#:~:text=(Stockholm%2C%2027%20April%202020),growth%20in%20spending%20since%202010.

[3]“Future infantry: unravelling the Indian Army’s F-INSAS programme,” Army Technology,  February 20, 2012, https://www.army-technology.com/features/featurefuture-infantry-unravelling-the-indian-armys-f-insas-programme/.

[4]Sandeep Unnithan, “Bang for the buck?,” India Today, February 22, 2018, https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/the-big-story/story/20180305-bang-for-the-buck-make-in-india-military-hardware-1176002-2018-02-22.

[5] “India to buy 33 Russian fighter jets for $2.43bn,” Al Jazeera, July 3, 2020, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/07/india-buy-33-russian-fighter-jets-243bn-200703045842841.html

[6]“S-400 Triumf missile deal: India mulls euro payments for Russian arms to escape US sanctions,” Business Today, June 28, 2019, https://www.businesstoday.in/current/economy-politics/s400-triumf-missile-deal-india-russia-euro-payment-russian-arms-us-sanctions/story/359683.html.

[7]Shiv Aroor, “EXCLUSIVE: Inside The World Of India’s Most Secret Combat Aircraft Program,” LiveFist Defense, February 02, 2018, https://www.livefistdefence.com/2018/02/exclusive-inside-the-world-of-indias-most-secret-combat-aircraft.html

[8]“Defence ministry approves Navy’s Rs 3,600-crore deal with Russia for 10 Kamov-31 helicopters,” India Today, May 3, 2019,  https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/defence-ministry-indian-navy-russia-kamov-31-helicopters-1516576-2019-05-03.

[9] “India Wants global warship builders to build new submarines for $6.6 billion,” Defense News, July 12, 2019, http://www.defencenews.in/article/PM%e2%80%89Modi-wants-global-warship-makers-to-build-new-submarines-for-$66-billion%e2%80%89Report-585762.

[10]Ajai Shukla, “Budgetary woes put India’s supercarrier ‘INS Vishal’ on hold,” Business Standard, May 06, 2019, https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/budgetary-woes-put-india-s-supercarrier-ins-vishal-on-hold-119050600047_1.html.

[11]“US approves sale of 24 MH 60 Seahawk helicopters to India for $2.4 bn,” Economic Times, April 3, 2019,  https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/us-approves-sale-of-24-mh-60-romeo-seahawk-helicopters-to-india-for-usd-2-4-bn/articleshow/68698990.cms.

[12]Manu Pubby, “Navy to buy Rs 1589 crore satellite from ISRO,” The Economic Times, July 19, 2019, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/navy-to-buy-rs-1589-crore-satellite-from-isro/articleshow/70283927.cms

[13]Vivek Raghuvanshi, “Joint Israeli, Indian venture to make missiles kits for Barak-8 weapon,” Defense News, July 11, 2019,  https://www.defensenews.com/global/asia-pacific/2019/07/11/joint-israeli-indian-venture-to-make-missiles-kits-for-barak-8-weapon/

[14]Indian Fissile Material, International Panel on Fissile Materials, February 12, 2018, http://fissilematerials.org/countries/india.html

[15]“India’s Military To Create Defence Space And Cyber Agencies As Part of Reforms,” SpaceWatch, April 30, 2019, https://spacewatch.global/2018/10/indias-military-to-create-defence-space-and-cyber-agencies-as-part-of-reforms/.

Continue Reading
Comments

Defense

In 2022, military rivalry between powers will be increasingly intense

Published

on

“Each state pursues its own interest’s, however defined, in ways it judges best. Force is a means of achieving the external ends of states because there exists no consistent, reliable process of reconciling the conflicts of interest that inevitably arise among similar units in a condition of anarchy.” – Kenneth Waltz,

The worldwide security environment is experiencing substantial volatility and uncertainty as a result of huge developments and a pandemic, both of which have not been experienced in a century. In light of this, major countries including as Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and India have hastened their military reform while focusing on crucial sectors. 2022 might be a year when the military game between big nations heats up.

The military competition between major powers is first and foremost a battle for strategic domination, and the role of nuclear weapons in altering the strategic position is self-evident. In 2022, the nuclear arms race will remain the center of military rivalry between Russia, the United States, and other major countries, while hypersonic weapons will become the focus of military technology competition among major nations.

The current nuclear weapons competition between major nations will be more focused on technological improvements in weapon quality. In 2022, the United States would invest USD 27.8 billion in nuclear weapons development. It intends to buy Columbia-class strategic nuclear-powered submarines and improve nuclear command, control, and communication systems, as well as early warning systems.

One Borei-A nuclear-powered submarine, two Tu-160M strategic bombers, and 21 sets of new ballistic missile systems will be ordered by Russia. And its strategic nuclear arsenal is anticipated to be modernized at a pace of more than 90%. This year, the United Kingdom and France will both beef up their nuclear arsenals. They aspire to improve their nuclear forces by constructing new strategic nuclear-powered submarines, increasing the quantity of nuclear warheads, and testing new ballistic missiles.

Russia will commission the Zircon sea-based hypersonic cruise missiles this year and continue to develop new hypersonic missiles as a leader in hypersonic weapon technology. To catch up with Russia, the US will invest USD 3.8 billion this year in the development of hypersonic weapons. Hypersonic weapons are also being researched and developed in France, the United Kingdom, and Japan.

Surviving contemporary warfare is the cornerstone of the military competition between major countries, and keeping the cutting edge of conventional weapons and equipment is a necessary condition for victory. In 2022, major nations including as Russia and the United States will speed up the upgrade of primary war equipment.

The United States will concentrate on improving the Navy and Air Force’s weaponry and equipment. As planned, the US Navy will accelerate the upgrade and commissioning of weapons and equipment such as Ford-class aircraft carriers, Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, and F-15EX fighter jets, as well as develop a high-end sea and air equipment system that includes new aircraft carrier platforms and fifth-generation fighter jets.

Russian military equipment improvements are in full swing, with the army receiving additional T-14 tanks, the navy receiving 16 major vessels, and the aerospace force and navy receiving over 200 new or better aircraft. The commissioning of a new generation of Boxer armored vehicles in the United Kingdom will be accelerated. India will continue to push for the deployment of its first homegrown aircraft carrier in combat. Japan will also continue to buy F-35B fighter jets and improve the Izumo, a quasi-aircraft carrier.

The US military’s aim this year in the domain of electromagnetic spectrum is to push the Air Force’s Project Kaiju electronic warfare program and the Navy’s next generation jammer low band (NGJ-LB) program, as well as better enhance the electronic warfare process via exercises. Pole-21, Krasukha, and other new electronic warfare systems will be sent to Russia in order to increase the automation of electronic warfare systems. The electronic warfare systems of the Type 45 destroyers, as well as the Type 26 and Type 31 frigates, will be upgraded by the United Kingdom. To build combat power, the Japanese Self-Defense Forces will continue to develop the newly formed 301st Electronic Warfare Company.

Around the world, a new cycle of scientific, technical, and military upheaval is gaining traction, and conflict is swiftly shifting towards a more intelligent form. Russia, the United States, and other major countries have boosted their investment in scientific research in order to win future battles, with a concentration on intelligent technology, unmanned equipment, and human-machine coordinated tactics.

This year, the US military intends to spend USD 874 million on research and development to boost the use of intelligent technologies in domains such as information, command and control, logistics, network defense, and others. More than 150 artificial intelligence (AI) projects are presently being developed in Russia.

This year, it will concentrate on adapting intelligent software for various weapon platforms in order to improve combat effectiveness. France, the United Kingdom, India, and other countries have also stepped up their AI research and attempted to use it broadly in areas such as intelligence reconnaissance, auxiliary decision-making, and network security.

In the scope of human coordinated operations, the United States was the first to investigate and has a distinct edge. The US intends to conduct the first combat test of company-level unmanned armored forces, investigate ways for fifth-generation fighter jets to coordinate with unmanned reconnaissance aircraft and drone swarms, and promote manned and unmanned warships working together on reconnaissance, anti-submarine, and mine-sweeping missions.

Russia will work to integrate unmanned equipment into manned combat systems as quickly as feasible, while also promoting the methodical development of drones and unmanned vehicles. Furthermore, France and the United Kingdom are actively investigating human-machine coordinated techniques in military operations, such as large urban areas.

Continue Reading

Defense

Spotlight on the Russia-Ukraine situation

Published

on

The United States of America and Russia have recently been at loggerheads over the issue of Ukraine.

Weeks ago the leaders of the two superpowers behind the Ukrainian situation convened a meeting on the crisis. Although they both drew a clear line between them during the meeting, they made no political commitment, thus showing that the political chess game surrounding Ukraine has only just begun.

In what was seen as a “frank and pragmatic” conversation by both sides, President Putin made it clear to President Biden that he was not satisfied with the implementation of the February 11, 2015 Minsk-2 Agreement (which, besides establishing ceasefire conditions, also reaffirmed arrangements for the future autonomy of pro-Russian separatists), as NATO continues to expand eastward. President Biden, in turn, noted that if Russia dared to invade Ukraine, the United States of America and its allies would impose strong “economic sanctions and other measures” to counterattack, although no US troop deployments to Ukraine were considered.

Although they both played their cards right and agreed that they would continue to negotiate in the future, the talks did not calm down the situation on the Ukrainian border and, after the two sides issued mutual civilian and military warnings, the future development on the Ukrainian border is still very uncertain.

Since November 2020 Russia has had thousands of soldiers stationed on Ukraine’s border. The size of the combat forces deployed has made the neighbouring State rather nervous.

The current crisis in Ukraine has deepened since the beginning of November 2021. Russia, however, has denied any speculation that it is about to invade Ukraine, stressing that the deployment of troops on the Russian-Ukrainian border is purely for defensive purposes and that no one should point the finger at such a deployment of forces on the territory of Russia itself.

It is obvious that such a statement cannot convince Ukraine: after the 2014 crisis, any problems on the border between the two sides attract attention and Ukraine still has sporadic conflicts with pro-Russian separatists in the eastern part of the country.

Firstly, the fundamental reason why the US-Russian dispute over Ukraine is hard to resolve is that there is no reasonable position or room in the US-led European security architecture that matches Russian strength and status.

Over the past thirty-two years, the United States of America has forcibly excluded any reasonable proposal to establish broad and inclusive security in Europe and has built a post-Cold War European security framework that has crushed and expelled Russia, much as NATO did when it contained the Soviet Union in Europe in 1949-1990.

Moreover, Russia’s long cherished desire to integrate into the “European family” and even into the “Western community” through cooperation with the United States of America – which, in the days of the impotent Yeltsin, looked upon it not as an equal partner but as a semi-colony – has been overshadowed by the resolute actions of NATO, which has expanded eastward to further elevate its status as the sole superpower, at least in Europe, after its recent failure in Afghanistan.  

Maintaining a lasting peace after the great wars (including the Cold War) in the 20th century was based on treating the defeated side with tolerance and equality at the negotiating table. Facts have shown that this has not been taken on board by the policy of the United States of America and its Western fawners and sycophants. Treating Russia as the loser in the Cold War is tantamount to frustrating it severely and ruthlessly, thus depriving it of the most important constituent feature of the post-short century European security order.

Unless Russia reacts with stronger means, it will always be in a position of defence and never of equality. Russia will not accept any legitimacy for the persistence of a European security order that deprives it of vital security interests, wanting to make it a kind of protectorate surrounded by US-made nuclear bombs. The long-lasting Ukrainian crisis is the last barrier and the most crucial link in the confrontation between Russia, the United States of America and the West. It is a warning to those European countries that over the past decades have been deprived of a foreign policy of their own, not just obeying the White House’s orders.

Secondly, the Ukrainian issue is an important structural problem that affects the direction of European security construction and no one can afford to lose in this crisis.

While Europe can achieve unity, integrity and lasting peace, the key challenge is whether it can truly incorporate Russia. This depends crucially on whether NATO’s eastward expansion will stop and whether Ukraine will be able to resolve these two key factors on its own and permanently. NATO, which has continued to expand in history and reality, is the most lethal threat to security for Russia. NATO continues to weaken Russia and deprive it of its European statehood, and mocks its status as a great power. Preventing NATO from continuing its eastward expansion is probably the most important security interest not only of Russia, but also of European countries with no foreign policies of their own, but with peoples and public that do not certainly want to be dragged into a conventional war on the continent, on behalf of a country that has an ocean between Europe and itself as a safety belt.

The current feasible solution to ensure lasting security in Europe is for Ukraine not to join NATO, but to maintain a permanent status of neutrality, like Austria, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, etc. This is a prerequisite for Ukraine to preserve its territorial integrity and sovereignty to the fullest extent possible, and it is also the only reasonable solution for settling the deep conflict between Russia and the United States of America.

To this end, Russia signed the aforementioned Minsk-2 Agreement of 2015. Looking at the evolution of NATO over the past decades, however, we can see that it has absolutely no chance of changing a well-established “open door” membership policy.  

The United States of America and NATO will not accept the option of a neutral Ukraine, and the current level of political decision-making in the country is other-directed. For these reasons, Ukraine now appears morally dismembered, and bears a striking resemblance to the divided Berlin and the two pre-1989 Germanies. It can be said that the division of Ukraine is a sign of the new split in Europe after Cold War I, and the construction of the so-called European security – or rather  US hegemony – ends with the reality of a Cold War II between NATO and Russia. It must be said that this is a tragedy, as the devastating consequences of a war will be paid by the peoples of Europe, and certainly not by those from New England to California.

Thirdly, the misleading and deceptive nature of US-Russian diplomacy and the short-sightedness of the EU, with no foreign policy of its own regarding the construction of its own security, are the main reasons for the current lack of mutual trust between the United States of America – which relies on the servility of the aforementioned EU – and Russia, terrified by the nuclear encirclement on its borders.

The United States took advantage of the deep problems of the Soviet Union and of Russia’s zeal and policies for the self-inflicted change in the 1990s – indeed, a turning point – at the expense of “verbal commitment” diplomacy.

In 1990, on behalf of President George H. W. Bush’s Administration, US Secretary of State Baker made a verbal promise to the then Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, that “upon reunification, after Germany remaining within NATO, the organisation would not expand eastward”. President Clinton’s Administration rejected that promise on the grounds that it was its predecessor’s decision and that verbal promises were not valid, but in the meantime George H. W. Bush had incorporated the Baltic States into NATO.

In the mid-1990s, President Clinton indirectly made a verbal commitment to Russia’s then leader, the faint-hearted Yeltsin, to respect the red line whereby NATO should not cross the eastern borders of the Baltic States. Nevertheless, as already stated above, President George H. W. Bush’s Administration had already broken that promise by crossing their Western borders. It stands to reason that, in the eyes of Russia, the “verbal commitment diplomacy” is rightly synonymous with fraud and hypocrisy that the United States of America is accustomed to implementing with Russia. This is exactly the reason why Russia is currently insisting that the United States and NATO must sign a treaty with it on Ukraine’s neutrality and a ban on the deployment of offensive (i.e. nuclear) weapons in Ukraine.

Equally important is the fact that after Cold War I, the United States of America, with its mentality of rushing to grab the fruits of victory, lured 14 small and medium-sized countries into the process of expansion, causing crises in Europe’s peripheral regions and artfully creating Russophobia in the Central, Balkan and Eastern European countries.

This complete disregard for the “concert of great powers” – a centuries-old principle fundamental to ensuring lasting security in Europe – and the practice of “being penny wise and pound foolish” have artificially led to a prolonged confrontation between Russia and the European countries, in the same way as between the United States of America and Russia. The age-old trend of emphasising the global primacy of the United States of America by creating crises and inventing enemies reaffirms the tragic reality of its own emergence as a danger to world peace.

All in all, the Ukraine crisis is a key issue for the direction of European security. The United States will not stop its eastward expansion. Russia, forced into a corner, has no other way but to react with all its might and strength. This heralds Cold War II in Europe, and lasting turmoil and the possible partition of Ukraine will be its immutable destiny.

The worst-case scenario will be a conventional war on the continent between NATO troops and Russian forces, causing millions and millions dead, as well as destroying cities. The war will be conventional because the United States would never use nuclear weapons – but not out of the goodness of its heart, but out of fear of a Russian response that would remove the US territory from the NBC security level.

To the point that that we will miss the good old days of Covid-19.

Continue Reading

Defense

Why shouldn’t Israel Undermine Iran’s Conventional Deterrence

Published

on

When Naftali Bennett took over as the prime minister of Israel, it was expected that he would take a different approach compared to Netanyahu. This could be a probable expectation, save for the issue of Iran, since Iran is considered a consistent strategic and existential threat in the eyes of Israeli political and military officials same way that Israel has always been considered an enemy in the strategic culture of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Therefore, with the resumption of the Iran nuclear talks in Vienna, Israel has intensified its campaign for an imminent military strike on Iran. On the other hand, Iran has tried to create a balance of missile threat against Israel based on valid deterrence during the past years.

However, the level and the nature of performance and deterrence of these two influential actors of the Middle East are fundamentally different. While Iran has defined its deterrence based on hybrid missile deterrence concepts—including direct and extended deterrence—, Israel’s deterrence is based on preemptive warfare, a.k.a. “immediate deterrence,” irrespective of its nuclear capabilities, policies of “strategic ambiguity” and “defensible borders strategy.”

From a direct deterrence perspective (i.e., the strength of a large missile fire from within Iranian territory) and given the extended and asymmetric dimensions (i.e., strengthening missile capabilities of the axis of resistance), the Islamic Republic of Iran believes that Israel will gradually become weaker and more fragile defensively, considering the importance of objective components in the area of ​​deterrence—such as geographical depth and population, and this will derive Israeli leaders to consider their fragile security and survival before any attempt to take on a direct military confrontation with Iran. For instance, when the tensions over Iran’s nuclear program escalated between 2010 and 2013 during the Obama administration, none of Iran’s nuclear facilities was attacked, despite Israel’s repeated expression of its willingness to do so. Former defense minister Ehud Barak justified this inaction with the pretext of Barack Obama’s opposition and lack of support.  In fact, the Netanyahu administration sought to instill this idea to the world that Israel has both the “determination” and the “ability” to attack Iran should this preemptive action not have been faced with Washington objection. The fact that Netanyahu still failed to implement the idea even during Trump administration—as John Bolton points out in the first chapter of his book—despite his overwhelming support for Israel, indicated the fact that Israel does not have independent military capabilities and determination to take such hostile action at no cost without the support of the US.

Therefore, despite the constant claims of Israeli officials, this country’s general strategy so far has been to avoid direct military confrontation with Iran and to focus on less intense and covert warfare. This has changed since 2017 due to Israel’s objection to pro-Iranian forces regaining the control over Al-Bukamal Qa’im border crossing on the Iraqi-Syrian border, and the consequent lack of a proportionate and retaliatory response from Iran to Israel’s ongoing operations in Syria. In fact, inaction of Iran has allowed Israeli army to expand its campaign from northern borders and the Golan Heights (as the first ring) to the province of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria, then to the depths of Iraq in cooperation with the US (as the second ring), and eventually, inside the Iranian territory (as the third ring). The expansion of Israel’s subversive actions deep inside Iran is an effort to discredit Iran’s deterrence as well as undermining Iran’s strategic stability, while also dismantling Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities.

In the meantime, Israel’s embark on the strategy of Third-Circle Directorate based on intensifying low-level but effective military actions on Iranian soil has played a greater role in undermining Iran’s conventional deterrent advantages. Israel’s repeated operation and its recklessness in accepting responsibility for such actions has taken Israel’s belief and determination that it can target Iran’s assets and strategic resources inside and outside of Iran with numerous intermittent actions to a new level. Therefore, it can be said that while the previous positions of Israeli officials regarding the bombing and cessation of Iran’s nuclear capabilities were mostly focused on the assassination of Iranian scientists, targeted cyberattacks, sabotages, and bombings of industrial, security, and military facilities, there is no guarantee that the Third-Circle Directorate would not extent to explicit and direct entry of Israeli fighters, bombers or ballistic missiles to bomb Iran’s nuclear and military facilities in cooperation with the United States or independently.

If Israel mistakes Iran’s inaction with inability to respond and decides to extend Mabam Campaign to air or missile strikes inside the Iranian borders, it should not be sure of the unpredictable consequences. Iran has not yet responded decisively to cyber-attacks, the assassination of its scientists, and the Israeli sabotages due to the fact that these actions have been designed and carried out in such a way that Iran has assessed the damage as compensable. That is, a long set of low-level attacks were conducted to change the state of the field without taking actions that justifies an extensive reaction. Iran’s failure to respond to the recent Israeli attack on the port of Latakia is a clear example of the success and effectiveness of Salami Slicing strategy. Such strategies are designed to engage Iran in a polygonal dilemma: that it cannot respond to every individual military actions and small-scale sabotage, while inaction against these multiple small and non-intensive attacks will gradually result in losing its strategic position and deterrent credibility.

This very, unique Israeli strategy in military confrontation with Iran has reinforced the assessment of the Bennett administration about the serious weakness of Iran’s conventional deterrence. As a clear case Foreign Minister Yair Lapid claimed that “Israel could attack Iran if necessary without informing the Biden administration, which is looking to rejoin the nuclear deal”. This problem became more apparent after the assassination of the commander of the Quds Force of the IRGC, especially in the last months of Donald Trump’s presidency. In other words, if Tehran decided to respond directly to various Israeli actions, such as the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh and attacks on its military and industrial centers, the risk of a war with Israel with the support of the US would increase. By the same token, this has in fact given Tehran an opportunity not to retaliate based on the concept of conventional strategic stability. That is, at this level of conflict, Iran’s confidence in its ability to retaliate makes it easier for this country to limit and delay the response. From Iranian perspective, therefore, conventional strategic stability means preventing armed conflict in the Middle East, especially a level of conflict that directly threatens its security and territory.

However, if Israel tries to discredit Iran’s conventional deterrence and strategic stability by launching a direct air strike into Iranian territory, Iran’s retaliatory response will not be as limited and symbolic as the attack on the US base of Ain al-Assad in Iraq, because Tehran would face the so-called “Sputnik moment” dilemma, which forces it to test its missile credibility. In such a situation, Iran will be forced to first, launch a decisive comprehensive missile response against Israel and then change its deterrent structure from conventional to nuclear by leaving the NPT in order to contain pressure of domestic public opinion, maintain its credibility with regional rivals such as Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and even the Republic of Azerbaijan, and to reassure its proxy forces in the axis of resistance.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

South Asia2 hours ago

India’s Unclear Neighbourhood Policy: How to Overcome ?

India has witnessed multiple trends with regards to its relations with its neighbours at a time vaccine diplomacy is gaining...

Central Asia4 hours ago

Post-Protest Kazakhstan Faces Three Major Crises

Kazakhstan suffered greatly from the biggest protest since its independence.  As I recently returned to Almaty, I saw that everyday...

Southeast Asia6 hours ago

Maximizing Indonesia’s Public Diplomacy Through Indonesia’s First Mosque in London

Indonesia and UK have established bilateral cooperation in December 1949 in which the bilateral cooperation includes economic cooperation, tourism, energy,...

Europe8 hours ago

Is British Democracy in Danger?

On Sunday 12th of December 2021 Boris Johnson went on national television to warn about a tidal wave that would...

East Asia10 hours ago

The Global (Dis) Order Warfare: The Chinese Way

Since the ascension of Xi Jinping, two important developments have come to dominate the global headlines. One, the so-called wolf...

Americas12 hours ago

Perils of Belligerent Nationalism: The Urgent Obligations of Planetary Community

“…the worst are full of passionate intensity, while the best lack all conviction.”-William Butler Yeats, The Second Coming By definition,...

South Asia14 hours ago

India is in big trouble as UK stands for Kashmiris

 A London-based law firm has filed an application with British police seeking the arrest of India’s army chief and a...

Trending