The Battle for Novorossiya - May, 2015

The Battle for Novorossiya

Prologue

The moonlight revealed a dozen or so human silhouettes moving frantically around a few trucks parked abreast of each other on a sunflower field caressed by a mild and refreshing mid-summer breeze. In an atmosphere that sounded very tense, the men were moving around haphazardly. Their pace was often quick. Sometimes they paused only to hurry again. Although there was no one for miles, they were speaking to each other in whispers. Clearly they were up to something important and they did not want to be seen or heard.

Momentarily, a better glimpse was obtained when one group member used a flashlight to read from a sheet of paper some numbers that sounded like coordinates …

This was happening in the Donbass region of Ukraine. The field was not an ordinary field, it had rich and fertile (chernozyom) topsoil and coal mines buried deep under. The men were no ordinary farmers or miners, they were rebel militants fighting for a free Novorossiya. The trucks were no ordinary trucks, they were “Grad” multiple rocket launchers of legendary fame. The date was in the summer of 2014, but it was a déjà vu scene; similar scenarios happened in the same place many decades ago during the period of history that the locals refer to as the “Great Patriotic War”.

Suddenly, the readiness reports coming from the vehicles successively pierced the dark night:

- Pervye Gatov (First unit ready)
- Vtaroi Gatov (Second ready)
- Tretye Gatov (Third ready) 

Grad Rocket Launcher

It was the moment the battery commander was waiting for. With slow movements of his right hand he crossed himself in the traditional Russian Orthodox manner, took a deep breath and yelled as loud as his lungs could master:

- Battarey … Trista-Tritset-Tree (Battery … Three hundred-Thirty-Three).

The “fire” command was given in the traditional Russian manner, but the last “three” was never heard because the first rockets had already left their launch tubes and were screeching their way towards the unsuspecting Ukrainian troops camped near the village of Zelenopolye…

Disaster in Kiev

By February 2014, with the full support and backing of the political West, a group of Ukrainian Russophobe oligarchs and ultra-nationalists had organized and successfully executed a “Maidan” revolution in Kiev which resulted in the overthrow of the democratically elected but weak and indecisive president Viktor Yanukovich. The authority was now illegally seized by people who hated everything Russian and were clearly stating their sinister aims of joining NATO, disassociating Ukraine from everything Russian and even banning the Russian language from school programs.

Maidan Clashes

The eastern and southern regions of Ukraine that are traditionally pro-Russian were in such a state of shock that neither the people nor the politicians knew how to act. The true colors of Yanukovich’s own Party of Regions started showing off when many of its members were just easily “bought” by the other side…Suddenly, there was no political party or entity that could fight back the “Maidan” revolution.

Dawn of the “Russian Spring”

With no political party and no leadership to look to, the millions of Russian speaking Ukrainians had a tough time trying to figure out what to do. They are known to be the real workers and producers in Ukraine, while their Western compatriots are more known for being lazy, unproductive, jobless and poor. What were the Pro-Russians supposed to do? Leave their jobs, families, responsibilities and fight back? Or just let it be?

Someone had to take the lead… Crimeans decided to act, and they acted very effectively. Prompt and massive demonstrations started a rapid chain of events that started in electing much needed leadership and culminated by the return of the whole peninsula to Mother Russia. These events were covered on this blog in the past.

The population of the South East did not stay idle. Energized by the success of their compatriots in Crimea, they took to the streets in Donetsk, Lugansk, Kharkov, Odessa and in every other major city in those regions. Their mass demonstrations dwarfed the pro-Ukraine or pro-West gatherings in those areas and gathered momentum every passing week. However, these self-organized demonstrations lacked proper leadership and had diverging aims: some were asking for reunification with Russia, others were demanding federalization, yet others were just content on asking just for freedom of Russian language. The whole thing was a recipe for failure…

Anti-Maidan demonstrations

Dilemma in the Kremlin

The Maidan freak show happened at a time when the Russian leadership was busy making sure that the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi end up being a tremendous success that would have enormous positive effect on the average Ivan’s and Natasha’s national pride, feelings and psychology. Despite the successes of the Russian sportsmen and women, the Kremlin was keeping a worried eye on the developments in Kiev and was of course appalled by the brutality of the fascist and Nazi rioters, the swiftness of the events and the ineffectiveness of the Ukrainian President. Although they understood the gravity of the situation that was arising, the turn of the events in Kiev caught the Kremlin leaders off balance. Certainly, Vladimir Putin and his close associates in the government contemplated their options which can be summarized as follows:

-Staying in friendly terms with the new regime in Kiev by doing nothing on the ground: But Moscow knew too well the Maidan coup initiators who were coming to power. Nothing good would come out by trying to deal with these Russophobes in a friendly and respectful manner.

-Military intervention and restoration of President Yanukovich into power: That would not only lead to a full-fledged cold war with the West, but it could also get Russia involved in a protracted and very costly Iraq-style insurgency war that it could ill afford. Furthermore, it would mean that Russia would have to support and sustain the “bottomless barrel” called Ukrainian economy. That would set Russia decades behind.

-Disrupting Kiev’s (and the West’s) plans and maintaining leverage: Russia is ruled by consensus, not by an iron fist (as the West likes to portray it). There are various factions in the Kremlin ranging from the siloviki to the liberals and from the nationalists to the business-minded. Putin is like a father/patriarch figure who listens to all the opinions and has to find the right consensus. It was this third option that the Russian leadership opted for as it was flexible enough to lead to maximum gains while minimizing costs and losses. It could potentially deny Kiev the liberty to do as it pleased by maintaining as much as possible leverage that Russia has in cultural, financial and trade terms. In other words, Moscow decided to accept the defeat it sustained in Kiev, but positioned itself in such a way to extract a few victories out of the monster’s jaws.

The first two immediate decisions were to send an airborne team to rescue the beleaguered president Yanukovich and to do whatever was necessary to ensure that the Crimean peninsula returns to Russia. As we know, both of these aims were successfully executed to the dismay of Kiev regime and the West. With these immediate objectives achieved, the Kiev regime was dealt a couple of heavy punches. It was time to let diplomacy, the business ties, the declining economy and the general discontent in the south-east to do the rest: make sure that Ukraine does not join NATO and/or the EU…at least, that was the idea. That plan was pushed forward by the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov on the diplomatic front as “federalization of Ukraine”.

Washington (and the political West) would have none of that. Watching their easy victory in Kiev not only come to nothing but also to cost the West dearly in financial support of the “free and democratic” Ukraine, the West’s leaders decided not to let “Putin” have his way. At that point, they started to aggressively push their plans to integrate Ukraine into NATO and the EU.

The Strelkovtsev

On the 3rd of March 2014, Dmitry Zhukov disembarked from a crowded bus in Simferopol (Crimea). His friends knew him by the call sign “Kedr”. As an anti-Maidan activist from Kiev, he had worked hard to fight back the coup in his native city. By the end of February, he realized that the battle was lost and that it was not safe to stay in the capital. He decided to move to Crimea and continue the struggle from there. The passengers on the bus were activists like him and also a few “Berkut” riot police officers fleeing Kiev. The Crimean greeted the new comers with applauses and chants of “Berkut – Berkut” and “Spa-si-ba, Spa-si-ba”. In that crowded and noisy square, Kedr barely heard someone calling his name. He turned to his right and instantly identified a middle aged tall man with a thin mustache dressed in a suit and tie. That man was a contact he was given, it was Igor Strelkov.

The Strelkovtsev

Little is known about Igor Vsevolodovich Girkin (Strelkov). It is believed that he worked for the Russian FSB for a number of years. He had participated in a number of wars were Russia’s geopolitical interests were involved: Transdniestra, Bosnia and the two conflicts in Chechnya. For the last couple of years he was living a more “civilian” life dedicating himself to re-enacting famous historic battles. During the early stages of the turmoil in Ukraine, he relocated to the Crimean peninsula were he took part in the events that happened there. It is said that he was managing the personal security of some key Crimean leaders.

Strelkov predicted that the peaceful anti-Kiev demonstration would lead to nowhere. The events that happened in the next few weeks proved he was right. Several thousand neo-Nazi Right Sector and ultra-nationalist Svoboda party thugs sent by Kiev crushed the Odessa movement and burned dozens of unarmed demonstrators in the Trade Union building. Soon after, the same thugs were sent to Kharkov to beat the protesters there. The unarmed and peaceful anti-Kiev movements were fizzling out. Only Donetsk and Lugansk were still active where the local populations had captured some local administration buildings and thus far had managed to beat back the Kiev Junta’s thugs. But it was doubtful they could hold their stand for much longer.

The conversation between Strelkov and Kedr was brief and to the point. It was all about defending the “Russian World” to which Kedr volunteered. They knew that the peaceful anti-Kiev demonstrations all over the South-East were doomed to fail. The new rulers in Kiev and their backers in the West were not interested in public opinion and fairness. They wanted to encroach further into the Russian zone of influence. They wanted a Ukraine that was anti-Russia. They wanted brother Slavic people to be at each other’s throats.

Capture of Kramatorsk Police Station

A few weeks later, a group of 52 men led by Strelkov crossed the border in a number of civilian vehicles and proceeded to the now famous city of Slavyansk in the Donetsk region of Ukraine. A few of them were Russian citizens (like Strelkov himself). There were also a number of Crimeans, but the majority were Ukrainians including a few from Kiev (like Kedr) and other western regions of the country. They all had served in the military, some had battle experience. Slavyansk was chosen for a variety of reasons:

-They had many contacts in Slavyansk who could join them there immediately.

-Strelkov wanted a medium sized city (population 100,000) that was sympathetic to the Russian cause and deeply anti-Kiev. A city, were rule of the people could be easily and quickly established.

-Slavyansk is located on the western side of the Donetsk region and thus, is ideal because it would be barrier that would shield the Donetsk capital until it organized itself for the confrontation with Kiev.

Strelkov and his men were armed with light weapons, they had personal radios for communication and were wearing fresh uniforms. They looked very professional. Upon their covert arrival in Slavyansk, the Strelkovtsev were met by their contacts who boosted their ranks and soon went into action. On the 12th of April, they captured the local police station and the Ukrainian security building. The overjoyed civilian population helped in erecting barricades at the city entrances. A new mayor was designated and almost overnight Slavyansk became the focus of the clash against the Kiev junta. Fresh local volunteers were armed with the weapons confiscated from the police building and Strelkov was now in command of a force that had quadrupled in numbers. A few days later, he sent a group of 28 Terek and Don Cossacks to capture the neighboring city of Kramatorsk to the great delight of the local population there. One very charismatic and photogenic Cossack warrior by the call sign “Babai” became so popular that many people lined up to be photographed with him.

At this stage, I invite all the esteemed readers of this article to watch the following clip about Babai and his colleagues in Slavyansk and Kramatorsk. Us Armenians, we call this kind of brave people “Fedayees”. The song in the clip is the famous Cossack song “Kagda My Bili Na Vayne” (“When We Were at War”).

Cossack “Babai”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g46CnaY3gjo

The popular seizure of Slavyansk and Kramatorsk energized the Donbass masses who seized virtually every administration in every city and town in the two Oblasts of Donetsk and Lugansk. They were no longer afraid, they had seen the successful events in Crimea, they now had weapons they had seized from various police stations and Ukrainian state security offices and most of all they had the Strelkovtsev. The reaction to the violent Maidan coup in Kiev had begun. Anti-Maidan was brought into the geopolitical and military equation. Anti-Maidan can be seen as an anti-poison that stops the spreading of the venom through Ukraine’s body. But, let’s go back and analyze this whole Strelkov expedition for a moment. Who was backing and financing them? According to Strelkov himself, the Kremlin neither sent them nor supported them. They had to buy their arms and equipment themselves. Could that be true? Let’s contemplate all the possibilities:

- One distinct possibility is that the Kremlin directly (or through intermediaries) provided Strelkov with his orders, finances and weapons. The Kiev Junta and the West accuses Russia of doing exactly that. Naturally, Russia denies the accusations. If it is indeed true that the Kremlin is managing Strelkov, then this is one of the most audacious large-scale covert operation conducted in recent times; something that modern Russia has never done since the break-up of the Soviet Union.

-Another possibility is that it was some hawkish circles within the Kremlin who sent Strelkov there without the approval of Putin or the government. It would be absurd to think that the FSB or the government did not know about it. They just turned a blind eye or looked the other way. If the operation succeeded, it would be a “win” for Russia. If it failed, they had plausible deniability and could even blame some scapegoat. Remember the saying: “Victory has a hundred fathers, defeat is an orphan”.

-The third possibility is that an opposition party (such as Zhirinovsky’s LDP or the Communists) or a nationalistic party supported Strelkov with or without the knowledge of the Kremlin. Again, a successful mission would be a “win”. If it failed, it was somebody else’s enterprise.

-Finally, the most unlikely but still plausible scenario is that Strelkov and his men acted on their own. Strelkov is a devout Monarchist; a movement that is lately on the rise in Russia. Monarchists are very patriotic, nationalistic and believe that a Tsar should rule Russia. In all his interviews, Strelkov never lauded the Kremlin or President Putin. On the contrary, he often delivered veiled criticism aimed at the Russian leadership for not helping him and the Donbass fight the Kiev Junta.

Unfortunately, I don’t have an answer to which of the above possibilities is the correct one. Is Strelkov a 100% FSB agent or is he a ready to die “fedayee” who believed that his ideology was sufficient in leading Donbass to victory. I hope one day the truth will be made public and I certainly hope that I will live long enough to see that day.

First Battles for Novorossiya  

Russian media revealed that on the 12th of April CIA chief john Brennan secretly visited Kiev to meet the then active president and parliament speaker Viktor Turchinov as well as Petro Poroshenko who had not been elected president yet. The Anti-Terrorist Operation (ATO) was launched soon after his visit.

Defending Slavyansk

Continuously, the USA supplied the Kiev Junta with lumps of cash under the allegation that it was helping a “democracy and freedom loving brave country”. Each lump sum consisted of several dozen millions of Dollars that were not intended to support the Ukrainian economy or the population; rather they were to be used to prep up the armed forces that Kiev needed to subdue the rebelling Donbass region.

During the Maidan square coup, the underfunded and neglected Ukrainian Army did not take sides. The already low morale in the armed forces was dealt a severe blow when the majority of their contingents based in the Crimea sided with Russia; among them was the top Admiral of the Navy. By the end of the Crimea events, Russian military experts estimated that the Ukrainian Army had about only six thousand combat ready soldiers. The large sums that the USA was granting the Kiev junta were badly needed. Kiev started at the very top. The money was used to make sure that the top generals were on their side. Promotions, bribes and the rest made sure that loyalty trickled down to the lower ranking officers who had to prepare the army for the upcoming conflict i.e. the ATO mission in the Donbass. But that needed some time. Meanwhile the Strelkovtsev were getting entrenched in Slavyansk and the Donetsk and Lugansk regions were getting out of Kiev’s control. The Kiev junta had to send in whatever was available aginst Slavyansk and Kramatorsk.

Capture of Ukrainian Vehicles

At that time the junta’s military headquarters managed to get the 25th air mobile brigade move into Kramatorsk. That brigade, considered to be the elite of the Ukrainian Army, has its base in Dnepropetrovsk (a region of Russian speakers) and a large proportion of soldiers from that region. Their mission was to enter Kramatorsk and chase the Russian “terrorists”. The first column of BMD armored vehicles entered Kramatorsk and reached the city center. The weaponry of the Strelkovtsev consisted of only AK-74 assault rifles and other hand held light weapons. They had no chance against this force. Yet, that day was meant to be a day were miracles happen. The civilian population descended on the streets, surrounded the BMDs, talked to the soldiers, argued, yelled, pestered, badgered and eventually convinced them to give up the mission. Furthermore, six of BMDs defected and joined the rebellious population; the rest just left the city. The Russian speaking soldiers from Dnepropetrovsk had realized that it was their own kin, their own brothers and sisters that they were sent to fight and crush. It was a bloodless victory for the Strelkovtsev whose ranks swelled further and now had at its disposal some armored vehicles, heavy machine guns, anti-tank weapons and most of all their first artillery piece in the form of a BMD based NONA self-propelled gun-mortar.

First blood was drawn soon after when a group of ultra-nationalistic fanatics in four SUV vehicles approached a road block at one of the entrances of Slavyansk and opened fire killing 3 people. The defenders retaliated and burned two of the vehicles. Things got uglier with time. The junta’s attacks got stronger and more fearce. Attacks were mounted with armored personnel carriers, later on with tanks and eventually with artillery and aviation.

The Warlords of Novorossiya

The Russian Spring period witnessed the emergence of a number of self-defense units. Strelkov and his group got the most publicity, but they were not the only one. In Donetsk region, another Russian national by the name of Igor Bezler (Bez) created a unit in the city of Gorlovka. The Vostok battalion was assembled in the city of Donetsk itself and was led by Khodakovsky (a Ukrainian). The Oplot unit was led by Alexander Zakharchenko who later became the head of the DNR (Popular Republic of Donetsk). In the Lugansk region, the Cossacks established themselves in Pervomaysk and Alchevsk while Alexander Mozgovoy’s “Prizrak” battalion took up the defense of northern Lugansk. There were other self-organized groups as well, but the ones I mentioned are the most noteworthy. The number of fighters in these rebel groups varied from a few dozen to several hundred. Of course, the largest anti-Kiev fighting force was Strelkov’s group garrisoned in Slavyansk. At its peak, Strelkov commanded a group whose ranks were in excess of 2000 soldiers.

From top left: Mozgovoy, Bezler and Khodakovsky (bottom)

With most of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions now under the control of these various groups, the leaders of the two regions organized referendums on the 11th of May 2014 in which the population overwhelmingly supported self-determination for the two regions. Just like the population, the various rebel groups did not exactly share the same political views and had diverging plans. Also, cooperation with each other on the battlefield was lacking. The only thing that united them was the fascist regime in Kiev that was trying to subjugate them. Thus emerged two tendencies in the Donbass:

The first one consisted of the hardliners who wanted to take the battle all the way to Kiev and wanted to establish a new Republic (Novorossiya) that encompassed the entire Eastern and Southern parts of Ukraine. Strelkov and Mozgovoy were among them. The other rebel groups’ ambitions were less grandiose; they were more interested in establishing self-rule for their regions. They certainly rejected the Kiev Junta and considered themselves as a counter-revolution; they preferred to find a political solution rather than march onto Kiev. Zakharchenko was among those.

Novorossiya (in red)

Whether intentional or circumstantial, this divergence of view among the rebels worked very well for the Kremlin grossmeisters and their strategy in Ukraine. Depending on the situation, they could let things escalate or deescalate as they pleased by backing and supporting one or the other category of rebels. But, for the time being, the Western masters of the puppet regime in Kiev were in no mood for diplomacy or peaceful political solution to the Ukraine crisis. It was no longer a matter of getting Ukraine only, it was a matter of confronting, weakening and beating Russia in its own backyard. It was war time.

Voentorg and the Clipping of Wings

As the Ukrainian armed forces attacks on Slavyansk were getting fiercer every day, Strelkov and his men needed help which could come only from Russia. But how could the Kremlin send weapons there. Diplomatically, the Russians were denying any links with Strelkov and thus could not be caught helping him. Yet, Strelkov’s arsenal of weapons, ammunition and equipment was getting replenished more or less consistently. That phenomenon is known among Russian speakers as “Voentorg” which roughly translates into English as “Military Shopping”. The goods were getting smuggled into Slavyansk via bunches of volunteers and enthusiastic supporters. Many Russians contributed donations for the funds to purchase whatever was necessary to help the Strelkovtsev. A lot of stuff such as military style uniforms, boots, binoculars etc. can be purchased openly in the Russian market, but when it comes to arms… The way Strelkov was getting RPG rockets is “as clear is mud”. Suffice to say that all the weapons that were ending up in Slavyansk were also to be found with Ukrainian Army. Russia could not be incriminated, plausible deniability was always there. Officially the Russians always denied supplying arms to the rebels.

At first, when the Ukrainian army was ill prepared, Voentorg was providing the necessary light weapons, ammunition, uniforms, first aid kits and other stuff to keep the Ukrainians at bay. When tanks started being used, almost immediately anti-tank weapons showed up with the rebels. When artillery started pounding Slavyansk, Strelkov suddenly had in possession a few more mortars. 

Ukrainian Aircraft shot down by Rebels

The most spectacular way the Ukrainians “upped the ante” against the rebels was when they used their air assets. Initially, it was the helicopter gunships that started causing serious trouble for the rebels. Miraculously, one after the other, they started falling from the sky like flies. Strelkov had received IGLA man portable air defense missiles (MANPADS). Consequently, the usage of helicopters seized. Instead, Su-25 ground attack aircraft that are less vulnerable to MANPADS began their notorious strikes inflicting ugly casualties on the militants as well as the civilian population. The cure for that problem was the big brother of the IGLA: The STRELA-10 vehicle mounted missile effectively neutralized the strafing runs of the planes. The Ukrainians now resorted to the faster flying SU-24 and MIG-29 fighter bombers to deliver high and fast strikes against the Donbass. Once again, the equal and opposite reaction was in the form of the radar guided short range (10 km) OSA missile complex that has the NATO codename SA-8. After losing a few more of their aircraft, Kiev stopped using its air force in the conflict. In February 2015, during the liberation of the city of Debaltsovo, the rebels had complete control of the air. No Ukrainian aircraft showed up to help the beleaguered Ukrainian troops on the ground. The once proud Ukrainian Air Force had its wings clipped; they themselves admit to the loss of 23 aircraft and helicopters during the conflict. Here is a list of aircraft lost in Ukraine over the period:http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?Country=UR&page=1

Retreat from Slavyansk

By the end of June, as the race for more power and supremacy on the battlefield continued and the losses on both sides were mounting, it slowly became clear that the rebels were not going to win this one. While Ukraine was mobilizing its entire population and reactivating its stored (Soviet era) weaponry, Strelkov realized that it could not keep up with it. Sure, his army in Slavyansk had swelled to 2000 soldiers and had some heavy equipment in the form of some tanks and other armored vehicles. But he was now getting surrounding by over 10,000 Ukrainian troops and hundreds of armor.

Furthermore, due to the murderous artillery shelling, the Slavyansk population was paying a heavy price. Many of them had already left and the prospects looked dim.

He fully realized that Slavyansk was shielding the capital and other population centers until they organized themselves well enough to fight back Kiev and win. But, he was not happy the way things were proceeding elsewhere in Novorossiya: too many warlords, too many heads, too much chaos. The much needed referendum and the battles around Slavyansk did not energize the Donbass population well enough: there simply were not enough volunteers taking up arms. It seemed that everybody wanted independence from Kiev but was not willing to fight for it. As if everybody hoped that Russian troops will come one day and do the hard job for them. While Slavyansk was burning, people were carrying on their daily routines in the other cities.

Eventually Slavyansk got completely surrounded and Strelkov had to choose to either fight to the death or to break through and retreat to Donetsk. For a variety of reasons, he chose the later and abandoned Slavyansk and Kramatorsk.

President Poroshenko in Slavyansk

In the first days of July, Strelkov ordered all his men and families to assemble and carried out his audacious breakthrough and succeeded in getting the vast majority of his men to the capital Donetsk.

Since Strelkov’s 2000 strong army dwarfed all the other rebel groups in Donetsk, he established himself as the chief warlord. He was already the Defense minister of the Republic and embarked on the immensely challenging task of getting together all the various rebel groups in expectation of the inevitable Ukrainian onslaught against what was left of Novorossiya that was free from Kiev’s control.

Naturally, Kiev wasted no time and sent its army to conquer and subdue all the remaining areas that it referred to as “separatist” and “terrorist”. While advancing towards the capitals of Donetsk and Lugansk, the junta’s tactic was to first severe Novorossiya from Russia by capturing the areas that border Donbass with Russia proper hence stopping the flow of any Russian volunteers and weapons. With their overwhelming superiority in men and equipment, the Ukrainians proceeded with the plan and were getting close to achieving complete control over the border thus surrounding Novorossiya. Simultaneously, they launched another attack aimed to sever Donetsk and Lugansk from each other. It was a last minute heroic engagement at Shakhtyorsk that kept the Donetsk-Lugansk route open for the rebels, but the situation was very dim and it seemed that the rebellion in the Donbass would end soon.

The God of War 

The GRAD battery commander watched the last rockets blast through the night sky and, greatly relieved, thanked God for being able to carry out his mission as intended. Earlier, Rebel reconnaissance units and Russian Unmanned Aerial Vehicles had located the positions of the 72nd and 79th Ukrainian Brigades that were tasked to capture the last stretches of land that connected Novorossiya with Russia.

The battery commander with graying beard and an orange and black St. George ribbon around his left arm fully understood that this strike would be crucial for the history of the Donbass region. He had received his orders directly from top command. The Ukrainians were about to cut them out from Russia, surround them and crush them. If his mission failed, he and his men would probably end up dead. His family and friends would be at the mercy of bloodthirsty Russophobe sadists.

The salvo was right on target. It caught the sleeping Ukrainian troops by complete surprise. The rockets spread death and destruction to every corner of the camp. In a spread of a few tens of seconds, tents got vaporized, vehicles were torn to pieces, ammunition dumps blew up creating even more carnage, the whole place was burning. The following video shows in graphic detail the aftermath of the bombardment on the Ukrainian camp in Zelenopolye that night:

Carnage at Zelenopolye: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjHpBeQnj3Y

From that date on, the above scenario would get regularly repeated in various places in the Donbass region.

In 1944, Joseph Stalin had said in one of his speeches that the artillery was the “God of War”. Exactly 70 years later, his words couldn’t have been more correct. Throughout the summer months and until the Minsk agreements, artillery became the largest single cause of death in the Battle for Novorossiya. The Ukrainians used artillery against cities to kill civilians and destroy infrastructure. The rebels used their guns and rockets in a more professional manner: They relied on reliable reconnaissance and spotting information provided by recon units, spies, informers and UAVs (some of them Russian) and possibly even satellites to deliver accurate strikes against Ukrainian positions. Never in my life as a military enthusiast have I seen a war in which the artillery had such a disproportionate impact on the outcome of a war. “God of War” indeed. 

Northern Wind

Right after Crimea’s unification and throughout the spring of 2014, the Kremlin adopted a “soft” approach by distancing itself from the rebels as much as possible, providing only the minimum amount of support as much indirectly as possible as discretely as possible. The Kremlin also stopped short of accepting the referendum results in Novorossiya. The Russian leadership tried its best to keep all diplomatic channels open.
 
What they received in return was sanctions, media war, demonization and the dispatch of US tanks right to Russia’s border. The West’s leaders were not interested in diplomacy; they were going in as hard as possible thus revealing their ultimate objectives. They wanted to militarily defeat Russia in its own backyard, decimate the Russian economy, weaken the Russian leadership and cause dissent and discord among the Russian population. They were in to defeat their arch enemy: Russia.

Once upon a while there were three sisters living in the Slavic house: Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Then, one day, the middle sister (Ukraine) went on the path of prostitution. She started accepting the West’s money… The big sister (Russia) could not accept that. So, she gently and softly tried to talk her out of it. The middle sister did not listen and became increasingly arrogant. That’s when the big sister decided to slap her.

Novorossiya getting cut-off by Ukrainian Forces

Novorossiya was on the verge of military defeat. That would mean that Russia would completely and forever lose Ukraine and have no leverage on this traditional Russian land. The birthplace of Russia (Kievian Rus) would become an anti-Russia entity. That sort of mortal defeat was deemed unacceptable by Putin and his colleagues. The West was crossing the red line. It was time for a slap on the face.

The destruction of the two Ukrainian brigades in Zelenopolye was just the beginning. The following days and weeks witnessed the systematic destruction of the Ukrainian armed forces in the Donbass. A massive counter attack had begun. Ukrainian troops that earlier had conquered most of the border areas now got surrounded, destroyed or pushed back all the way to the outskirts of the coastal city of Mariopol. During those days, countless numbers of pictures and videos revealed the massive destruction of the Ukrainian army in places ranging from Staraboshevo to Ambrovieska and from Saur-Mogila to Illovaisk. Later on, Ukraine’s president Poroshenko admitted that 65% of his army’s equipment was destroyed in the Donbass. Although he never admitted it, all sources believe that the death toll among Ukrainian servicemen was in the thousands.

The Kiev junta and their Western puppet masters accused Russia of using Russian troops. Naturally, the Russians and the rebels denied all those allegations despite the fact that some fancy new equipment showed up in Donbass during the counter offensive. Those could have come only from Russia. The most obvious ones were T-72 tanks of the B3 version, BTR-82 personnel carriers and MSTA-S self-propelled artillery.

Novorossiya at 1st Ceasefire

The “phenomenon” that sliced through the Ukrainian forces, changed the military balance on the front and made it clear to the whole world that Russia will not allow a defeat of Novorossiya is referred to as “Northern Wind”. The West’s plans were stopped in their tracks. It was time for diplomacy to work out a solution. This website compiles all the equipment losses in Ukraine during the conflict: http://lostarmour.info/. Anything that is not documented by a photo or video is not included in the lists. The Ukrainian material losses are massive.

The Kremlin Takes Control and Reshuffles

With Kiev beaten back, it was time for the Kremlin to make sure that the Novorossiya house was in order. The time of the warlords commanding independent units was over. Novorossiya needed to have a central command and effective leadership. First to be removed from command was Igor Strelkov himself. He was “politely” asked to resign and return to Russia. Strelkov’s removal was necessary for a variety of reasons:

-Strelkov is a Russian citizen after all. A non-Ukrainian citizen still holding a leadership position just does not look right.

-Strelkov is a staunch Monarchist and is not a fan of Putin and the Kremlin leadership.

-Strelkov is too independent-minded, he decided to retreat from Slavyansk when his superiors had not authorized that move.

-Strelkov is great in commanding a small force. He did everything right in the beginning but, as the scale of the conflict and the size of the opposing forces grew, he was no longer as effective. He is an excellent leader for a company or battalion sized force tasked to conduct a specific mission. Hit and run tactics, covert operations, subversive missions and short duration expeditions are his forte. Leading a brigade sized force in a more conventional style positional warfare scenario is not exactly his cup of tea.

Strelkov had done what he was supposed to do. He was no longer useful in the current situation. He simply had to be withdrawn. He could be an asset again in the future in a different place and under different circumstances. Shortly afterwards, other pro-war rebel leaders were removed; Bez, Khodakovky and others were gone one by one. One lesser rebel leader (Batman) who refused to go was killed in vague circumstances. Recently, the very prominent and well known leader of the Prizrak battalion, Alexander Mozgovoi, was also mysteriously assassinated.

Hardliners in the Novorossiya camp were not happy about these moves and even accused Russia of abandoning Donbass to the Ukrainians. Their views were not correct of course as Russia had saved them from defeat on the battlefield. It was time for the diplomats rather than the guns to do talking now. The hardliner’s time was over; it was the time for the moderates. 

Alexander Zacharchenko

Diplomacy

It was the time of Alexander Zakharchenko who just a year ago was an unknown electrician working for a mining company. When the war came to Donbass, he quickly rose in the Oplot militia ranks and became the leader of the group. Well-liked by his men, a positive thinker, a family person who cared about others, charismatic, assertive and soft spoken at the same time, he became the chosen person by the Kremlin to lead the Donetsk region. The population overwhelmingly approved this choice in the local elections. Zakharchenko was now the head of the Popular Republic of Donetsk (DNR), while Igor Plotnisky became the leader of the LNR. From that moment, the hardliner pro-war party took a back bench in Novorossiya. Even the Novorossiya project was frozen since it was a pro-war thing. It was now all about the DNR and LNR staying in the Ukraine as autonomous, independent and self-governing entities. By keeping them in the Ukraine, Russia maintained its influence and leverage over Kiev. The Kiev-junta had now their hands tied and could no longer do as they pleased. This kind of structuring of the Ukrainian nation is reminiscent to present day Iraq where an autonomous Kurdish entity in the north of the country limits the abilities of the central government in Baghdad.

This way, Moscow was keeping a foot in Ukraine without having to financially support its faltering economy and without having to subsidize gas and without having to buy any Ukrainian made goods. This way, Moscow was letting the West bleed by providing loans and grants to the failed nation. This way, Moscow was providing the hate-filled, sadistic, dictatorial, fascist, Russophobe oligarch Kiev junta enough rope to hang itself. This kind of regime can survive in times of war. In peace time they will turn on each other.

The first diplomatic breakthrough was achieved in the Minsk negotiations. A ceasefire was agreed upon and a shaky framework was established in which the DNR and LNR were to remain in Ukraine but have wide-ranging autonomy. Hard liners and pro-war elements on both sides would be sidelined and time would allow the wounds to heal. The Donbass camp, with its pro-war elements now sidelined, went along with the Minsk-1 agreements. The Kiev junta signed the documents but did not comply with what was agreed upon. They had other plans.

First handshake between Putin and Poroshenko

The role of moderates in the West camp was played by Germany and France. These two nations were suffering the most from the war because the EU sanctions were backfiring on them. Now that it was clear that Russia will not be beaten and that it will not allow Donbass to be crushed. Merkel and Hollande started to push for peace and discretely applied pressure on Kiev. But peace was not a good alternative for the blood thirsty regime in Kiev. Their authority was standing on the ultranationalist and fascist thugs. Sidelining or eliminating them was not in their favor. Thus, the Kiev junta remained pro-war. They found support among the hawks in Washington and did not pass the necessary laws to allow the agreed autonomy to the Donbass. They also neglected the ceasefire and continued the shelling.

Eventually, the ceasefire together with the whole Minsk agreements collapsed when in January 2015 Kiev forces launched an attack on the rebel controlled parts of the Donetsk International Airport. Zakharchenko’s reorganized units were ready for them. His two most experienced field commanders “Motorola” and “Givi” with their battle-hardened “Sparta” and “Somali” battalions not only repulsed the attack, but went on the counteroffensive and dislodged all the Ukrainian units from the rest of the airport. This latest Ukrainian defeat was not only tactical but also a morale one. Things got exacerbated even more when rebel units conducted several “recon in force” missions on the southern Mariopol axis. The junta commanders took note of the rapid tactical moves: The rebels were now a well-organized, well led, well-motivated, well trained, well equipped force with high morale.

The junta’s supporters in the West also took note of Kiev’s latest failure. Somehow an agreement was made between Washington, Berlin and Paris to de-escalate things and put things back on the path of peace. The high ground was now occupied by Vladimir Putin. Both Merkel and Hollande had to swallow their pride and fly to Moscow to come to terms with the Kremlin.

The Battle for the Debaltsovo Pocket

Collapse in Debaltsovo

Thus was born the Minsk-2 agreement which now had the backing of all sides. Yet Kiev was delusional. When it came to the nitty-gritty, they kept on negotiating on what they already had lost. A most sore point was the Debaltsovo pocket from which they stubbornly refused to withdraw. Night-long negotiations eventually produced an agreement. But the Debaltsovo matter was left in limbo. Kiev did not want to yield the pocket and had reinforced it in such a way that the rebels could not close it and create a cauldron. To the surprise of most military experts, the Donbass rebel forces did not even attempt to close the pocket at its mouth. Instead they attacked head on through Uglegorsk and took Debaltsovo in a matter of days. Apart from huge personnel losses, the Ukrainian army left behind almost 300 tanks and other armored vehicles, most of them in good condition. Kiev was now beaten fair and square. Support for the pro-war elements was vanishing. Peace was given a chance.

The Dust Settles

Currently, the Minsk-2 ceasefire is not being fully respected on the ground. But the scale of hostilities is at a much reduced scale. We are now in a phase that can be called: no war and no peace. However, the peace brokering countries (Russia, Germany and France) are against the resumption of hostilities and they are exerting enormous pressure on the pro-war factions of both sides. The US administration’s pro-war attitude has also subsided after the Debaltsovo fiasco. Unless some new parameter comes forth, I do not expect a major resumption of hostilities. A slow and gradual improvement on the ground is what should occur. There can be some minor firefights for at least the short to medium term. The Kiev junta has learned its lesson: They will not be able to beat the Donbass rebellion. Russia will not allow that to happen. The Western powers, particularly the European ones, will not support it. The Anti-Maidan is here to stay. The junta will have to live with it. Lately, the president of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko took some limited action to diminish the power and influence of some of the most pro-war elements in his country. He had the Aidar and Donbass battalions disbanded. He removed the notorious Jewish oligarch Kolomoisky from his post hence neutering his Dnepro battalion and he gave a government position to the neo-Nazi Right-Sector movement’s leader Dimitri Yarosh in order to keep him close. Poroshenko’s moves are designed to centralize the power in his government and avoid having insubordinate pro-war military groups in the country.

On the Novorossiya side, it is the moderates that are now prevailing. The pro-war supporters of a free Novorossiya have been sidelined for the time being. The Kremlin has political, economic and military control over the Donbass region. By mid-May, and with John Kerry’s visit to Sochi, the peaceful discussions have gone up a notch with the US and Russia talking directly to each other about Ukraine – even Victoria Nuland is involved.

Thus, in my humble opinion, we have a frozen conflict in Ukraine. The area may remain peaceful for any amount of time, but there is always the possibility of things flaring up upon any serious shift in the prevailing delicate geopolitical equation. Only the future can tell us. So, now that the dust is settling, who won this geopolitical conflict? Of course, there is no party who got all it wanted without losing anything. Likewise, there is no party that got crushed and lost everything. The following analysis reveals who won or lost the most:

-The State of Ukraine that was created in 1991 following the breakup of the Soviet Union stands to be the biggest loser in this conflict. They lost Crimea forever and have also lost control over regions of the Donbass that are only nominally still in the country. Ukraine’s economy is now flirting with bankruptcy, living standards have fallen drastically and millions of Ukrainians have left (and are still leaving) the country. The nation is now politically divided and resentful. All these sacrifices happened for virtually no gain. Their EU membership hopes are as bleak as ever. NATO membership is out of question.

-The ruling pro-West junta consisting of Russophobes, fascists, neo-Nazis, ultra-nationalists and oligarchs who successfully came to power via their Maidan revolution remain in their seats to get personally richer. However, they can stay in power only with an iron hand (their thugs) because the majority of the population does not trust them as much as they did during the Maidan days. I don’t see them fixing the many things in Ukraine that need to be fixed. If there is no fresh popular revolt against them, most of them will be gone at the first free and fair elections.

-For all intents and purposes, Novorossiya is now an independent entity. The Donbass people achieved freedom from Kiev. However they are not an independent country and their territory encompasses only a portion of the actual Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Furthermore, the other pro-Russia regions (Kharkov, Zaporozhe, Kherson, Dnepropetrovsk, Nikolayev and Odessa) are still under the grips of Ukraine. The DNR and LNR economies and infrastructure have been heavily damaged by the fighting. They remain very dependent on Russian help.

-No matter how events developed, the USA had little to lose and possibly could get a lot from the conflict. Their main objective was to integrate an anti-Russia Ukraine into NATO and replace the Russian bases in Crimea with American ones. Moscow successfully blocked these plans. Washington retaliated by exerting every tool in its hands to isolate Russia and inflict huge damage to its economy. Those measures mostly failed as well. What the USA got out of the conflict is a West-friendly Ukraine who can be useful in their imperial quest for world domination. On the other they have now a more resentful Russian leadership and population. Washington’s policies in Ukraine also caused an accelerated rapprochement between Russia and China. They also contributed in creating a wedge between the Russophobe nations of Europe (UK, Poland, Baltics etc.) and the more pragmatic ones (France, Hungary, Austria etc.).

-Europe is a clear loser in this conflict. Their Russia sanctions caused significant and lasting damage to their own trade with Russia. Europe is now divided into countries that strictly and blindly follow Washington’s orders and countries that want to conduct foreign policy based on their own interests. Also, now they have to fix what they have broken. The European Union also has to support the faltering Ukrainian economy at a time where there is economic turmoil in some of its own members. In addition, EU’s own silly policies and procedures inflicted self-damage to their own members; one good example is the cancellation of the South Stream gas pipeline project and its diversion via a Turkish route.

-Russia got back the Crimea (the most worthwhile part of Ukraine), thus securing it’s strategically positioned bases and added the Crimean population and economy to its own. Russia also established a pro-Russia area in the Donbass. Call it Novorossiya, call it Donbass or call it DNR/LNR, this heavily militarized and motivated nation is now Russia’s powerful “hammer” in the Ukraine. Moscow can and will use this heavy tool whenever it finds it appropriate to do so. Furthermore, the battle for Novorossiya puts an end to any hawkish Western plans of encroachment into the Russian sphere. The West learned its lessons by finally understanding that Russia will fight back until it gets a solution it is satisfied with. The sanctions imposed on Russia precipitated a much needed realignment of the Russian economy. On the one hand, Russia pivoted east towards China and made all kind of energy, infrastructure, monetary and trade deals with that most important rising economic powerhouse. On the other hand, Russian economy is now taking all kinds of measures to minimize imports and maximize self-dependency. The economy is now directed towards less depending on energy and raw materials exports and finished goods imports. With my limited Russian language skills, I do watch Russian news channels whenever possible. “Importzamishenya” (import substitution) is now one of the most common words used on the Russian media. In a few short years, among other sectors, Russia will turn into a major foodstuff exporter… but that will be the subject of a whole new article.

In brief, the political West threw lemons at Putin. Putin grabbed the lemons and made lemonade.

Sure, Russia did sustain some losses too. Some might say that it lost most of Ukraine. I respectfully disagree. Russia lost Ukraine back in 1991. Since that date, most Ukrainian presidents and governments were not Russia-friendly. Remember the Orange revolution during the last decade? Ukraine’s fortunes and population’s mood swing widely. I expect change for the better in a matter of years. In fact, anti-Russia sentiment in Western and central Ukraine can’t get much worse than it is right now.

The sanctions imposed by the west coupled with the drop of the price of oil did and still will cause some damage to the Russian economy in the short to medium term. But, throughout history, the following saying applies: “what does not kill you will only make you stronger”. I don’t have to be an expert to be certain that the Russian economy will get stronger.

In short, I believe that after sustaining some losses, Russia ends up being the nation that came up on top in the Ukraine turmoil. I received a strong confirmation of my belief on the 9th of May on the Victory Day celebrations.

Epilogue

This year’s 9th of May marked the 70th anniversary of the Victory over Germany. The events and festivities that marked that day were majestic and very well organized. The military parade was extremely impressive as expected. Apart from the new equipment that was put on display (more about that later), three of the day’s events left a deep emotional impression on yours truly.

-The first was a short symbolic act performed by the Russian Defense Minister who made the sing of the cross on himself publicly at the start of the parade. That act symbolized the fact that Russia has faith in God, in itself and in victory. It means that Russia and Russians are not afraid of the evil and are ready to confront it. It means that Russians will rise up and march whenever the need arises.
 

-The second event was a flower laying ceremony in the Alexandrovky gardens. At the end, a group photo of all the leaders (including Armenian President Sarkisyan) was taken. That photo was “isolated” Russia’s answer to President Obama.
 

-The third event was the extremely heart-warming “March of the Immortals” where half a million Muscovites (and millions more in other cities) marched through Red Square holding portraits of their own ancestors who died during the Great Patriotic War. That event proved that Russia and Russians are now united around the right and just cause. It proved that Russians are more united than ever around their leadership. Vladimir Putin who enjoys popular approval ratings that Western leaders can only dream of was among the crowd holding a portrait of his father. The sanctions against Russia, the demonization of Putin and everything else that the West did during the Ukraine conflict achieved the exact opposite of their expectations. Instead of fragmenting, Russia and Russians where uniting behind their country, their values, their history, their traditions, their faith and their leaders. The West’s worst nightmare happened…and the miscalculating and politically immature Western leaders did it themselves.
 

I pray the one day that together with our political and spiritual leaders, us Armenians from Armenia and the diaspora finally unite. In unity there is strength. I know that the esteemed readers are expecting from me to comment and analyze the new weapon systems that were revealed during the military parade. I will try my best to not fail to meet their expectations. So, let’s get started by clearing some misconceptions:
 

-First of all, the new weapons are not the final products. They are initial production samples that will undergo rigorous testing in various conditions in order to do all the necessary adjustments, corrections and modifications prior to serial production start. The final products may have some differences with what we saw on Red Square. It is expected that serial production of the final products will start in 2-3 years.

T-14 Tank on Armata Platform

-Second, there is no such thing as an Armata tank or Kurganets troop carrier or a Koalitsya self-propelled artillery. These names are the assigned names for platforms or chassis or turrets. For example there is a T-14 tank based on the Armata chassis and a T-15 Infantry combat Vehicle (IFV) based on the Armata chassis. More about that later.

T-15 IFV on Armata Platform

-Third, the Russian Army structure is changing. There will be 3 kinds of units/brigades: Heavy, Medium and Light. The vehicles of the heavy brigades will be based on the Armata platform. The vehicles of the medium brigades will be based on the Kurganets platform while the vehicles of the light brigades will be based on the Boomerang platform. The independent airborne units (VDV) will use their own airdrop able vehicles. There will also be special units that use Typhon-U and Typhon-K type Mine Resistant (MRAP) vehicles.

-Fourthly, very little detail has been provided by the Russians thus far. There is a lot of controversy, disagreements among military experts and enthusiasts who engage themselves into discussions and analysis of the new vehicles. In the following lines, I will mention only the points that are accurately known or generally agreed upon.  Armata platform: What we saw during the parade were the T-14 tank and T-15 infantry fighting vehicles. In the future, there will also be other vehicles/weapons based on this Armata platform including a recovery vehicle. This platform can have the engine in the rear (e.g. the T-14 tank) or up front (T-15). Heavily protected with the latest types of armor, these vehicles also boast Active Protection Systems (APS) that detect incoming anti-tank rockets and kill them with a projectile that explodes in its path. The vehicles also have devices that disrupt the guidance systems of incoming guided missiles.

These vehicles use a multitude of advanced optical, thermal, laser and radar sensors to look around and have accurate/complete situation awareness. No crewman sits in the turrets anymore. The crews are placed in heavily armored capsules providing maximum protection. So, a tank can have its turret blown up and still be able to drive back home, have a new turret placed and go back to the front. The turret of the T-14 tank contains a new 125 mm fully automated gun. A 152mm gun will be available later. The T-15 has the “Epoha” turret that encloses an automatic 30 mm cannon as well as a quartet of the latest version of the Kornet anti-tank guided missile with a range of up to 10 km. The weight of these vehicles is undisclosed. Estimates vary between 48 to 55 tons.

IFV version of Kurganets

Kurganets platform: Two vehicles based on this platform were revealed at the parade. There will be many more including some SAM missile carriers. The IFV version has the same Epoha turret and APS systems as the T-15. The Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) version has a 12.7 mm KORD machine gun and does not have APS, but is simpler and can carry a few more troops. At around 25 tons, these vehicles are lighter than the Armata based vehicles. Their latest generation armor is of course thinner. But these vehicles are fully amphibious and can swim across rivers and other water bodies.

Boomerang platform: This is a wheeled platform (8x8) that will be the basis of all the vehicles in the very mobile light brigades. The only version that was shown is a modern day replacement of the popular BTR series of wheeled APCs. At around 22 tons, this version is equipped with the same Epoha turret of the more heavy platforms.

Boomerang Platform APC

Koalitsya turret: This is a self-contained and unmanned turret that contains a fully automated 152mm long range gun. It can be mounted on tracked or wheeled heavy platforms/chassis. The version that was paraded was on a T-90 tank chassis. In the future, it is expected that it will be mounted on an Armata platform, a heavy Kamaz truck chassis and even on ships. The details that have been disclosed make this gun very impressive. First of all it is super accurate because it has a system that communicates with the outgoing shells that are already in the air. Fuse setting is done remotely (there is no one in the turret). It has the longest range in its class: up to 70 km with some types of advanced shells.

Koalitsya Turret on T-90 Platform

 
These impressive new weapon systems are of a new generation and outclass whatever the rest of the world has currently or is expected to adopt in the near future. We also know that what was shown is just the tip of the iceberg. Apart from other versions of the aforementioned platforms, Russia is close to introducing new SAM systems (S-350, S-500, MORPHEI and others). New MLRS systems replacing the current Uragan and Smerch rockets are coming soon too. New fighters, bombers, warships and submarines are on the way too. A whole new Russian Army is on the rise. A more peaceful world can be seen on the horizon.

Zoravar
May, 2015

***

70th Anniversary Victory Day Military Parade in Photos

 

***

National Interests: Russia's Military Is Back

A million men under arms. Thousands of new tanks and planes. A hundred new satellites. Next-generation weapons. Inside Vladimir Putin's $755 billion plan to restore Russian might.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Vladimir Putin’s presidency has been his commitment to revitalizing Russia’s military. Putin, who has noted that Russia’s perceived weakness makes it vulnerable to external pressure and internal disruption, is pushing for increased funding to transform the Russian armed forces from the debilitated remnants inherited from the old Soviet superpower military machine into a smaller, but more modern, mobile, technologically advanced and capable twenty-first century force.

Earlier this year, in an address delivered on the day devoted to the “defenders of the Fatherland,” the Russian president proclaimed: “Ensuring Russia has a reliable military force is the priority of our state policy. Unfortunately, the present world is far from being peaceful and safe. Long obsolete conflicts are being joined by new, but no less difficult, ones. Instability is growing in vast regions of the world.”

This is not empty talk. The rhetoric has been matched by a concurrent allocation of resources; Russia is now engaged in its largest military buildup since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago, with major increases in defense spending budgeted each year to 2020. Putin has pushed for this program even over the objections of some within the Kremlin who worried about costs and the possible negative impact on Russian prosperity; opposition to the expansion of military spending was one of the reasons the long-serving Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin left the cabinet two years ago.

The rest of the world is taking notice.

After years of thinking of Russia as “Upper Volta with missiles”—a nation which possessed a sizeable strategic nuclear stockpile but whose conventional forces had not particularly covered themselves with glory in their post-Soviet operations—Russian plans for military reform and rearmament have generated some concern, particularly in the U.S. national-security establishment, which had assumed that Russia would not be in a position to project much power across its borders. The resumption of bomber patrols in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, the dispatch of task forces (particularly to the Caribbean), the 2008 campaign against Georgia, and the growing size and sophistication of the yearly joint maneuvers with the Chinese army and navy have all worked to resurrect the image of Russia as a military threat. Justification for U.S. defense expenditures, which previously focused largely on increases in Chinese spending, now take into account Russia’s military buildup as well.

Perusing budget reports and position papers, Russian plans—spearheaded by the Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Dmitry Rogozin, the deputy prime minister in charge of the defense industry—certainly look impressive—and ominous. If, only a few years ago, the shipbuilding budget for the Russian navy was less than 10 percent of the U.S. Navy, the Russians have now closed the gap and the Russians are, in terms of budgetary outlays, spending about half of what will be allocated to the U.S. Navy for new ship construction. By 2020, the Russian army will be structured around combat-ready and easily deployable brigades, with a goal of having those forces be at least 70 percent equipped with next-generation weaponry and equipment. If all goes according to plan, the Russian military, by 2020, will return to a million active-duty personnel, backed up by 2300 new tanks, some 1200 new helicopters and planes, with a navy fielding fifty new surface ships and twenty-eight submarines, with one hundred new satellites designed to augment Russia’s communications, command and control capabilities. Putin has committed to spending some $755 billion over the next decade to fulfill these requirements.

And a growing number of Russians support the military buildup. A Levada Center poll found that 46 percent of Russians were in favor of increasing military spending even if it led to an economic slowdown (versus 41 percent opposed if defense increases caused economic hardship). This is in part due to a growing fear that Russia’s vast natural resource endowment, particularly in the Arctic, is vulnerable if the country lacks the means to protect it. Rogozin himself has continuously warned that without a modern military force, Russia is liable to be “looted” in the future.

Yet there is often a noticeable gap between declared Russian intentions and executable results. To what extent are these ambitious goals realizable?

Some observers have been prepared to write off these plans as Potemkin posturing—or new and creative ways to transfer more of Russia’s state funds into private hands through creative, corrupt schemes. Certainly, any expansion of the military budget represents enormous opportunities for graft. But it would be a mistake to dismiss the clear evidence that this buildup is restoring capabilities to the Russian armed forces that had been lost after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the last eighteen months, Russia conducted military exercises on a scale not seen since the end of the Cold War (such as the recently concluded military trials in the Far East). While still highlighting problems with command and control systems and with equipment, these nonetheless have also demonstrated that the reforms are starting to have an impact, and that Russia is capable of fielding a more mobile, effective force.

This concerns NATO a great deal. The North Atlantic alliance’s ability to conduct “out-of-area” operations, combined with the decision by most European countries to significantly reduce their defense spending, was predicated on an assumption that Russia no longer poses a threat. While no one is anticipating Russian tanks again poised to rush through the Fulda Gap, the American expectation that Europe could become a “security exporter” to other, more troubled parts of the world must now be revisited, since Russia is effectively reversing its “disarmed” condition of the 1990s upon which such calculations were based.

At the same time, however, the buildup will not be smooth sailing for the Russian government.

The first issue is whether Russia’s defense industry can actually produce the tools called for in the new defense strategy. Dmitry Gorenburg of the Center for Naval Analyses has noted that the plans released by the Ministry of Defense rely on overly optimistic assessments of how quickly Russian factories and shipyards can turn out new equipment—assuming that there will be no delays, technical or design problems, or bottlenecks. Design problems have already forced a two-year delay in implementing a state procurement order for thirty-seven Su-35 aircraft, which will not be fulfilled until 2016. Gorenburg and other experts argue that it is highly unlikely that the buildup will come close to meeting the stated targets.

Moreover, the Russian military-industrial complex is far from achieving a “zero-defects” standard when it comes to producing equipment. A string of missile failures (particularly with the Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile), delays in releasing new ships (or in getting the retrofitted aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov/Vikramaditya ready for service in the Indian Navy), and issues with quality control in vehicles have all raised questions about the reliability of Russian-made military products.

There is also real concern about the health of Russia’s research and development sector and whether or not Russia can indigenously produce many of the technologies needed to produce fifth-generation weapons systems. Former defense minister Anatoly Serdyukov strongly resisted pressure to simply order slightly-newer variants of older, Soviet-era equipment, even though Russian industries were lobbying for increased state orders, and sought to import defense items from abroad, including drones from Israel, the Iveco light multirole vehicles from Italy, and the Mistral amphibious assault ships from France, as a way to equip the Russian military with newer technologies that could not be produced by domestic sources. (Finding ways to license or reverse-engineer foreign military technology will be one of the Russian defense industry’s major tasks in the coming decade). Discontent with Serdyukov’s willingness to turn to foreign suppliers, however, was one of the contributing factors in his removal as defense minister last year.

Serdyukov also attempted to reform the manpower structure of the Russian military, again arousing significant opposition by his efforts to reduce the size of the officer corps (especially the number of general and flag officers) and to push the Russian military away from reliance on the draft towards the development of a volunteer, professional force. But announced plans to increase the size of the standing army run up against Russia’s demographic realities. Russia has a labor shortage; the recovery of the Russian economy has diminished the surplus pool of excess labor that in years past would have been absorbed by the draft. Between deferments and the increase in health problems among some segments of the Russian population, some 60 percent of the draft-age population of young males is now ineligible for service. Efforts to make contract service more appealing (following some of the reforms undertaken in the United States in the shift to an all-volunteer force back in the 1970s) have had some successes, but while the Russian military has announced it will create forty new brigades (to augment the some seventy brigades already in existence) by 2020, it must also deal with the reality that many existing units are 25 percent or so understrength. Shoigu must continue reforms of how the Russian military recruits (and treats) its personnel—the compulsory draft and the harsh conditions created by the so-called dedovshchina system (the hazing of new recruits by their non-commissioned officers and other superiors) do not lend themselves to creating a more professional military force capable of attracting and retaining volunteers. The amount that must be spent—on increased salaries, perks and incentives—to attract more Russians to contract service may also be more than what the defense establishment is willing to pay.

Much will depend on several factors. The first is whether the Russian treasury will hang on to the same expected level of funds from the export of oil and natural gas to support the military transformation; any major collapse in the price of energy imperils these plans. The second is whether the Russian defense industry can become more agile and adaptive. Will they use increases in state spending to successfully unveil new products? This will be important not only to fulfill Putin’s requirements but also to retain Russia’s traditionally lucrative overseas markets for sales of military goods. Russia will lose its competitive edge not only to American and European competitors but also to Chinese firms if it cannot keep pace with newer developments in defense technology. A third point is whether the Russian military can obtain the manpower it needs, whether by offering better terms of contract service or being permitted to recruit among Russian-speaking populations elsewhere in the former Soviet Union.

But even if the Defense Ministry’s ambitious targets for how many personnel it expects to have under arms and the quantity of advanced equipment it hopes to field are not met in full, the Russian military is growing stronger. Russia may not be in a position to directly challenge the United States—whose spending still far outstrips that of Moscow’s—but given other regional trends, especially in Europe, it is restoring its conventional capabilities to back up claims to great power status. Whether the newfound confidence that results will make Russia more cooperative or obstructionist in the international arena is an open question.

Source: http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/russias-military-back-9181?page=show

CFR: The Russian Military

Introduction

The Russian military suffered years of neglect after the Soviet collapse and no longer casts the shadow of a global superpower. However, the Russian armed forces are in the midst of a historic overhaul with significant consequences for Eurasian politics and security. Russian officials say the reforms are necessary to bring a Cold War-era military into the twenty-first century, but many Western analysts fear they will enable Moscow to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy, often relying on force to coerce its weaker neighbors. Some say Russian interventions in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014—both former Soviet republics seeking closer ties to the West—demonstrate that President Vladimir Putin is prepared to use military force to reestablish Russian hegemony in its near abroad.

What are Russian conventional military capabilities?

Both in terms of troops and weapons, Russian conventional forces dwarf those of its Eastern European and Central Asian neighbors (see Table 1), many of which are relatively weak ex-Soviet republics closely allied with Moscow. Russia has a military pact with Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan through the Collective Security Treaty Organization, formed in 1992. Moscow also stations significant troops in the region: Armenia (3,200), Georgia's breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (7,000), Moldova's separatist Transnistria region (1,500), Kyrgyzstan (500), and Tajikistan (5,000).

Table 1

As part of defense reforms, most Russian ground forces are to be professionalized and reorganized into formations of a few thousand troops for low- and medium-intensity conflicts. But for the foreseeable future many will remain one-year conscripts with limited training (military service is compulsory for Russian men aged eighteen to twenty-seven). The Airborne Assault Forces, which comprises about thirty-five thousand troops and whose commander answers directly to Putin, is Russia's elite crisis-reaction force. A Special Operations Command, also a reserve of Putin, was created in 2013 to manage special operators outside Russian borders.

Moscow is intent on remilitarizing its Arctic territory and is restoring Soviet-era airfields and ports to help protect important hydrocarbon resources and shipping lanes. (Russia has the world's largest fleet of icebreakers, which are regularly required to navigate these waters.) In late 2013, Putin ordered the creation of a new strategic military command in the Russian Arctic.

Figure 1

Meanwhile, rearmament has been slow, and much of the military's equipment remains decades old. The once formidable Soviet navy is now little more than a coastal protection force, experts say. All of the navy's large vessels, including its flagship and sole aircraft carrier, the non-nuclear Kuznetsov, are holdovers from the Cold War. (By comparison, the United States has ten nuclear carriers and builds several new warships each year.) Russian air power will also be limited, at least in the short term. Aircraft manufacturer Sukhoi is developing several new advanced warplanes, including a fifth-generation "stealth" fighter (the T-50), but production has been sluggish in some cases, and most of the current air force dates from the 1980s.

Russia has made the modernization of its air and space defenses a top priority of the rearmament program, establishing a consolidated Aerospace Defense Command in 2011. The mainstay of this defense network is the S-400, a long- to medium-range surface-to-air missile system, to be deployed near Moscow and strategic positions along Russia's perimeter. A more advanced S-500 is in development.

What are Russian nuclear capabilities?

Russia's vast nuclear arsenal remains on par with the United States and is the country's only residual great power feature, military experts say. Moscow has about 1,500 strategic warheads on deployed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarines, and heavy bombers. These numbers comply with the so-called New START treaty with the United States, which came into force February 2011. Russia is also believed to have some 2,000 nonstrategic (also referred to as tactical, theater, or battlefield) nuclear warheads.

Russia leaned on its nuclear deterrent as its conventional force languished in the years after the Soviet collapse. NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 added to fears in the Kremlin that the U.S.-led alliance might impede Russia's ability to act in the region. Moscow appeared to lower its nuclear threshold in 2000, permitting the use of such weapons in response to major conventional attacks. By comparison, Soviet doctrine reserved nuclear weapons for use only in retaliation for a nuclear attack. Much of the Russian nuclear deterrent is being modernized: a new class of ballistic missile submarine is coming into service; some strategic bombers are being upgraded; and there are plans to replace all Soviet-era ICBMs over the next decade or so.

What is the Russian military budget?

At close to $90 billion for 2013, the Russian military budget has more than doubled over the last decade (see Figure 2), trailing behind only China ($188 billion) and the United States ($640 billion), according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). (Data includes funding for armed services, paramilitary forces, military space activities, foreign military aid, and military R&D.)

Defense spending has benefited from a surge in global energy prices over the last decade, as oil and gas account for more than half of Russia's federal budget revenues, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In 2014, Russia is about half way through a ten-year $700 billion weapons modernization program, with priorities given to strategic nuclear weapons, fighter aircraft, ships and submarines, air defenses, communications and intelligence.

But analysts say recent spending should be taken in context. First, defense outlays plunged dramatically during the 1990s and remain well below Soviet levels. Second, Russia still spends a fraction of what the United States and many of its allies spend per soldier. Third, high inflation rates in the defense industry as well as endemic corruption consume a large portion of newly allocated resources. And, lastly, Russian defense spending is closely tied to global energy prices, which can fluctuate dramatically. Many analysts link the two-thirds drop in oil prices in the mid-1980s to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Figure 2

What prompted the reforms?

The five-day conflict with Georgia in August 2008 exposed major deficiencies—in command-and-control systems, hardware, weaponry, and intelligence—and confirmed that Russia's mass-mobilization military, where millions of conscripts could marshal to protect the motherland, remained outdated.

"The Georgian war was arguably the last war of the twentieth century for Russia's armed forces; in the sense that it was largely fought using organizations, tactics, and equipment designed in the last century," wrote Roger N. McDermott, a Eurasian military expert at the Jamestown Foundation, in 2009.

In the weeks after the conflict, Defense Minister Anatoliy Serdyukov, a powerful reformer appointed by Putin, recommitted the military to a lengthy overhaul involving massive personnel cuts (from 1.2 million to 1 million), rearmament, and reorganization into a professional force capable of responding quickly to acute crises.

Experts assessing the status of reform in late 2013 say it has lacked strategic direction and suffered from major planning failures, and they forecast a number of challenges related to personnel, funding, and procurement in years ahead. However, they conclude the overhaul has made tremendous strides. "It is undoubtedly the case that post-[military] transformation Russia will have a very different force available from the one that went into action in Georgia in 2008, and one that is more effective, flexible, adaptable, and scalable for achieving Russia's foreign policy aims," wrote coauthors of a Strategic Studies Institute report.

What does Russia consider threats?

Russian leaders acknowledge that there is now little threat of a large-scale NATO land invasion— a top concern of the Cold War—but they repeatedly criticize the bloc's eastward expansion, including its plans to roll out a ballistic missile defense shield across Europe. The United States, which developed the technology, says the system is only designed to guard against limited missile attacks from "rogue" states like Iran, but Moscow believes the technology could be updated and may tip the strategic nuclear balance. Putin and his military leaders have also frequently expressed concern with conventional precision strike weapons being developed by rivals.

Figure 3

Moscow believes the so-called color revolutions—a series of popular uprisings in former Soviet satellites—were concerted attempts by the United States and its allies to erode Russian influence in the region. "Russian foreign policy appears to be based on a combination of fears of popular protest and opposition to U.S. world hegemony, both of which are seen as threatening the Putin regime," writes Dmitry Gorenburg, an expert on the Russian military at CNA, a Virginia-based research institution.

But many western and Russian analysts say Moscow's concerns with NATO are often overstated and divert attention from more practical threats like those looming on Russia's southern periphery, including ethnic insurgencies in the North Caucasus region, weapons proliferation, and a potential resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

What are Russia's strategic objectives in the region?

Military modernization will enable the world's largest country by far (and one of the most sparsely populated) to better defend its vast territory and national interests. But the conflicts in Ukraine and Georgia have aroused concerns about Russian aggression, namely Putin's willingness to use military force unilaterally to preserve Russia's traditional sphere of influence.

Shortly before annexing Crimea in March 2014, Putin said he would defend the rights of Russians abroad, and in April he referred to a large swath of Ukrainian territory as Novorossiya (New Russia), a term used during imperial Russia. According to NATO and Ukrainian officials, Moscow has provided ethnic Russian insurgencies in Eastern Ukraine with training, personnel, and heavy weapons, including battle tanks and antiaircraft missiles. In November, Russia acknowledged rebel elections in the breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, a move that echoed Russia's unilateral recognition of separatist governments in Abkhazia and South Ossetia after its conflict with Georgia in 2008.

But Russia's assertiveness has come with a cost. The Group of Eight (now G7) cut Moscow out of its elite club in March, and top Russian officials, banks, and businesses face an array of Western sanctions that may push the economy into recession. The Russian military will also suffer: France has delayed delivery of the first of two Mistral-class amphibious warships, and Russia's extensive defense-industrial cooperation with Ukraine is in jeopardy.

Experts say that there may also be domestic political consequences down the road. "[Putin]'s brand of ethnic geopolitics, redolent of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth, is a double-edged sword," wrote Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution, in August 2014. "It could shrink Russian territory, since vast parts of that country are populated by non-Russian ethnic groups who are unlikely to welcome or, over the long run, tolerate a Russian chauvinist in the Kremlin."

What is U.S. and NATO strategy toward Russia?

Alliance leaders are reassessing defenses in Europe, particularly in the East. Since the annexation of Crimea, NATO has quadrupled (to sixteen) the number of warplanes policing the Baltics, which have witnessed a major surge in provocations involving Russian planes. NATO also announced plans for a new rapid reaction force—the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF)—of about five thousand troops. Officials say the VJTF should be fully operational in early 2016 and will serve as an elite subset of the NATO Response Force composed of thirteen thousand troops.

Some analysts recommend the alliance adopt a strategy of containment not unlike that of the Cold War. "Give up any hope of a return to business as usual; Boost the defense of Baltic states and Poland; Expose Russian corruption in the West; Impose sweeping visa sanctions on the Russian elite; Help Ukraine; and Reboot the Atlantic Alliance," writes British journalist and Russia expert Edward Lucas.

CFR's Janine Davidson, an expert on military and defense strategy, says that NATO members need to prepare for the type of guerilla tactics Russia has used in eastern Ukraine. "NATO must consider what happens if and when these well-armed, unmarked, [Special Operations Forces]-like, suspiciously disciplined masked men turn up in a NATO nation, such as Estonia or Latvia (respectively 24 and 27 percent ethnic Russian) and commence another creeping invasion," she writes.

At the same time, CNA's Gorenburg says Baltic governments should be wary of Russian subversion. "There is a danger that in focusing too much on strengthening military defenses, the Baltic states and NATO will neglect the non-military tools in Russia's toolkit, including promoting and funding Euroskeptic political movements, encouraging radical groups to commit violent acts to create an environment of disorder, and using information warfare techniques to strengthen anti-government and anti-EU attitudes among minority populations," he told CFR.

Source: http://www.cfr.org/russian-federation/russian-military/p33758

Janes: Russia's Armour Revolution

Paraded uncovered for the first time on 9 May in Moscow, Russia's new range of armoured vehicles represent not only the biggest change in the country's armoured vehicle families since the 1970s but also a new design ethos. While the vehicles' designs partly involve radical rather than revolutionary innovation, the scale and ambition of the change they embody is nothing short of a revolution. Together, the Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang, and Koalitsiya and other vehicles on show will replace nearly all Russia's existing vehicle families as, remarkably, Russia is attempting to replace all its main armoured fighting vehicle (AFV) families at the same time.
 
Additionally, the new vehicles display radical changes in design ethos and incorporate multiple previously unseen active protection systems (APSs). The reported weight and the apparent size of all the vehicles indicates a shift in armoured vehicle design philosophy away from the Soviet emphasis on manoeuvrability and low vehicle profile towards the Western focus on armour protection and crew survivability. While many details of the vehicles had already been known, and were covered in depth by JDW in April, the full unveiling of the vehicles has revealed many fascinating new details and added greatly to our understanding of the vehicle family designs.

T-14 Armata main battle tank (MBT)

The T-14 is Russia's first truly new tank design since the T-72, designed in the early 1970s. Based on the Armata Universal Tracked Platform, the T-14's most attention-grabbing feature is its unmanned turret, with all of the MBT's three crew (commander, driver, gunner) seated in a well-protected crew compartment at the front of the hull.

 

Russia's T-14 Armata MBT (IHS/Andrey Kryuchenko/Russian MoD)

 
Seven T-14s took part in the parade and the type is slated to replace the Russian Ground Forces' T-72M3 and T-90 main battle tanks (MBTs) currently in service. Notably, the unveiled turret dispels suggestions the MBT would be armed with a coaxial 30 mm cannon, in addition to its 2A82A 125 mm main gun. Indeed the pre-production vehicles paraded by Russia feature neither a 30 mm cannon nor a coaxial machine gun (MG) armament as expected, although the production vehicles might eventually feature the dual 30 mm cannon/7.62 mm MG.
 
Although the T-14's turret features a large bustle, it remains unclear whether this features the autoloader/weapon-handling system for the MBT's main gun or serves another purpose (meaning the T-14 would retain the vulnerable hull-mounted carousel system present in previous Russian MBTs). Some reports also indicate Russia has not entirely abandoned its ambitions to arm Armata with a 152 mm main gun. If this is the case, it could explain why the T-14's unmanned turret has an unusually high profile relative to the position of the 125 mm main gun, with the turret possibly designed to incorporate growth potential up to the 152 mm calibre.
 
T-14 is armed with a remote-controlled turret (RCT) armed with a 7.62 mm PKTM MG, with the unit also functioning as the commander's independent sight. The gunner's sight is mounted to the left side of the main gun and shielded by a two-piece armoured door to protect it from small arms fire. A barrel reference unit is mounted above the base of the 2A82A main gun, which notably lacks a fume bore extractor (which would be superfluous given the turret is unmanned). Metrological, satellite communications, GLONASS, datalink, and radio communications antennae are fitted on the roof of the turret.
 
The MBT's turret is literally covered in a variety of launcher and sensor systems understood to be linked to a new APS system, which some reports call 'Afghanit'. At the base of each side of the turret are five large and fixed horizontally arrayed launch tubes covering the 120° frontal arc of the turret. These bear a strong resemblance to the launchers for the earlier Drozd and Drozd-2 APS, which fired a hard-kill 107 mm unguided projectile armed with a high-explosive-(HE) fragment warhead to defeat incoming anti-tank guided weapons (ATGWs).
 
The T-14 is also fitted with four sets of smaller-calibre launchers, with each unit armed with 12 launch tubes. Two horizontally trainable launcher units are fitted on either side of the top of the turret, while two apparently fixed and vertically facing launcher units are recessed into the top of the tank's turret.
 
It is unclear whether this second system fires hard-kill (ie warheads) or soft-kill (ie anti-infrared/laser-obscuring smoke) munitions, or a combination of the two. It is also unclear if the vertically mounted units are fireable, or simply storage for reload units for the two trainable launchers. One limitation of the Drozd systems were that they provided no protection against threats emanating from above the tank, so mounting the fixed launchers vertically could be one way to provide protection against top-attack threats.
 
Providing warning and guidance for the APS system are two types of sensors mounted around the T-14's turret. Two large sensors, believed to be electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR)-based laser warning receivers, are angularly mounted on the front of the turret providing 180° coverage, while four smaller sensors (covered but believed to be radars) are mounted around the turret providing 360° coverage.
 
Armata features a notably different hull design to the T-72/90. One striking difference is the road wheels, which are of a different design to the T-72/90's, while the Armata features seven road wheels, to the six of the previous MBT designs, with the drive wheel at the rear. This is similar to the T-80 MBT family, which also has chassis with seven smaller road wheels.
 
It is not known whether Armata is equipped with a gas-turbine or a diesel engine, but the T-14's powerpack is mounted at the rear of the MBT, with two internal fuel tanks mounted on either side, and exhausts also mounted on either side. Day/night cameras are mounted around the T-14's turret to provide situational awareness, while a forward-looking EO/IR (FLIR) system is mounted on the front of the hull for the driver. The driver's hatch has no periscopes. When driving buttoned-down, the driver may be in a reclined position, using a set of periscopes mounted on a second hatch directly behind him.
 
NII Stali is understood to have designed a new form of steel armour for the Armata family. Speaking to TASS, a NII Stali representative said the "steel armour alloy, named 44S-sv-Sh [44S--], is approved by the Armata's developer. The alloy's operational testing has been started and it can be used in prospective vehicles' parts". The use of the 44S-sv-Sh steel in Armata is intended to provide protection at a similar level to STANAG 4569 (first edition) Level 5. The high level of 44S-sv-Sh's protection is ensured by the short-grained material structure, the optimised legation process and the special heat processing. The steel has also been designed to maintain its characteristics in very cold conditions.
 
The Armata design is also understood to utilise explosive reactive armour (ERA) within its base design (rather than the appliqué ERA tiles seen on previous Russian MBTs), with views from above the MBT showing a distinctive tiled pattern indicative of ERA on the top of the vehicle's chassis and turret. Although what appear to be ERA tiles are present on the turret roof, much of the sides of the turret appears to be just a thin cladding covering the various APS and sighting systems rather than armour. Appliqué armour (unclear if passive or ERA, or both) is fitted to the forward two thirds of the T-14's sides, while the rear third is protected by bar armour to provide clearance for the T-14's exhausts.

T-15 Heavy Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV)

Also based on the Armata universal platform and fully unveiled during the 9 May parade is the T-15 Heavy IFV.

 

Russia's T-15 Armata Heavy IFV. (IHS/Andrey Kryuchenko/Russian MoD)

 
For the creation of the T-15 the Armata chassis has been reversed in its entirety to create a compartment to accommodate dismounts at the rear of the IFV. Accordingly, the T-15's powerpack is mounted at the front of the vehicle, with the drive wheel also at the front and the exhausts now on the forward sides of the vehicle. This swap has necessitated relocating the vehicle's fuel tanks, while to protect the normally weaker armour of the rear of the Armata chassis a distinctive arrowhead-shaped armour package extends around the forward sides of the vehicle. To accommodate the vehicle's exhausts the side armour is overhanging rather than arrowhead. The overall effect of this is to give the vehicle an odd, bulbous appearance. The top of the vehicle's chassis appears to be protected by integrated ERA tiles.

T-15 Armata heavy infantry fighting vehicles (IFV) take part in the Victory Day Parade in Moscow. (PA Photos)

 
The T-15 is armed with a KBP Instrument Design Bureau Epoch Almaty-designed RCT at the rear of the vehicle equipped with a 30 mm 2A42 cannon, 7.62 mm coaxial MG, and a bank of two Kornet-M ATGWs on either side. The RCT features a gunner's sight to the right of the main gun and an independent commander's sight on the top of the turret on the left-hand side. The heavy IFV is also fitted with an advanced armour package on the side of the vehicle. The T-15 appears to feature the same APS sensors and launchers as seen on the T-14, although mounted on the hull of the vehicle rather than its turret. A three-man crew (commander, gunner, driver) are located in the centre of the vehicle, behind the engine, with the rear of the vehicle's hull raised to accommodate the troop compartment and turret. Egress from the crew compartment is made via a power-assisted door at the rear of the vehicle. The front/underside of both the T-14 and T-15 is fitted with what appears to be a small entrenching/counter-mine system.

Kurganets-25

The lighter, 25-tonne, Kurganets-25 was present in two variants at the 9 May parade: IFV and armoured personnel carrier (APC). The new vehicle family appears significantly wider and taller than BMP series of vehicles it is slated to replace.

Russian Kurganets-25 IFVs take part in the 9 May 2015 Victory Day Parade in Moscow. (PA Photos)

 
The IFV variant is armed with the same 30 mm cannon/Kornet ATGW armed turret as the T-15. Uralvagonzavod has also created its AU-220M turret armed with a 57 mm cannon, which is understood to be in contention to be fitted to the IFV variant, although this was not fitted to the Kurganets-25 IFVs taking part in the parade. Much like the Armata vehicles, the Kurganets-25 IFV appears to feature two types of APS sensor and effector, although these appear subtly different to those on the Armata vehicles. Fixed launchers are placed all around the vehicle hull, providing 360° coverage. While these resemble the launches on the Armata vehicles, they appear to be of a much smaller calibre. A two-part sensor system, similar to the laser-warning receivers on the Armata vehicles, is also located around the hull. Oddly, three sensors are located on the left-side of the vehicle, but only two on the right-side. Given both sets of sensors and effectors are located on the hull, it would appear the two systems are linked.

Russia's Kurganets-25 armoured personnel carrier (APC) takes part in the Victory Day Parade in Moscow. (Nikolai Novichkov)

 
Three two-part sensors (covered during the parade) are also mounted around the turret, along with four sets of effectors on the front of the turret and two mounted sidewise on the rear of the turret. It is unclear what these effectors are, but they appear similar to an unknown system seen mounted on the turret of the earlier T-95 (Object 195) prototype MBT. On the IFV, each set has a pair of what are either round windows or frangible covers. If they are windows, this system could be a new APS interference emitter similar to a greatly slimmed-down version of the soft-kill Shtora system present on the T-90. Alternatively, each set could contain two of the effectors from the smaller-calibre launchers on the Armata vehicles. Given that the coverage provided by the location of the effectors appears to intermesh, the latter option seems more likely.

Kurganets-25 IFV. (IHS/Andrey Kryuchenko)

 
The APC version, meanwhile, is fitted with a much smaller RCT armed with 12.7 mm MG. The APC lacks the hull-mounted sensors or effectors seen on the IFV variant, and instead features solely the second APS type present on the Kurganets-25 IFV. While the sensor configuration is the same for this APS on both the APC and IFV variants, the configuration of the effectors differs. On the APC vehicle, the effectors are located only on the front of the turret and instead of six sets of paired effectors, there are four sets of paired effectors, and four sets of single effectors.

Kurganets-25 APC. (IHS/Andrey Kryuchenko)

 
Both the APC and IFV variants are otherwise identical, with a forward-mounted powerpack and seven road wheels. Commander and driver's hatches are present in front of the turret, with access to the troop compartment via a rear door. Unlike in previous Russian IFV designs, there are no other hatches for troops carried inside, apart from the rear door. Neither variants feature any obvious ERA, although ERA has not typically been fitted to Russian IFVs. Both feature a large appliqué kit to the sides of the vehicle, although whether this is principally for armour or flotation purposes is unclear. Amphibious capability has been designed into the Kurganets family, with both featuring a bow plane and waterjets installed within the rear of the hull.

Boomerang

The Boomerang 8x8 vehicle also made its full debut at the 9 May parade, and is intended to replace the BTR-family of vehicles, the most recent variant in Russian service being the BTR-82A.

Russian Ground Forces Bumerang (Boomerang) 8 x 8 infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). (Nikolai Novichkov)

 
The 8x8 is armed with the same turret as both the T-15 and the Kurganets-25 IFV, although the examples taking part in the parade were fitted with no APS systems. An APC variant fitted with an RCT with a 12.7 mm MG is also understood to be planned.

Boomerang 8x8 IFV. (IHS/Andrey Kryuchenko)

 
Boomerang's powerpack is located in the front right-hand side of the vehicle, with the driver at the front-left side of the vehicle. Neither the vehicle's commander nor gunner have their own hatch, although unlike the Kurganets vehicles there are two roof-hatches for the troop compartment. With the engine located in the front of the vehicle, troops can egress via a door at the rear of the vehicle, unlike the awkward side doors of the BTR series (which had their engine at the rear). Also designed to be amphibious, Boomerang is equipped with a bow plane at the front of the hull and shrouded propellers at the rear of the 8x8.

Koalitsiya-SV

Also shown off on the 9 May parade was the 2S35 Koalitsiya-SV (Coalition-SV) self-propelled artillery (SPA) system, which will replace the 2S19 MSTA-S SPA in Russian Ground Forces service.

Russia's Koalitsia-SV (Coalition-SV) self propelled artillery system (SPA) takes part in the Victory Day Parade in Moscow. (PA Photos)

 
This is understood to feature a new 152 mm ordnance utilising a modular charge system. This main gun features notably different muzzle brake and recoil dampeners to the earlier SPA. An RCT armed with a 12.7 mm MG is mounted on the roof of the turret. There are two bundles of 902B Tucha smoke grenade launchers mounted on either side of the cabin and no other APS effectors, although four warning receivers are located on the SPA's turret. The main turret, understood to be unmanned akin to the T-14's turret, is significantly longer than the 2S19's.

 

Koalitsiya 152 mm SPA. (IHS/Andrey Kryuchenko)

 
Although Koalitsiya-SV was slated to be based on the Armata universal chassis, the pre-production vehicles appear based on a modified T-72/90 chassis. The general layout and roadwheels appears to be identical to those on the T-72/90 chassis, although the front of the chassis has been heavily modified to create positions for the commander and gunner on either side of the driver. Unlike on Armata, where the driver is located on the right side of the vehicle, the driver on Koalitsiya is located in the centre of the vehicle (as seen in the T-72/90 and 2S19).
 
According to Georgy Zakamennih, chief director of TsNII Burevestnik, the developer of the 2S35, Coalition-SV has a maximum range of 70 km when firing advanced shells. He added that its ammunition load is larger than Western analogues. There is a unified command-and-control panel on which all the actions are displayed. The system's pneumatic loader is billed as increasing Coalition-SV's rate of fire. 2S35 can automatically choose the appropriate type of shell and fire it. Coalition-SV is therefore not a classic self-propelled gun but an innovative robotised complex, autonomous to a high extent, he said.

Source:http://www.janes.com/article/51469/russia-s-armour-revolution

The Russian Army's Secret Weapon: Enter the Armata Program

With America's own tanks becoming quite dated and running out of upgrade options, Russia's latest efforts to modernize its armored fighting vehicles should be cause for concern

The Russian Army will induct a new family of armored combat vehicles collectively called the Armata next year to replace its existing armored war machines, according to Russian state media. Production of the new armored vehicles is expected to start at the beginning of 2015 in January and two dozen of the new machines are expected to participate in the Victory Day parade in Moscow next year—as America struggles with the future of its own armored combat vehicles.

“The first batch will be available next year. You will see them in Red Square on May 9,” Oleg Bochkaryov, deputy chairman of Russia’s military-industrial commission, told the state-run ITAR-TASS news agency on November 18.

Developed by the Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) Corporation in the remote city of Nizhny Tagil in the Ural Mountains, the Armata is being developed in multiple variants, including a main battle tank, infantry fighting vehicle, a heavy-armored personnel carrier, self-propelled artillery and two support vehicle variants. The Russian ground forces are expected show off two-dozen machines during the parade—half will be the main battle-tank variant, while the remainder will be the armored personnel-carrier variant.

The Armata will ultimately replace the Cold War–era T-64, T-72, T-80 and comparatively newer T-90 tanks by the 2030s—assuming the Russian government can pay for it. The Armata series will also replace the BMP-series infantry fighting vehicles and a host of other vehicles; production could go into the tens of thousands if Russia were able to replace its existing vehicles on a one-for-one basis.

According to ITAR-TASS, the main battle-tank variant will be armed with a 125-mm cannon—which has been the standard on Soviet-built hardware in the 1960s—but the weapon will be mounted on an unmanned turret. The crew will be housed in a separate armored compartment—which is a unique configuration for any modern main battle tank. Some Russian media reports have suggested that the Armata’s armor is specifically being tailored to operate well in the Arctic Circle, an area of the world that is becoming increasingly important for that country’s embattled economy.

Further, in a marked departure from the usual Soviet practice, the Armata program appears to place a far higher priority on crew survivability than any previous Soviet or Russian tank. That could be because Russia is trying to transition from a Soviet-era, conscription-based force to a professional army where individual soldiers are not considered expendable.

(You May Also Like: 5 Russian Weapons of War NATO Should Fear) 

As such, the Armata-series vehicles are being designed with a completely new armor layout and will have all-aspect protection, Vyacheslav Khalitov, Uralvagonzavod deputy general director, told the Russian News Service radio station. The crew will be separated from the vehicle’s fuel and ammunition stocks, Khalitov said. As such, it’s possible the internal configuration of the new vehicles bears more resemblance to Western machines such as the M1A2 Abrams or German Leopard 2A7+ than to older Soviet tanks.

Little else is known about the Armata project, save for the fact that everything appears to be proceeding more or less on schedule—if Russian reports are to be believed. “Everything is proceeding in line with the contract. Work is being done ahead of schedule. We get ahead of all schedules,” Oleg Siyenko, Uralvagonzavod general director told ITAR-TASS in September. Additionally, Siyenko said that Armata project is currently meeting all of the Russian military’s requirements.

However, the Armata might be proving to be more expensive than the Russian government expected. Bochkaryov told ITAR-TASS that the Armata’s price tag is currently too high. Nonetheless, the Russian government is expected to sign a three-year deal to build the Armata at a set price. “We will continue to work with them, because we disagree with Uralvagonzavod high price,” Bochkaryov told Russia Today, another state-run media outlet. According to ITAR-TASS, Uralvagonzavod officials have promised to reduce the price of the new vehicle.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Army has made several abortive attempts to replace the long-serving Bradley infantry fighting vehicle and the Abrams main battle tank. In the early 2000s, the Army launched the Future Combat Systems (FCS) as a family of lightweight vehicles that would replace the service’s heavily armored tanks, infantry fighting vehicle and self-propelled artillery and other machines.

The idea was to develop multiple vehicles based on a common 20-ton lightweight chassis with the same survivability as an Abrams, so that an entire brigade could be deployed in eighteen hours to anywhere on the planet. However, physics intervened. It quickly became obvious that a 20-ton vehicle could never hope to match the protection of a 70-ton tank—short of some sort of miraculous breakthrough.

The Ground Combat Vehicle program—meant to replace just the Bradley—followed the 2009 termination of the FCS effort, but that effort, too, was cancelled in February 2014 after the machine started to morph into an unwieldy and expensive behemoth. The current effort is called the Future Fighting Vehicle program—it’s too early to tell where that program is heading, however.

Meanwhile, there is no program to replace the Abrams main battle tank. The Army hopes to eventually build (or more precisely, remanufacture) a new version of the tank that will be called the M1A3 sometime around 2018.

However, in the long term, the Abrams needs to be replaced, one senior Army armor officer said. The 1970s-era design is at its limit for upgrades. The tank is all but tapped out for space, weight and power, he said. As currently envisioned, the Abrams will stay in service past 2050—by which time the design will be more than seventy years old. Meanwhile, the rest of the world continues to modernize their armor.

Dave Majumdar has been covering defense since 2004. He currently writes for the U.S. Naval Institute, Aviation Week and The Daily Beast, among others. Majumdar previously covered national security issues at Flight International, Defense News and C4ISR Journal. Majumdar studied Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary and is a student of naval history.

Source:http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-russian-armys-secret-weapon-enter-the-armata-program-11711

Russian War Games Spill Secrets, Spur Neighbors; 'Scared the Hell Out of NATO'

Russian jets probing NATO airspace and supersized war drills are spilling Kremlin military secrets and scaring European nations into stiffening their armed forces.

Allied jets "have been scrambled over 400 times" this year to intercept Russian planes -- a 50 percent rise over 2013, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said yesterday. A report by the European Leadership Network, a London-based security research group, termed the incidents "a highly disturbing picture of violations of national airspace" and "narrowly avoided mid-air collisions."

Yet there are benefits for NATO.

"Clearly, every time we come into contact with Russian forces and every time we see their tactics and how they deploy, we do learn about them," U.S. Air Force General Philip Breedlove, the 28-member NATO's top military commander, said in Tallinn on Nov. 19. "They are just happening more often and occasionally, the size of the activities is larger."

A worsening standoff is pitting Europe and the U.S. against Russia over Ukraine in the biggest crisis since the Cold War's end 25 years ago. Even German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier -- a persistent proponent of dialog -- said on Nov. 18 after shuttle diplomacy in Kiev and Moscow, that he sees little reason for optimism.

‘Scared' NATO

"The rapid mobilization of 20,000 to 40,000 Russian troops at the Ukrainian border scared the hell out of NATO," Karl-Heinz Kamp, academic director at the German government's Federal Academy for Security Policy in Berlin, said by phone.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said the U.S. wants "not to humiliate, but to subjugate" Russia, in remarks at a Nov. 18 meeting of his People's Front party supporters in Moscow. "We had such brilliant politicians like Nikita Khrushchev, who hammered the desk with his shoe at the United Nations," Putin said in an Oct. 24 speech. "And the whole world, primarily the United States, and NATO thought: this Nikita is best left alone, he might just go and fire a missile."

Monitoring drills and Russian aircraft flying along NATO or Finnish and Swedish airspace is yielding intelligence on command and control, communications and tactics, said Lukasz Kulesa, research director of the ELN in London and former deputy head of Poland's National Security Bureau that advises the Polish president. Non-NATO members Finland and Sweden upgraded their alliance ties in September.

‘Complex Deployments'

"A Russian mission that sent planes on the same day to the Baltic, the North Sea and the Black Sea tells us what Russian capabilities have become," Kulesa said by phone. "It gives us a much better understanding of Russian readiness and their ability to perform more complex deployments."

Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies and a member of the Russian Defense Ministry's Public Council, said equipment being used in drills and missions is well-known to NATO. "Russia is not at risk of revealing any secret information to NATO by conducting so many intensive drills and flights," Pukhov said in an interview. "Russia can keep real secrets quite well, as proven by the surprise of the Crimea operation."

Raised Spending

After suffering initial setbacks in the 2008 Georgia War, Russia has increased spending on its armed forces. The Kremlin increased military spending by 50 percent since 2005 while NATO has cut spending by 20 percent, according to NATO chief Stoltenberg.

"In 2008, Russian generals commanded their soldiers from Moscow in the war by running outside the Defense Ministry and calling them by cellphone. The lessons were learnt," said Pukhov, who co-authored a book about military aspects of the Ukraine crisis titled Brothers Armed.

NATO, at its Sept. 4-5 Wales summit, shored up its eastern defenses against Russia as the U.S., which makes up two-thirds of alliance military spending, urged European allies to pay more. The alliance agreed to rotate more troops through eastern Europe and to set up a 5,000-soldier rapid-reaction force. The Baltic states are bolstering their armed forces with Estonia vowing more troops on its border with Russia after a security officer was snatched and taken to Moscow.

NATO Target

Estonia, which already meets NATO's military spending target of 2 percent of gross domestic product, plans to raise spending to 2.05 percent next year. Latvia and Lithuania -- both now spending less than 1 percent -- aim to reach the goal by 2020. Alliance states including Denmark, Poland and Germany also plan to increase defense spending, though in the case of Germany only from 2016. Germany spends about 1.3 percent of gross domestic product on the military.

Denmark is poised to spend more than $4 billion in its biggest air defense upgrade on either Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)'s F-35, Boeing Co. (BA)'s F-18 Super Hornet or Typhoon fighters, built by the Eurofighter consortium of BAE Systems Plc (BA/), Airbus Group NV (AIR) and Italy's Finmeccanica SpA. (FNC)

Poland, which shares borders with both Russia and Ukraine, will choose suppliers for helicopters and an air-defense system within a year as it begins a $27 billion program to overhaul the military and replace Soviet-era military equipment, Defense Minister Tomasz Siemoniak said in an Oct. 24 interview. It's also bringing forward purchases of attack helicopters, drones and missiles for Lockheed F-16 jets.

‘Wake-Up Call'

Charly Salonius-Pasternak, a security expert at the Finnish Institute of International Affairs in Helsinki, termed Russia's moves "quite a wake-up call" that makes it impossible for Finnish or Swedish politicians "who want to be taken seriously" to dismiss Russia's buildup as low-level rearming. "Russia's armed forces can do things that they couldn't do 10 years ago," he said in an interview. "Russia has a much better ability to transport large units, long distances and have them arrive combat ready."

That's triggered a debate in both Finland and Sweden on whether to join NATO. Putin, whose military has taken control of or holds territory that under international law belongs to Moldova and Georgia as well as annexing Ukraine's Crimea in March, noted in his Oct. 24 Valdai speech that when Prussian statesman Otto von Bismarck first appeared in the European arena in the 19th century "they found him dangerous because he spoke his mind."

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-20/russia-s-war-games-spill-secrets-stiffen-nato-resolve.html

Jerusalem Post: With the annexation of Crimea, Turkey faces a stronger and bolder Russian naval power in the Black Sea

With the annexation of Crimea, Turkey faces a stronger and bolder Russian naval power in the Black Sea. A resurgent Russia may be tempted to exploit its temporary naval dominance to alter current Black Sea energy exploitation and transportation arrangements more in its favor and to the detriment of Turkey and its partners in the Caucasus. The politically motivated stoppage of Turkey’s National Warship Project’s production schedule has created a window of vulnerability in Turkey’s Black Sea naval defenses in the face of rapidly rising Russian naval power.
Background:

The $3 billion “National Warship” Project, known by its Turkish abbreviation MILGEM, seeks to upgrade the Turkish fleet by replacing and augmenting its older foreign-made warships with eight domestically produced Ada-class anti-submarine warfare corvettes and subsequently four intermediate-class TF 100 frigates. After gaining experience from the building of the slightly larger but more lethal TF 100 anti-air warfare frigates, Turkey then intends to build a series of TF 2000 frigates. Double the size of the TF 100, the TF 2000 anti-air warfare frigate will significantly advance the Turkish fleet’s transformation into a blue-water navy.

Aside from being an intermediate phase for the development of the TF 2000, the TF 100 frigates are of present vital importance as replacements for the German-made Meko 200 frigates that form an essential component of Turkey’s force projection in the Black Sea. The TF 100 frigates will be the first Turkish vessels to carry the American-manufactured RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) system capable of countering the current generation of supersonic anti-ship missiles.

Prior to Russia’s annexation of Crimea, the head of Turkey’s Undersecretariat of Defense Industries Murat Bayar publicly acknowledged the need to replace the Meko 200 frigates with the ESSM-equipped TF 100s by 2020.

However, in September 2013, upon the commissioning of the TCG Büyükada, the second of MILGEM’s eight Ada-class corvettes, the Turkish government abruptly canceled RMK Marine’s contract to build the remaining six corvettes. A subsidiary the Turkish conglomerate Koç Holding A.Ş., the cancellation of RMK Marine’s contract appears to be part of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s political vendetta against the Koç family for providing assistance to anti-Erdogan protesters from a Koç-owned Istanbul hotel during the summer 2013 Gezi Park demonstrations.

The next two corvettes will be produced by Turkey’s national shipyard while the government evaluates bids for the building of the four remaining corvettes. Despite Undersecretary Bayar’s optimistic forecasts that the government’s cancellations will delay the production schedule for the Ada-class corvettes by only one year, the cascade effect of the production stoppage in setting back the building of the TF 100 frigates, as well as the subsequent TF 2000s, has created a four- to eight-year window of vulnerability for Turkey in the Black Sea vis-à-vis a resurgent Russia.

Turkey’s strategic vulnerability was not anticipated because of the view in Turkish policy circles that Turkey enjoys a relative parity with Russia in the Black Sea. However, the approximate parity exists only when Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is matched against all the major assets of the Turkish navy. Prior to the Crimean conflict, Russia’s Black Sea fleet consisted of 24 major surface combatants and one diesel submarine while Turkey’s major naval assets consist of approximately 24 surface combatants and 14 submarines. The parity is illusory as it is unlikely that Turkey would be able to deploy all or most of its naval assets in a Black Sea conflict.

Turkey’s ability to deter Russian assertiveness in what Moscow regards as its greater Black Sea sphere of influence, including the eastern Mediterranean and the Caucasus, was already questionable. As Russia’s Black Sea Fleet disposed of Georgia’s miniscule navy during the 2008 Russo-Georgian War, Ankara passively watched the Russian military destroy Turkey’s infrastructure investments in Georgia. Turkey’s supposed naval parity did not afford Ankara any significant policy options.

Indeed, Ankara revealed its reluctance to provoke Moscow into challenging the Montreux Convention, the 1936 treaty granting Ankara exclusive control over the Bosphorous Straits and the Dardanelles and restricting the transit of heavy warships through this strategic Black Sea-Eastern Mediterranean access corridor.

Implications:

With the annexation of Crimea, Turkey faces a stronger and bolder Russian naval power in the Black Sea. Russia now possesses the Ukrainian navy’s submarine and several, if not most, of Ukraine’s 11 major surface combatants. Even without the Ukraine’s naval assets, Russia’s own new additions to its Black Sea Fleet will enable Moscow to dominate the region. Russia recently put to sea the first of its six Admiral Grigorovich-class frigates. All six frigates are designated for service in the Black Sea Fleet.

Larger and more advanced than Turkey’s four modified Meko 200 Barbaros-class frigates, each of the six Admiral Grigorovich-class frigates will be the first vessels equipped with the state-of-the-art, supersonic Shtil-1 Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) air defense system. Moscow expects all six frigates to be in service in the Black Sea Fleet by the end of 2016. Turkey’s now delayed TF 100 frigates, slated to carry the ESSM system, would be the only Turkish vessels with a comparable SAM capability.

Within the same 2016 timeframe, Russia will also add six newly improved Kilo-class diesel-electric submarines to its Black Sea Fleet ahead of Turkey’s deployment of an equivalent number of Ada-class anti-submarine corvettes. These two Russian procurement programs alone will quickly tilt the balance of naval forces in Russia’s favor, giving Russia a significant strategic advantage for a window of four to eight years depending on the pace of Turkey’s resumed production schedule.

In addition, Russia is in the process of acquiring two French-made Mistral-class amphibious assault ships, to be named the Vladivostok and Sevastapol, the latter being the namesake of the Russian Black Sea Fleet’s base in Crimea. The amphibious assault ships are helicopter carriers that can accommodate 16 attack helicopters as well as 13 battle tanks and 450 combat soldiers.

A Mistral-class helicopter carrier in the Black Sea Fleet would provide Russia with unprecedented power projection capability in its greater Black Sea region. Russia’s recent announcement that it has no plans to deploy either of the helicopter carriers in the Black Sea may simply constitute a temporary measure by Moscow to assuage French sensibilities in order to ensure that France does not rescind the sale as a result of Moscow’s annexation of Crimea. Turkey cannot discount the likely possibility that the Sevastapol will serve at the Black Sea Fleet base after which it was named.

Russia’s reassertion of naval power in the Black Sea has already been accompanied by Moscow’s first action to change the status quo in relation to Black Sea energy exploitation. With the formal annexation of Crimea, Ukraine’s Black Sea Oil and Gas company, ChronomorNaftohaz, was made into a whole-owned subsidiary of the Russian state-controlled joint-stock company Gazprom. Between the acquisition of ChronomorNaftohaz itself and Gazprom’s now exclusive license for all offshore energy development in Crimea’s continental shelf, the Russian energy giant has acquired an estimated $50 billion in capital assets.

Turkey’s national oil and gas company TPAO has itself spent $2.5 billion on offshore energy exploration in Turkey’s continental shelf. Current estimates predict Turkey’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) in the Black Sea contains 10 billion barrels of crude oil and two trillion cubic meters of natural gas. However as ultra deep-water wells are drilled in the region, more hydrocarbon resources may be discovered. Even if Russia, whose continental shelf now projects from Crimea and therefore closer to Turkey, does not attempt to dispute the demarcation of Turkey’s EEZ, Turkey’s drilling platforms can no longer be defended as easily from Russian warships.

Of greater concern for Ankara is the more likely possibility that Russia may use Turkey’s window of vulnerability to alter the status quo in relation to the transport of natural gas through Russia’s “South Stream” gas pipeline. The Russia-to-Bulgaria pipeline had been routed through Turkey’s territorial waters to avoid the Ukraine’s EEZ. Russia’s annexation of Crimea renders this longer and more expensive route unnecessary and may lead Moscow to abrogate this very lucrative agreement for Turkey.

Moreover, Moscow may seek to affect the development of the Trans-Anatolian Pipeline intended to transport Azerbaijani natural gas to Europe via Georgia and Turkey. To prevent the breaking of its stranglehold over gas exports to Europe, Russia may resume its simmering conflict with Georgia or even expand the use of military pressure to Azerbaijan. Ankara would have fewer options to block such an exercise of Russian power, as Turkey is now in a weaker relative position than during the time of the 2008 Russo-Georgian war.

Conclusions:

The politically motivated stoppage of the MILGEM’s production schedule has created a window of vulnerability in Turkey’s Black Sea naval defenses in the face of rapidly rising Russian naval power. The delayed production of the Ada-class anti-submarine corvettes will put Turkey at a disadvantage relative to Russia’s imminent deployment of a new fleet of Black Sea submarines. Russia’s Black Sea Fleet will also possess six Admiral Grigorovich-class frigates capable of countering supersonic anti-ship missiles while Turkey will lack the comparable capability because of the setback to MILGEM’s four TF 100 frigates.

Until Turkey can build and deploy these naval assets, Ankara’s deterrent capability has eroded and Russia will dominate the Black Sea. Exercising sea control, Moscow can more easily deploy its newly acquired Mistral-class helicopter carrier to stage amphibious assault operations against other Black Sea littoral states including Georgia and Azerbaijan.

Having taken control of Ukraine’s offshore oil and natural gas operations, Moscow will likely attempt to alter regional energy transport arrangements in Russia’s favor while Rusia still enjoys naval dominance. With Moscow’s annexation of Crimea, Russia no longer needs to route its “South Stream” gas pipeline through Turkish waters to avoid Ukraine’s EEZ. Moscow may attempt to cancel its agreement with Ankara and reroute the pipeline through Crimea’s continental shelf, resulting in a considerable revenue loss for Turkey.

Until Ankara can rectify the gap in naval capabilities created by MILGEM’s delays, Turkey will not be able to defend its national interests adequately as Russia attempts to reestablish its sphere of influence in the greater Black Sea region. The author is a Fellow at the Shalem College, Jerusalem, and at the Middle East and Asia Units of the Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at Hebrew University. Dr. Tanchum teaches in the Departments of Middle Eastern History and East Asian Studies of Tel Aviv University.

This article was first published in the Turkey Analyst (www.turkeyanalyst.org), a biweekly publication of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute & Silk Road Studies Program Joint Center.

Source:http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/Turkey-vulnerable-to-rising-Russian-power-in-the-Black-Sea-349928

Business Insider: Russia continues massive military modernization despite economic woes

  

Hundreds of new Russian aircraft, tanks and missiles are rolling off assembly lines. Russian jets roar through European skies under NATO's wary eye. Tens of thousands of troops take part in war games showing off the military's readiness for all-out war. The muscle flexing suggests that Russia's economic woes so far are having no impact on the Kremlin's ambitious military modernization program.

Most Russian economic sectors face a 10 percent cut this year as Russia heads into recession. The military budget, meanwhile, rose by 33 percent to about 3.3 trillion rubles (some $50 billion). The buildup reflects President Vladimir Putin's apparent readiness to raise the ante in a showdown with the West over Ukraine — but it is unclear whether Russia can afford the modernization drive amid slumping oil prices and Western sanctions.

The new Russian military doctrine, endorsed by Putin in December, names NATO as a top threat to Russia and lays out a response to what the Kremlin sees as the alliance's expansion into Russia's sphere of interests. In the Ukraine crisis, Moscow for the first time demonstrated its new capacity for what experts call "hybrid" warfare, a combination of military force with a degree of deniability, sleek propaganda and political and economic pressure.

It is not only in Crimea — the strategic peninsula that Russia annexed from Ukraine — that the nation's 1-million strong military is beefing up its presence. Russia is also reviving Soviet-era airfields and opening new military bases in the Arctic. Last fall the military rattled sabers by briefly deploying state-of-the art missiles to Russia's westernmost Baltic exclave — Kaliningrad — and it is planning to send strategic bombers on regular patrols as far as the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico.

The West first got a sense of Russia's revived military might during last February's Crimea invasion. The U.S. and its NATO allies were caught off guard when waves of Russian heavy-lift military transport planes landed on the Black Sea peninsula days after the ouster of Ukraine's former Moscow-friendly president, unloading special forces which swiftly took over key facilities in the region and blocked Ukrainian troops at their bases.

Dressed in unmarked uniforms and equipped with state-of-the art weapons, the Russian troops were a far cry from a ragtag demoralized force the military was just a few years ago. The Kremlin first claimed they were local volunteers, but Putin recognized after the annexation that they were Russian soldiers. 

Another surprise for the West came a few weeks later, when well-organized groups of gunmen took over local government offices and police stations in several cities across Ukraine's mostly Russian-speaking eastern industrial heartland, triggering a rebellion that evolved into a full-scale war that killed more than 5,300 since April.

As fighting escalated in the east, the Russian military showed its agility by quickly deploying tens of thousands troops near the border with Ukraine. Ukraine and the West said that thousands of them crossed into Ukraine, helping turn the tide in rebels' favor. The Kremlin denies that, although it has acknowledged that Russian volunteers have joined the insurgency.

Unlike the past, when the Russian military was filled through unpopular conscription, the force has grown more professional and motivated. Relatively high salaries have attracted an increasing number of contract soldiers, whose number is set to exceed 350,000 this year from 295,000 in 2014. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said that by the end of this year all battalion tactical groups — the core units in the Army, the Airborne Forces and the Marines — will be manned entirely by professional soldiers.

And in sharp contrast to the early post-Soviet years, when combat jets were grounded and navy vessels rusted dockside for lack of fuel, the military has dramatically increased both the scope and frequency of its drills. Ground forces conducted massive maneuvers near the Ukrainian border involving tens of thousands of troops, while navy ships sailed on regular missions and combat jets flew regular patrols near European borders to probe NATO's defenses. The alliance said it intercepted Russian aircraft more than 400 times last year and complained they posed a danger to civilian flights.

In Crimea, Russia had leased a major naval base even before the annexation. Now it has deployed dozens of combat jets, including nuclear-capable long-range bombers, along with air defense missiles, modern drones and other weapons. It is also preparing to dispatch more troops there.

Another key priority for the military is the Arctic, where global rivalry for major untapped oil and gas reserves is intensifying as polar ice melts. The military has restored long-abandoned Soviet-era airfields and other bases in the region after two decades of neglect. It formed a separate Arctic command to oversee its troops in the region.

Russia's weapons modernization plan envisages spending 20 trillion rubles on new weapons in 2011-2020. It produced some highly visible results last year, with the military receiving the highest numbers of new planes, missiles and armor since the 1991 Soviet collapse:

—Last year, the Russian armed forces obtained a record number of 38 nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles. This year they are to get another 50, allowing the military to fulfill its ambitious goal of replacing Soviet-built nuclear missiles, which are approaching the end of their lifespan. Officials say the new ICBMs have the capacity to penetrate any prospective missile defenses.

—In a major breakthrough, the Russian navy finally conducted a series of successful test launches of the Bulava, a new submarine-based intercontinental ballistic missile, proving its reliability after a long and troublesome development. The navy already has two submarines equipped with the Bulava, and is to commission a third one next year. Five more are to follow.

—The ground forces are receiving large batches of Iskander missiles, which are capable of hitting enemy targets up to 500 kilometers (310 miles away) with high precision. Russian officials said the missiles, which can be equipped with a nuclear or conventional warhead, could be used to target NATO's U.S.-led missile defense sites. In a show of force, Iskanders were briefly deployed in December to the Kaliningrad exclave bordering NATO members Poland and Lithuania.

—The Russian air force received more than 250 new planes and helicopters last year and is set to receive more than 200 this year — numbers unseen since Soviet times. They include new models such as Su-34 bombers, Su-35 fighter jets and Mi-28 helicopter gunships equipped with sophisticated electronics and high-precision missiles.

—The Russian army this year is set to receive a new tank, which also will be used as the basis for a lineup of other armored vehicles. The model called Armata will be shown to the public during a Red Square parade in May. It surpasses all Western versions in having a remotely controlled cannon and a superior level of crew protection.

Its security enhanced by a new-look military, the Kremlin can be expected to pursue a defiant course in Ukraine and may raise the stakes further if the peace process fails. The threat for Putin — who has insisted that Russia will not be drawn into a costly arms race with the West — is whether the massive military buildup will stretch the nation's economic potential beyond the limit.

Despite such challenges, the Kremlin made it clear that it will not cut corners on defense. "The task set by the president not to allow anyone to get a military advantage over Russia will be fulfilled no matter what," Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said at a meeting with the top brass last week.

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-continues-massive-military-modernization-despite-economic-woes-2015-2#ixzz3QpqvBsyr

Russia to deploy fifth-gen fighters, S-500 missiles in 2016

The fourth prototype Т-50 fifth generation jet fighter (RIA Novosti)

In 2016, the Russian military will start deploying two advanced weapons, the fifth-generation fighter jet PAK FA and the long-range surface-to-air missile systems S-500, chief of the Russian Air Forces said. Lieutenant General Viktor Bondarev gave an outline of his branch's modernization plans, including the build-up of Arctic infrastructure, in a radio interview with the Russian News Service station on Sunday. The flight trials of PAK FA (T-50) will soon be over, and in 2016 the Air Force is planning to start commissioning the aircraft into service, the general said. PAK FA is Russia's first fifth-generation fighter jet built by the Sukhoi Corporation. So far five prototypes have been completed and are undergoing various tests. The fighter is scheduled to eventually replace Sukhoi Su-27s.“It took part in the [international pilot competition] Aviadarts twice and performed aerobatic flights in pair. I believe the aircraft has a brilliant future,” the general said. 

T-50 fifth-generation multirole fighter (RIA Novosti / Alexander Vilf) 

Another new addition to the ranks planned for 2016 is S-500, a state-of-the-art long-range air defense system developed by Almaz Antei, Bondarev said. The producer is finalizing new missiles for the system, which would have advanced homing electronics. “The missiles will have a build-in intelligence system, which will analyze the aerial and radar environment and take decisions about its altitude, speed and direction of the flight,” the general said. S-500 is an advanced version of S-400 with dedicated components designed to intercept ballistic missiles at a height of up to 200 km. The system is expected to be able to shut down up to 10 incoming ballistic missiles simultaneously. It also has an extended radar range compared to S-400.

Anti-aircraft missile system S-400 "Triumph" (RIA Novosti / Grigoriy Sisoev)

Gen. Bondarev confirmed the previously reported schedule for the development of PAK DA, a new Russian strategic bomber. So far little has been made public about the aircraft, which is to replace Tupolev Tu-95s and Tu-160s as the backbone of Russia's aerial nuclear capability. It's rumored to be a sub-sonic flying wing design and may have a new nuclear-capable cruise missile developed for armament. The general confirmed that the Air Forces expect Tupolev to produce first prototypes of PAK DA by the end of the decade and launch series production in 2021-2022. In the meantime, modernization programs for Tu-95s and Tu-160s are enough to keep the Russian strategic bomber fleet in good shape and sufficient for the renewed long-range flight missions, he said.

Arguably the biggest modernization effort required from the Air Forces is focused on the Arctic infrastructure. Back in Soviet times the military maintained a massive network of airfields and radar stations in the north, but they were neglected in the years following the USSR’s collapse. With rich Arctic resources becoming more accessible and a potential for a conflict in the area growing, the Russian military are rebuilding the Arctic bases.

 

“We don't see any rivals in the Arctic now, but if a challenge comes, we must be prepared to defend this region. The presence in the Arctic will be increased,” General Bondarev said.

Russia this year reopened the Temp airfield on Kotelny Island north of eastern Siberia, the general announced. There are plans to enlarge the bases in Tiksi, Alykel, Vorkuta and Anadyr. In the future, full-strength divisions and regiments of the Russian Air Force will be deployed in the north.

Source: http://rt.com/news/179256-russia-deploy-s500-missiles/

Russia Develops 'Microwave Gun' Able to Deactivate Drones, Warheads

Russia has developed super-high-frequency gun capable of deactivating unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and the warheads of precision weapons at an impact range of ten kilometers which ensures 360 degrees of perimeter defense.Russia’s United Instrument Manufacturing Corporation (UIMC), part of Rostec Corporation, has announced that it developed a super-high-frequency gun for BUK missile systems.

The newly-developed equipment is capable of deactivating the radio electronics of UAVs and the warheads of precision weapons, according to a representative of the corporation. The equipment, informally named the microwave gun, has been developed for the needs of Russia’s Defense Ministry and will be demonstrated during the closed part of Army-2015, an international event organized by the Russian Defense Ministry, the Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) and state technology corporation Rostec, which will be held on June 16-19. The UIMC representative has not revealed all the technical characteristics of the equipment but has mentioned that the impact range of the equipment is ten kilometers and that its defense perimeter is 360 degrees.

“The new system is equipped with a high-power relativistic generator and reflector antenna, management and control system, and a transmission system which is fixed on the chassis of BUK surface-to-air missile systems. When mounted on a special platform, the ‘microwave gun’ is capable of ensuring perimeter defense at 360 degrees,” the representative said. The system is capable of out-of-band suppression of the radio electronic equipment of low-altitude aircraft and the assault elements of precision weapons. The gun is able to deactivate the equipment of aircraft and UAVs, and neutralize precision weapons. There are currently also plans to use the system for testing Russian military radio electronic systems against the impact of powerful super-high-frequency emission.

Source: http://sputniknews.com/russia/20150615/1023369522.html#ixzz3d8BtpalS

Russia To Buy At Least 50 Tu-160 Blackjack Bombers

Russia will purchase at least 50 Tupolev Tu-160 “Blackjack” heavy strategic bombers when the aircraft's production is renewed, Russian Air Force Commander Col. Gen. Viktor Bondarev announced Thursday. The Tu-160 strategic bombers will be produced simultaneously with the country’s new fighter jets called PAK DA.

“The production of the aircraft will be restarted,” Russia’s TASS news agency quoted Bondarev as saying. "To cover all the outlay of the production, at least 50 aircraft will be purchased in course of time.”

ADVERTISING

According to Bondarev, the revival of the Tu-160 production will not interfere with the production of the PAK DA aircraft, which is expected to make its first flight in 2019. The PAK DA bombers are likely to be part of the Russian Air Force in 2023-2025 and would replace the existing fighter jets, including the Tu-160, Tu-22M3 “Backfire” and Tu-95 “Bear.”

In late April, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu had reportedly ordered the resumption of the production of Tu-160 bombers at the Kazan aviation plant in the Republic of Tatarstan in the Volga Federal District. The director of the Kazan aviation plant said Tuesday that the modernization of 16 Tu-160 bombers is expected to be completed in 2019, instead of 2020 as previously estimated, IHS Jane's Defence Weekly reported.

According to the report, the modernization of Tu-160 bombers includes two major phases. The first phase, which is now completed, involves strengthening the aircraft’s nuclear armament to carry 12 conventional long-range cruise missiles and laser-guided bombs. The second phase focuses on replacing the jet’s radar, electronic navigation and communication systems, IHS Jane's Defence Weekly reported, adding that the aircraft's engines will also be upgraded at a later date.

In addition to Tu-160 and PAK DA, Russia is also working on its fifth-generation stealth fighter jet, known as PAK FA, which will enter service in 2016. “We’re completing the aircraft tests and from 2017 they will be serially supplied,” Bondarev said, according to TASS. The PAK FA jets “will not be in any way inferior to US F-22 and F-35 fighters and will surpass them by all practical parameters.”

Source: http://www.ibtimes.com/russia-buy-least-50-tu-160-blackjack-bombers-production-likely-complete-ahead-time-1941450

US has Launched a New Assault Against Russia

If someone had the impression that the visit of Secretary of State John Kerry to the town of Sochi, followed by negotiations with Victoria Nuland, his deputy in Moscow, could be regarded as first steps in the direction of normalization of US-Russian relations, they would be deeply mistaken. In short, Washington, particularly the Obama administration, is trying to solve its problems at the expense or rather with the help of Russia, to ensure the victory of Hillary Clinton in the upcoming elections.

However, the United States continues to apply pressure on Russia, using a variety of different strategies.

Special attention is now paid to Syria and the weakened regime of Bashar al-Assad in the face of a new armed assault against Damascus. The attempts to trade the support of Syria for a number of concessions on Ukraine and Crimea allegedly made by John Kerry failed. Then Americans attempted blackmail, which is the strategy of choice for Washington in the countries that resist its dictate. On May 19 the Russian embassy in Syria was shelled by militants, presumably Jaysh al-Islam, which resulted in one of the shells exploding in the main building of the diplomatic mission. Fortunately, there was nobody there in the room destroyed by the explosion. Immediately after the attack the State Department swiftly condemned this act of terrorism. But we all are well aware of the fact that the “southern front” operating in the suburbs of the Syrian capital is controlled by Jordan with a certain amount of US assistance, unlike the “northern front” guided by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The shelling of the Russian embassy – is clearly a signal to Russia that it should abandon its support of the Syrian regime.

The White House continues to exploit the Iranian theme to dissuade Moscow supplying the Islamic Republic with S-300 air defense systems. But America didn’t even try to propose a fair exchange. Yet, Washington think tanks are well of aware of the fact that Moscow will no longer buy any of America’s fraudulent tricks, as happened a few years ago with the introduction of sanctions against Iran and the freezing of the contract to supply the S-300s. The US goal is clear and simple – to sow doubts in Tehran about the principal position of Russia on Iran, thus pushing Iranians to unnecessary concessions in discussions on the Iranian nuclear program.

Another old trick has been the alleged desire of the GCC countries, including Saudi Arabia, to launch a full-scale cooperation with Russia, particularly in the coordination of global oil prices. The emissaries of the Arabian monarchies one by one have been visiting the Russian capital with handfuls of promises. Naturally, none of those were planned to be implemented, as they are designed to lure Russia’s leadership into a trap. But this lesson has already been learned as well, especially in the times when the former Emir of Qatar Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani and Saudi Prince Bandar were eager to promise billions of dollars of investment in the Russian economy, the purchase of Russian weapons, and lucrative contracts, yet no concrete steps followed.

Now a new player is being used – Turkey, which seems to be seriously offended by Russia’s position on the Armenian Genocide. Turkey, for which the question of recognition or non-recognition of the genocide is the most painful of all, instantly responded to the fact that on 24 April, Vladimir Putin visited the Tsitsernakaberd Memorial, built in memory of the genocide victims of 1915. Turkish officials said that there could be no justification for this visit, three days later, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan “remembered” events regarding the Crimea. The Turkish leader said that Russia should account for their actions in Crimea and Ukraine before condemning the massacre of Armenians by the Ottomans in 1915.

Washington was eager to request even more anti-Russian statements from Turkey, including those relating to the Crimea, that followed one after the other. Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, said that the recent unofficial Turkish delegation that was visiting the Crimea, found signs of human rights violations. Such an assessment on the situation on the ground from Cavusoglu looks rather strange, since they contradict statements made by members of the delegation themselves. On April 29 the head of the unofficial delegation Mehmet Uskyul said that he is satisfied with the treatment of Crimean Tatars on the peninsula. Even more dramatic statements were made by Turkey’s Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu on May 14 at a meeting of NATO Foreign Ministers. According to this Turkish official “The illegal annexation of the Crimea can not be tolerated”. The Turkish prime minister also urged NATO states to support Ukraine so it could better ensure the security of its own people. Ahmet Davutoğlu went as far as stressing that NATO states should not forget about the suffering of the people of the Crimea…

Ankara canceled a regular meeting of the Russian-Turkish Cooperation Council and the arrival of Sergey Lavrov to Antalya that was scheduled on May 16. Formally – under the pretext of difficulties caused by the forthcoming parliamentary elections, after which a new government will be formed. But all that buzz can negatively affect a project of fundamental importance for Russia – the “Turkish Stream”, which couldn’t make the United States any more happier.

Another front of this anti-Russian campaign was opened in Macedonia. The United States is actively advancing a possible regime change in Skopje to counter Russian influence. It’s also important to note that the “Turkish Stream” would stretch across Macedonian soil. That’s what Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said last week about those events: “Objectively speaking, the events in Macedonia are unfolding against the background of the government’s refusal to join the policy of sanctions against Russia and the vigorous support Skopje gave to the Turkish Stream gas pipeline project, to which many people oppose, both in Brussels and across the ocean. So we can’t help but feeling that there is some sort of connection here.”

In fact, Washington has tried to stage a “color revolution” by organizing mass demonstrations launched by the local opposition. Even the country’s Albanian minority, which has nothing in common with Macedonian opposition came out to the streets to support rallies in the capital, Skopje. For Moscow this looks all too familiar. Events are moving in the same direction as they were in Ukraine in 2013 and 2014, when the corrupt regime of Viktor Yanukovych was ousted during mass demonstrations organized by the United States and Poland.

So the latest maneuvers of American diplomacy – is nothing but a smokescreen designed to hide the true intentions of the Obama administration. Washington’s strategic goal remains the same – to weaken Russia by all means necessary and break it apart from those countries which are engaged in cooperation with Moscow. Therefore there’s no trusting US promises or even reaching deals with them. All this smooth-talking is a mere trap in the hope that Russian pro-Western liberals might convince President Putin that the White House is sincere. But US think tanks have missed one thing – “Ukrainian lessons” have not been lost on the Kremlin.

Peter Lvov, Ph.D in political science, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

Source: http://journal-neo.org/2015/05/22/us-has-launched-a-new-assault-against-russia-2

Driving Ukrainians Into Putin’s Arms

A recent United Nations report says that nearly half a million Ukrainians have fled the country since April. The fact that families run from a war zone is heartbreaking but hardly unexpected. The disturbing part lies in the details — of the roughly 454,000 people who had fled Ukraine by the end of October, more than 387,000 went to Russia. Most of those who fled were Russian speakers from the east, but this still raises a sobering question: If this is a conflict between Ukraine and Russia, why did so many Ukrainians choose to cast their lot with the enemy?

Moscow’s denials of involvement in eastern Ukraine are, of course, absurd: It is clear that the separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk are equipped, reinforced and trained by Russians. That said, if Vladimir V. Putin had tried sending unmarked commandos to set up sham republics in western Ukraine, where anti-Russian sentiment runs high, his men would have been returned to the Kremlin in body bags. Yes, Mr. Putin is brewing unrest in the east, but he is brewing with local ingredients. He is connecting with the population using a language they speak and a symbolism they understand.

The unpalatable reality is that a significant portion of eastern Ukrainians — the very people on the ground living and suffering through this conflict — distrust Kiev and the West and at least tacitly support Russia and the separatists. And frankly, that isn’t surprising.

Last month the Ukrainian president, Petro O. Poroshenko, decided to freeze government pensions and cut off funding for schools and hospitals in the eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk. Unfortunately, the separatist thugs fighting there don’t rely on food stamps to buy weapons — they get them from Russia. All that Mr. Poroshenko accomplished was giving Mr. Putin the “proof” to tell the starving pensioners of the region: “See — the West doesn’t care if you die.” This is a sentiment that is growing stronger and stronger, according to reports coming out of the region.

Equally awful is Kiev’s decision to maintain a relationship with the Azov battalion, an ultranationalist paramilitary group of around 400 men that uses Nazi salutes and insignia. To anyone familiar with eastern Ukraine’s bloody history during World War II, allowing the Azov battalion to fight in the region is a bit like sponsoring a Timothy McVeigh Appreciation Night in Oklahoma City. It does nothing but infuriate the local population and provide Mr. Putin with yet another opportunity to shed the mantle of invader and position himself as a protector.

The impact of World War II, or, as most people there call it, The War, on eastern Ukrainian consciousness cannot be understated. My childhood in the northeast city of Kharkov (now called Kharkiv) in the 1980s was surrounded by The War, 40 years after it ended. Every family — Russian, Ukrainian, Roma, Jewish — had ghost relatives who had vanished or perished. One of my earliest memories is of asking my father where the mortar holes pockmarking the outside of our apartment block had come from; one of my father’s earliest memories is of fleeing Kharkov mere hours before the Nazis invaded the city. Eastern Ukrainians today, especially the older generations, respond to swastikas and wolfsangel runes — Nazi symbols now used by Ukrainian ultranationalists — about as well as African-Americans respond to burning crosses.

Mr. Putin and the Russian news media say that western Ukrainians in Mr. Poroshenko’s government are neo-Nazis. The West denies these claims, averring that there are no neo-Nazi elements in the Kiev government. Both are wrong. The Kiev government and the armies fighting in eastern Ukraine contain a small minority of neo-Nazi ultranationalists. To eastern Ukrainians, however, even one is too many.

Washington and the Western media have largely ignored the negative ramifications of Kiev’s actions. The State Department has said nothing about the pension freeze’s effect on the local population of eastern Ukraine; reports of the Azov battalion’s use of Nazi insignia have not been addressed in any meaningful manner. Mr. Putin’s greatest weapon of all may be the West’s refusal to speak directly to the people of eastern Ukraine. When I talk to family friends still living in Kharkiv, they ask me, “Why does the West label us as enemies?”

It seems the West has forgotten the lessons of its own history. At the end of the Cold War in 1989, Communism collapsed, leaving unrest and uncertainty in its wake. In that moment of chaos, the people of Eastern Europe turned their gazes westward. This happened not by accident, but because of decades of public diplomacy — from “Ich bin ein Berliner” to “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” to nightly broadcasts by Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, which constantly reassured those behind the Iron Curtain that the West had not forgotten them. That year my family was one of many that fled eastern Ukraine for Vienna, and later the United States.

In 2014, the people of eastern Ukraine find themselves in an exponentially more horrible and deadly situation. They will turn to whoever provides them with bread and security and respect for their language and culture. They are looking, and more and more it seems they’re turning, eastward.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/09/opinion/driving-ukrainians-into-putins-arms.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Global powers show their force in Ukraine

Everything began in November 2013 when former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign the EU Partnership Agreement. Currently despite the ceasefire signed in Minsk, the guns have not fallen silent in the eastern parts of Ukraine where the death toll is some six thousand people. Now the shadow of a second Cold War has fallen over the region.

Toward a New Cold War?

Recently the U.S. Army sent heavy weapons and military equipment to Lithuania on the Russian border. It was also announced that the U.S. and NATO countries had planned four separate maneuvers in Ukraine, together with bilateral and multilateral maneuvers in Poland and the Baltic countries.

In the face of the developments in the Baltic area, Russia initiated a giant exercise in 19 wide areas with the simultaneous participation of 8,000 troops in bases in Crimea, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Armenia. Special forces in the Russian Central Military District began a five-day exercise in the region of Sverdlovsk, where more than 600 troops and 300 armored vehicles took part. In the Black Sea, the missile carrying amphibious ship Bora, the warship Ivanovets and R-109 boats carried out a simulated attack using real rockets. A continuing exercise by NATO warships in the Black Sea at the same time led to a rise in tensions. The message from both sides was clear; 'we are in charge in the region.'

A statement from Moscow while the exercises were going on revealed the full scale of the tension. Putin announced that he was annulling the European Conventional Forces Agreement (ECFA), the most important document signed at the end of the Cold War between Russia and the West.  NATO described this as a worrying development. Tensions between Russia and the West are again rising to resemble those during the Cold War. Both sides clearly need to take steps to repair the damage without delay. Blocs are forming fast, with the U.S. and the EU countries lining up against Russia.

Sanctions Are No Solution

Experts from the Carnegie Center state that; "Sanctions will create a perception among the Russians that they are under constant pressure from the U.S. This stimulates patriotism and nationalism and also forges a foreign enemy image embodied by America. New sanctions would only solidify this perception and consolidate the government"¹. Indeed, the level of support for Putin's policies has risen by 5-10% each month, reaching 88% in October 2014.

The fact is that both the Russians and objective thinkers do not believe that Moscow is seeking to build a new Soviet Empire. Putin regards NATO's Open Door policy as a violation of the promises given to them following the break-up of the Warsaw Pact. The Russians therefore think that Russia has a natural and legitimate right to protect itself and the surrounding area against the plan to surround Russia by way of Georgia, Ukraine and the Baltic countries and to isolate it. In a statement in the early days of the Minsk negotiations, Putin said that their aim was not to wage war but that they would not accept a world order in which the U.S. was the only leader.

The EU countries, being encouraged towards polarization under pressure from the U.S., are aware that prolonging tensions with Russia will wreak serious harm to their own economies. For example Germany, the largest economy in Europe, has more than 6,000 companies doing business with Russia, with investments of more than 20 billion Euros made over the last 20 years. These sanctions are having a serious effect on Germany, the main pillar of the EU economy, as they are on other European countries. Not for nothing did Merkel make intense efforts during the Minsk talks to bring about a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. Merkel was aware of the need to halt the $21 billion losses suffered in the EU countries because of the crisis. It was no surprise that Holland would support Merkel in the talks. France, which ended 2014 in a position of almost zero growth, is currently in the unenviable position of being the sick man of Europe. Replacing the French Economics Minister did not stop France, with the world's fifth largest economy, taking a step back in that ranking. The Dutch demand a relaxation of the sanctions against Russia stemming from its largest oil companies being active in Russia.

On the other hand, European countries are 90% dependent on Russian natural gas. Europe has no way of responding to retaliation by Russia in the form of cutting off natural gas supplies in the long term in the face of the sanctions. Russia is in turn looked to deepen relations with Asian countries in order to show that it is not dependent on the West. The 30-year natural gas sales agreement signed with China, estimated to be worth some $400 billion, is one outcome of this Russian search for alternative markets. In addition to China, negotiations over new energy projects are also taking place with Egypt and Turkey.

It is therefore expected that Moscow, which is determined to use all the cards it holds  against the sanctions, will not be making concessions on such fundamental issues as Crimea. So it is essential for both sides to take the requisite steps for establishing lasting peace and security while the road is still near. A determination of the position of Ukraine, the main fault line between the two sides, will play a critical role in resolving the crisis. Only an independent Ukraine that is controlled neither by Russia nor by the West, yet that is inclusive of both without excluding either side, and that can play the role of a buffer zone in a temporary process, can unite the two sides on common ground.

The Cold War was of no benefit to anyone. A second Cold War will mean nothing but destruction and disaster, and it is therefore essential for world peace for NATO and Russia to adopt balanced policies of reconciliation.

Harun Yahya: The writer has authored more than 300 books translated in 73 languages on politics, religion and science. He may be followed at @Harun_Yahya and www.harunyahya.com

Source: http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/06-04-2015/130196-global_powers_ukraine-0/#

Ukraine’s Slow Collapse

The crisis in Ukraine has reached an impasse. The cease-fire signed in Minsk, Belarus, in September never really took hold, but at least it provided a cover for efforts to reduce the level of fighting and focus on stabilizing and reforming the Ukrainian economy as a prelude to a serious, long-term search for a resolution of the crisis. Now even the fig leaf of cease-fire is gone. Russian armored vehicles are rolling into eastern Ukraine — disowned, of course, by Moscow.

Gunfire is exchanged constantly in and around Donetsk, and Kiev has basically disowned residents of territories claimed by separatists by cutting most government services, benefits and pensions. And though elections to the Ukrainian Parliament on Oct. 26 brought in a new, pro-Western legislature, Kiev is still far from forming a government or producing a viable program of reforms.

The United States and the European Union have made clear, and correctly so, that they hold President Vladimir Putin of Russia largely responsible for this state of affairs. He was snubbed at the Group of 20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia. Then Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, once the European leader deemed most cautious in relations with Moscow, assailed him for reviving a Cold War atmosphere 25 years after the Berlin Wall fell.

There is no question that by annexing Crimea and arming separatists in eastern Ukraine, Mr. Putin has done great damage to East-West relations — and to his country, which finds itself isolated and in economic trouble. The decision on Monday by the European Union to add more separatist leaders to the list of Mr. Putin’s allies barred from Europe may be largely symbolic, but along with the cold reception in Brisbane, it does let the Russian leader know that the West is not about to let him off the hook.

That said, it is important to acknowledge that officials in Kiev, and more specifically President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, have responsibilities they must live up to. Ukraine has been plagued by corruption since it became independent, and the current crisis has made it even more imperative for the leaders to form a government and come up with a credible economic and political strategy.

The Ukrainian economy is in terrible shape — the currency has lost almost half its value against the dollar in 2014, the industrial centers of Donetsk and Luhansk are in separatist hands, coal mines have shut down. The International Monetary Fund has provided emergency aid, but the hard fact is that the European Union and the United States cannot be expected to make substantial commitments until Ukraine provides a clear reform plan and priorities for outside investment. Johannes Hahn, the new European Union commissioner for enlargement, is right to insist that the union will not hold a donors’ conference without this.

In addition to an economic strategy, Kiev needs to prepare a plan for loosening central control in a way that might satisfy residents of the eastern provinces. The decision by President Poroshenko to cut government benefits and pensions to residents of areas under the control of Kremlin-backed separatists, though understandable in the circumstances, has left those unable to flee feeling betrayed by Kiev, creating a vacuum for Moscow to fill.

There is no question that ordering painful reforms when a country is already on its knees is asking a lot. That is why it is imperative that Western leaders make clear that they will give Kiev substantial assistance only after it embarks on a serious program of economic and political reform. After all, that was what the Ukrainians who took to the streets in December 2013 fought for.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/opinion/ukraines-slow-collapse.html?_r=0

The Kremlin Pulls on Georgia

As Russian forces consolidate their gains in Ukraine over the flat protests of Western leaders, the specter of Russian revanchism is keeping much of Eastern Europe on edge. But lumbering tanks and legions of insta-separatists aren’t the only concern. Ukraine isn’t Russia’s only target. Perhaps most alarming are the warning signs going off in Georgia, a steadfast Euro-Atlantic partner where a pro-Western political consensus has long been a foreign-policy calling card. A long-standing opponent of Russian military adventurism, Georgia sought escape velocity from Russian regional dominance by courting membership in Euro-Atlantic structures and earned a reputation as an enthusiastic and credible Western partner. But

Western quiescence in the face of Russian territorial aggression is starting to have an effect. After decades of acrimony in which Georgians have watched Russian proxies occupy 20 percent of their territory and ethnically cleanse some 300,000 of their compatriots, certain groups are starting to ask if maintaining close ties to the West is worth all the loss. Increasingly, Georgians are beginning to think that it isn’t. The groups spearheading Russian influence operations in Georgia fly beneath the international radar under the cloak of local-language media and the oft-repeated surety of pro-Western sentiment. But they can be seen protesting in Tbilisi streets, preaching in Georgian churches, and holding improbably well-funded campaign rallies ahead of elections. The evidence shows that Russian influence in Georgia is growing stronger. (In the photo, a Stalin impersonator poses at a memorial service for the Soviet dictator in his Georgian hometown of Gori.)

But at Washington roundtables and in private conversations, Western officials and experts tend to downplay the possibility of Russian-exported propaganda taking root in Georgia. The root of this complacency is tied to regular polling from the U.S.-funded International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute (NDI) that has consistently showed public support for Euro-Atlantic integration at between 60 and 70 percent. Successive governments have relied on this popular approval to justify their Western-facing foreign-policy agendas. So support for Euro-Atlantic integration is broad. But is it deep? Those who have spent time with ordinary Georgians say the reality, as is often the case, is far more complex.

There, in a scene in the popular Georgian soap opera Chemi Tsolis Dakalebi (My Wife’s Best Friends), revelers at a wedding reception are interrupted by an announcement that Georgia has just been awarded a long-coveted “MAP” (membership action plan), a prelude to NATO membership. The announcement shocks the crowd into a stunned silence, which then gives way to raucous cheers. One character, while clapping and celebrating along with the others, turns to another partygoer and asks: “What’s a MAP?”

While the scene colorfully illuminates NATO’s outsized social, and even civilizational, pull among Georgians, it also suggests a harsher truth: that Georgian society’s Western moorings may be more emotive than well-informed. The headline numbers from public opinion polls don’t tell the whole story. Look deeper into the data, and the picture is much more worrisome. According to an NDI poll last August, integration with the West was at best a tertiary issue for Georgians. Instead, “kitchen table” issues dominated respondents’ concerns, with worries about jobs (63 percent) and poverty (32 percent) eclipsing other issues. NATO and EU integration came in far behind at 10th and 17th, respectively. And of 21 issues polled, Georgians picked NATO and EU membership as the top issues the government spent too much time discussing.

But most concerning, buried deep in the survey results, were signs of growing support for joining the Eurasian Union, a Moscow-led EU “alternative.” A full 20 percent favored the idea of Georgian membership. This percentage has risen steadily from 11 percent in late 2013 to 16 percent in mid-2014. Who are these Georgians who would surrender their country’s sovereignty to the same power that keeps a steely grip on Georgian territory and carves other neighboring states with impunity?

Part of the answer can be found in a budding segment of the nongovernmental sector, consisting of innocuously named pro-Russian groups like the “Eurasian Institute,” “Eurasian Choice,” and “The Earth Is Our Home.” Many of these organizations pop in and out of existence as needed — the “Peace Committee of Georgia” one week, something else the next — but they are often tied to the same group of pro-Russian ideologues and policy entrepreneurs who make regular pilgrimages to Moscow and, according to Georgian officials in the ruling party and the opposition, almost certainly receive Kremlin funding. Their common message isn’t high-church Russian apologia or Soviet nostalgia, but rather “Eurasianism” and “Orthodox civilization” — Kremlin shorthand for Putinism. Appeals to Georgian social conservatism, economic vulnerability, and lingering anger over past government abuses are winning converts within a population increasingly impatient with Georgia’s unrequited love affair with the West.

In mid-2014, Eurasianist groups made headlines for their raucous opposition to an anti-discrimination bill making its way through the Georgian parliament. Their opposition centered on language in the bill banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which opponents claimed was tantamount to promoting non-heterosexual lifestyles. But they didn’t come to the protests alone — accompanying the pro-Russian activists were unmistakably garbed clerics from the Georgian Orthodox Church. The church, too, was nonplussed over the anti-discrimination bill and called for language protecting sexual minorities to be ejected. One of the oldest existing Christian churches in the world, the Georgian Orthodox Church is both a touchstone for Georgian nationalism and reliably polls as the most trusted institution in the country. But the church’s common cause with the Eurasianists was not limited to tactical alliances over anti-gay rhetoric. Although nominally in favor of Georgian membership in the European Union, influential factions within the Orthodox hierarchy openly stoke religious nationalism and express admiration for Russia.

Today, church representatives are increasingly seen as a vanguard for reactionary activity. In mid-2013, clergy members were on the front lines of a horrifying anti-gay pogrom in central Tbilisi. Church officials have justified protests against and attacks on Georgian Muslims. And church leaders have called the West “worse than Russia,” sometimes describing the 2008 Russian invasion as a kind of heavenly intervention against Western integration. Such language is echoed by Georgia’s Eurasianist NGOs. The growing profile of pro-Russian organizations and the sharpening anti-Western stance of the church is converging with a third leg in an emerging pro-Russian triad: the revitalization of anti-Western political parties. Since the 2012 change in power, pro-Russian politicians have risen from the darkest margins of Georgian political life into an increasingly viable political force. 

Onetime pro-Western advocate turned pro-Russian political agitator Nino Burjanadze has fashioned a political coalition aimed squarely at breaking Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic consensus. In presidential and local elections in 2013 and 2014, respectively, Burjanadze managed to get about 10 percent of the vote, armed with Eurasianist rhetoric and fueled by massive influxes of what was likely Russian money. And the rapidly growing Alliance of Patriots — a populist party with anti-Western leanings, which recently held a major rally in Tbilisi — won almost 5 percent in June 2014. If these numbers hold, parliamentary elections in 2016 could very well yield a very differently oriented Georgian government. A 15 percent result would be more than enough to send pro-Russian deputies into parliament in force, shattering cross-partisan foreign-policy unity and potentially playing kingmakers in coalition talks.

Irakli Alasania, Georgia’s former defense minister, has Russia on his mind. “There are very active pro-Russia groups and thousands of protesters who are against Western integration,” he told me recently, referring to the Alliance of Patriots rally. He expressed worry that the current government is downplaying a growing Russian threat. With his own Free Democrats now part of the parliamentary opposition, the ruling Georgian Dream coalition’s ranks of solidly pro-Western parties has noticeably thinned, and the leverage of socially conservative, protectionist factions within the coalition has increased.

But this is probably only the beginning. If trends hold, Georgia’s foreign-policy consensus — long taken for granted in the West — could begin to unravel in earnest. Although Georgian Dream, to its credit, has managed to skate the knife’s edge between geopolitical pragmatism and Euro-Atlantic enthusiasm, it is increasingly losing popularity among once-hopeful voters. As things stand, parliament in 2016 looks like it will be very different from today’s parliament. The pro-Western opposition United National Movement will likely see its 51 seats slashed by half or more. In its place is likely to be a collection of openly anti-Western deputies from Burjanadze’s coalition and the Alliance of Patriots. If it stays together, Georgian Dream may well remain the largest parliamentary bloc, but the introduction of large anti-Western groupings into parliament could compel it to dilute, or even abandon, its pro-Western policies out of political necessity.

This trajectory ought to be a cause for deep concern. Even a Georgia that tried to split its orientation between the West and Moscow would likely sink into the quicksand of Russian dominance, as have each of the other paragons of this strategy — Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Kazakhstan. This result would mean the consolidation of Russian geostrategic supremacy over the Caucasus and, with it, a complete Russian monopoly over trans-Eurasian energy and trade flows.

There are ways the West could throw a much-needed lifeline to Georgian liberals. While the association agreement with the European Union signed last June is surely a welcome symbol, and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area has great future potential, the real prize for most ordinary Georgians is the prospect of visa-free travel to the EU. If this is introduced this year, as widely hoped, this could be a real boon for Western credibility. And if not outright NATO membership, other strong gestures, such as U.S. major non-NATO ally status, would be a relatively painless upgrade that would enshrine what is essentially the status quo while recognizing Georgia’s long-outsized dedication and contributions to the Euro-Atlantic space.

What is clear is that the days of taking Georgia’s pro-Western consensus for granted are quickly coming to a close. Russian influence is resurgent across its periphery, from Eastern Europe to the Caucasus to Central Asia, and Georgia remains a long-coveted prize. It may have taken successive military interventions, information warfare, and influence operations, but Moscow looks to be turning a corner in its bid to regain Georgia — both by hook and by crook.

Source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/09/the-kremlin-pulls-on-georgia

Russian analyst’s article on “straight way” to Armenia via Georgia stirs controversy

In Russia they start voicing plans for the “opening” of a straight way to Armenia via Georgia. In particular, this is what deputy director of the Center of Strategic Situations Mikhail Chernov wrote in his article on the Russian lenta.ru portal. His article was taken as a provocation and probing of sentiments, still it caused a sharp reaction both in Armenia and Georgia. The essence of the article by Chernova is that the military-strategic treaties between Russia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which are being prepared for signing, may become prerequisites for Russia’s reaching the border with Armenia. Now the only overland route from Russia to Armenia lies through Georgia, and it is almost an insurmountable obstacle for the integration of Armenia into the “neo-Soviet” space.
 
The texts of the treaties are already in the Russian State Duma, and, according to Chernov, “the institution of bilateral treaties may become a new tool of Russian foreign policy allowing Russia to meet its objectives in the South Caucasus without unnecessary complications in international relations.”
 
“Russia has two such basic tasks in the region and they are closely related to each other. The first one is to prevent the creation of NATO military infrastructure in Georgia. The second objective is to ensure a reliable direct transport link with Armenia,” the Russian expert says. Besides, control of the Russian Federation over transport communications will provide full functioning of the Russian military base in Armenia. The mechanism has also been devised. It turns out that on October 31 Vladikavkaz, the capital of Russia’s republic of North Ossetia hosted a congress of the International Public Movement called “The Supreme Council of the Ossetians”, which was also attended by former president of South Ossetia Eduard Kokoity. He raised the question of Trusovsky gorges and Kobin hollow being part of Ossetia. Presence in Kazbegi region will make it possible to control a small section of the strategically important Georgian Military Highway – the shortest route from Russia to Armenia.
 
“At the same time, Russia is more interested in the development of the Trans-Caucasian Highway. The ‘western’ route to Armenia passes through the Gori district, bypasses Trialet Ossetia, where a considerable number of Ossetians lived before the early 1990s, as well as the Armenian-populated Samtskhe-Javakheti region,” Chernov writes.
 
He hopes that if by some chance in Georgia on the basis of the current political crisis Maidan-like events start, Russia may introduce troops into Georgia for the “protection” of Ossetians and thus open up its route towards Armenia. In an interview with Newspost former defense minister of Georgia Dimitri Shashkin said: “Alarm should be sounded over the document relating to the Tskhinvali region, which officially entered the [Russian State] Duma. Russian experts have already started openly speaking about the threat that concerns Russia’s big desire to create a direct link with its base in Gyumri (Armenia).”

According to Shashkin, on the basis of treaties being prepared with Abkhazia and Tskhinvali Russia is openly stating that it will protect them against Georgians.  “[Russian] protection of Georgian regions is another new challenge. It turns out that if about a hundred people are paid for setting up a group of provocateurs, they [Russians] may invade Kakheti in order to protect the local population. A hundred provocateurs can be found easily,” Shashkin said. No official reaction to these statements have yet been made in Armenia, Georgia and Russia, however, at the level of experts there are opinions that such provocations can sow discord between Georgians and Armenians. Former Georgian Defense Minister Irakli Alasania, who stepped down recently, has repeatedly stated that the Russian base in Armenia is a threat for Georgia. It is these threats that do not allow Georgia and Armenia to establish mutually beneficial relations.

Source: http://www.armenianow.com/commentary/analysis/58344/armenia_georgia_communications_roads_abkhazia_south_ossetia

The US Needs To Recognize Russia’s Monroe Doctrine

U.S. leaders once understood and accepted that strong powers would insist on a security zone and broad sphere of influence in their immediate geographic region. Indeed, as just a middling power, the United States boldly asserted such a policy with the proclamation of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823. The key passage warned conservative European monarchies: “We should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.”

Yet, U.S. policymakers now denounce as illegitimate similar bids to establish even modest security zones by other major powers. That point is especially evident in Washington’s conduct toward Russia. 

The United States and its NATO allies officially repudiate even the concept of spheres of influence, contending that it has no place in the modern international system. Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s secretary of state, made that point explicitly in response to Moscow’s 2008 military intervention in Georgia. She scorned the notion of Russian primacy along the perimeter of the Russian Federation as the manifestation of “some archaic sphere of influence.” Secretary of State John Kerry expresses similar views. In November 2013, he even declared that “the era of the Monroe Doctrine is over.” Following Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the Kremlin’s unsubtle support for secessionist forces in eastern Ukraine, Kerry asserted that “you don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion” by invading a neighbor.

The current U.S. attitude is more than a little hypocritical. Contrary to Kerry’s rhetoric, the Monroe Doctrine is very much alive. Washington has intervened militarily as recently as the 1980s (Grenada and Panama) or even the 1990s (Haiti) within its traditional sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere. 

Russia’s brass knuckles tactics toward Kiev may be jarring to Western observers, but U.S. leaders need to recognize that Ukraine has long had economic and strategic relevance to Moscow. Any Russian government was bound to resent an attempt to wrench Ukraine into the West’s geopolitical orbit. And that is what Washington and its European allies did by supporting the Maidan Square demonstrators who overthrew Ukraine’s pro-Russian, but duly elected, president, Viktor Yanukovych.

Russia’s brass knuckles tactics toward Kiev may be jarring to Western observers, but U.S. leaders need to recognize that Ukraine has long had economic and strategic relevance to Moscow.

It is always a useful exercise for policymakers to view a situation as though the positions of the various parties were reversed. Imagine what the U.S. reaction would be if Russia (or any other major power) expanded a military alliance that it led and proceeded to incorporate Caribbean and Central American countries. That scenario is analogous to how a U.S.-led NATO expanded to include East European nations near or on Russia’s border. Consider further how Washington would likely react if the rival power then spoke openly of offering membership in its alliance to Canada and Mexico, and used its influence to unseat a pro-U.S. government in one of those countries. At a minimum, U.S. officials would be screaming about a blatant violation of the Monroe Doctrine and would regard the rival power’s moves as profoundly threatening.

It is illogical to assume that Moscow should view comparable Western machinations differently. The blunt truth is that the United States and its allies intruded into a traditional Russian sphere of influence—indeed, into a zone that Moscow considers essential to national security. U.S. leaders should recognize that their conduct has violated an implicit Russian equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine. The West needs to back off before it triggers what former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev aptly described in a recent speech as a new Cold War. 

Indeed, such a confrontation might not remain cold. Already, Russian military aircraft and their NATO counterparts have come dangerously close. The potential for an inadvertent clash or a tragic miscalculation by one side or the other is reaching worrisome levels. There is no justification for running such risks. Russia’s behavior toward its neighbors may be abrasive, but it is operating as major powers tend to do in their sphere of influence. U.S. leaders once understood that reality. It is unfortunate, and potentially disastrous, that our current policymakers apparently do not.

Source: http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2014/12/us-needs-recognize-russias-monroe-doctrine/100557/

America’s new nightmare: India, China plus Russia

Russia is avidly hoping for a rapprochement between India and China after the ongoing, high-profile visit of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi to China. If political tensions between India and China decrease, then the Russia, India, China (RIC) combine can begin to function as the world’s economic and a strategic powerhouse, getting the United States worried.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi travelled to China on Thursday May 14, for negotiations with President Xi Jinping of the People’s Republic of China. As part of the three day visit Modi hopes to achieve a breakthrough in relations with China, which have so far been hindered by a boundary dispute and territorial claims from both parties. Judging from indirect indicators, the visit might be a game changer in relations between New Delhi and Beijing. The program for Modi’s visit to China has been designed so that the Indian Prime Minister will be received by China’s highest officials. Breaking protocol, the Chinese President travelled to his native city Xi'an, and personally met Modi, not only for a summit-level meeting which lasted over 90 minutes, but also for an informal tour of Xi’an’s major Buddhist historical sites. This is the first time Xi has received a leader outside Beijing. The gesture is being viewed as a serious attempt to reduce bilateral differences and “improve trust” between the two countries. President Xi was also reciprocating a similar gesture made by Modi when the former visited India last year in September. Modi had received Xi in his native Ahmedabad city.

The Indian prime minister is in Beijing on Friday to meet Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. His visit will conclude with a trip to Shanghai where the Indian delegation will hold negotiations with representatives of China’s business circles. For Russia, the rapprochement between India and China is an issue of paramount importance. For a long time, the concept of a strategic triangle between Russia, China and India has existed, but until recently it has not appeared particularly viable. The RIC, as the group is known, has been largely an economic forum, without much to show in strategic terms. The conflict between China and India over their boundary is unresolved, and appears intractable. With this visit, it is likely some issues will get resolved and the main difficulty for the economic integration of Eurasia may have been resolved. This means that Moscow has new opportunities in the East.

In this context, the telephone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Indian prime minister less than a day before Modi’s visit to China is significant. According to the Kremlin press service, and Modi’s own tweets, the Indian Prime Minister has confirmed his participation in the forthcoming BRICS summit in July and the in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, both in Ufa. He also discussed with the Russian President various issues associated with the expansion of the Russia-Indian privileged strategic partnership. Last week, Putin received Chinese President Xi in Moscow, where more than 30 agreements were signed by the two leaders.

Svobodnay Pressa (SP): What does the rapprochement of Asia’s two economic giants mean for Russia?

“The idea of a Russian, Chinese and Indian triangle was put forward by Evgenny Primakov at the end of the 1990s,” said Alexey Maslov, Director of the Centre of Strategic Research on China at the Russian University of People’s Friendship. He is also head of the Department of Oriental Studies at the Higher School of Economics. “But then it was thought that Russia would play the leading role in the ‘triangle’. Now it is clear that China will play this role, and this changes the entire situation,” he said. “One needs to understand that strengthening of the triangle will take place according to China’s concept of a new ‘Great Silk Road’. In other words, China will unite countries based on mutual self-interest, primarily, economic.”

SP: Specifically what projects could unite India, China and Russia?

“First and foremost is the transition to keeping accounts using a common currency. It is clear that such a currency is not going to appear tomorrow, but in the best case scenario, it could be in 5-6 years. This is a very attractive project. Furthermore, our three countries can introduce a preferential trade system and establish joint enterprises. We can probably develop common rail and aviation routes for cargo. Essentially, today China is creating a new political reality, and it is Beijing that is controlling this reality. But a lot depends on how effectively China is able to normalize relations with India. This is not easy to do, considering the territorial claims of the parties and the mutual conflict they are causing, which have appeared as part of previous Indian-Chinese negotiations.”

SP: Do you think that Beijing will succeed in this?

“I expect that as part of the visit Modi will conclude an agreement which will freeze territorial disputes. I think that China will take economic measures to provide India with credit to develop their industry. I must say that today India is China’s natural competitor in terms of production costs. It is possible that China will locate some of its enterprises in India. In the near future, work will begin on Chinese investments into roadways and railways in northern India. In essence, within the framework of the Great Silk Road project, Beijing is hoping to gain control over a vast territory – from Southeast Asia to the Caucasus. This concept implies economic integration, financial and political cooperation, common logistics, and infrastructure. For now, this concept covers the internal territories of China, plus the neighbouring countries, like the Central Asian republics and a number of countries in Southeast Asia. Russia has not yet signed up to this concept, but said it is ready for cooperation within the framework of the two unions; the Silk Road and the Eurasian Economic Union. (India has also not come on board the Silk Road project).

SP: Is it possible to say that in this situation, it is particularly advantageous for Russia to turn to the East?

“At present, Russia is the largest country that is supporting the “expansionist” policy of China. This reinforces our political and economic positions. On the other hand, a number of risks and conflicts can arise in the future, which can be resolved only if Russia will be able to equally engage with the West, and with the East,” said Maslov. “Between Beijing and New Delhi there is a territorial dispute, arising from (before) the Sino-Indian border war in 1962, which ended with the defeat of India,” notes Andrey Ostrovsky, deputy director of the Institute of Far Eastern Studies, and member of the European Association of Sinologists. “As a result, India now occupies part of Chinese territory – the state of Arunachal Pradesh, and China a part of the Indian territory – the Aksai Chin plateau. Until these territorial disputes are resolved, achieving normal relations between the two countries will be rather difficult.”

“However, such issues can be resolved, gradually, through negotiations. Take for example Russia-China relations. In 1964, when Mao Zedong for the first time raised the question of the fate of 1.5 million square kilometres, which Tsarist Russia had taken from China, this issue was far from being resolved. However, in 2004 – 40 years later – the final demarcation of the Russian-Chinese border was carried out. Given goodwill on both sides, countries are quite capable of resolving their border issues. As soon as China and India settle their territorial disputes, all political questions will be immediately resolved as well.”

“It must be said that the settlement of this border issue is long overdue, as economic ties between India and China are developing very quickly. The volume of India-China foreign trade is already comparable to the volume of Russia’s trade with China – around $100 billion. The important thing is that problems between India and China will be addressed not only within the BRICS format, but also within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), in which Russia plays an important role. As we know, New Delhi has applied for membership in the SCO. It is quite possible that during the SCO Summit in Ufa this July, India’s application will be approved.

SP: What constitutes mutual economic interests of India and China?

“Of interest are the markets of both countries – these are huge markets. In fact, almost all the excess production which China is capable of can be sold in India – and vice versa. Moreover, there are also products and services that are produced only in India, or only in China. In India these are, above all else, information services – software, while China is hoping to build a high-speed rail network in India.

SP: What is Russia’s place in these two economies?

“Our place in the Chinese economy seems to be emerging from the 32 agreements signed by President Xi during his May visit to Moscow. According to these agreements, China will invest into our infrastructure development program. In addition to the high-speed railway from Moscow to Beijing, which is to be built in 2023, we have joint infrastructure projects in Asia, such as the construction of the railway route Kyzyl-Kuragino and the Far East Seaport. Additionally, China is providing Russia with lines of credit. We, on the other hand, will supply gas to China via the western route, as well as 100 Sukhoi Superjet airplanes. India is also interested in Russian gas. The country is huge, and does not have enough energy resources. Yes, problems do exist in organizing the supply of gas, for example, because of the difficult terrain involved. However, as the Chinese have shown by building a high-speed railway to Tibet, this is not something insurmountable,” said Ostrovsky.

Source: http://in.rbth.com/world/2015/05/15/americas_new_nightmare_india_china_plus_russia_43123.html

India and Russia back China's call for 'new world order'

Russia and India added their voices on Monday to China's call for a new world order and endorsed Beijing's plans to mark the 70th anniversary of the end of the second world war. The foreign ministers of the three nations met in the capital for talks just a week after US President Barack Obama made a high-profile trip to India. After Monday's  meeting, President Xi Jinping gave a positive assessment of China's ties with the two nations, despite New Delhi's apparent distrust towards Beijing.

In a joint communique, the three nations vowed to "build a more just, fair and stable international political and economic order" and a "multi-polar" world. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said all states should be involved in creating "a modern security architecture" in the Asia-Pacific; his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi , said the region should not be caught up in a zero-sum game. "We advocate the principle of partnership rather than alliance," Wang said.

The three nations also gave their support to efforts to put second world war commemorations on the agenda of the United Nations General Assembly. "We will be celebrating the 70th anniversary of the UN and the world's victory against fascism. This provides a great opportunity for countries in the world to cherish history and look forward to the future," Wang said. Lavrov and Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj backed the call, with Lavrov saying the world needed to be on alert for fascism. "We must remember the tragic lesson of the events of those years," he said.

China has sought to spearhead efforts for the anniversary, a move that some observers have described as an attempt to exert pressure on Japan. A military parade will be held in Beijing in September, to which Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to be invited. The hosting of the two foreign ministers is seen as an attempt by Beijing to present a united international front as a counterbalance to Washington, after Obama's visit to India. During Obama's trip, India and the US said freedom of navigation should be protected across the South China Sea, over which Beijing claims sovereignty.

But Xi was positive on Sino-Indian ties as he meet Swaraj yesterday, saying the relationship had "entered a new stage". "The two nations have to properly control their differences with patience, and the differences should not affect the overall picture of their relations," the China News Service quoted him as saying.

Source: https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blog

Victory Day and the evolving Global Order

The 70th Victory Day parade was significant not only for commemorating the Allied victory over the fascist forces, but also for the lasting impact it may have on the evolving global order. The participation of the Presidents of India, China and South Africa in Moscow strengthened the BRICS and the RIC bonding, and helped bolster Russia’s clout.

The grand Victory Day parade in Moscow was significant not only for commemorating the 70^th anniversary of the Allied victory over the fascist forces, but also for developments that may have a long lasting impact on the evolving global order. India’s participation in the event strengthened the partnership between the two traditional allies – India and Russia, and multilaterally, the participation of the Presidents of India, China and South Africa strengthened the BRICS and the RIC bonding, and helped bolster Russia’s clout.

During his interview with TASS, Indian President, Pranab Mukherjee called the Victory Day a “determining event in the 20^th century”, as it witnessed the defeat of Fascism and ended the prospects of world domination by Hitler. Mukherjee lauded the Soviet role in the Second World War, and emphasized that the victory could not have been possible without the immense sacrifice made by the Russian people. The Allies’ victory generated the promise of an international order, based on cooperation and mutual assistance. Russian President Vladimir Putin echoed Mukherjee’s sentiment when he said, “Our common task should be offering equal-security system for all countries.”

For the first time, a 75-member contingent from India’s Grenadiers Regiment participated in the parade.  The participation not only reflected India’s commitment to friendship with Russia, but also India’s interest to stand with Russia in trying times. The Indian media covered the event, narrating how the contingent marched on Red Square to popular applause and how the leader of the Indian contingent shook hand with President Putin.

There is a debate over India’s participation in the event. Those opposed to India’s high-level participation in the Victory Day celebrations argue that India, which is keen to strengthen relations with the United States and its Western allies, should have taken a more nuanced stand on Russia, and particularly on the conflict in Ukraine. The recent visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to France, Germany and Canada, and finalization of the Rafale deal with France, need mention in this context. India is interested in maintaining a balance in its relations with Russia and the West.

The new mantra is cooperation in a mutually beneficial framework. India understands that its reliance on the US may not only distance it from Russia, but also push Pakistan closer to Russia and China, a scenario Indian policymakers can hardly afford. However, the traditional India-Russia relationship, which President Mukherjee termed a “special and privileged strategic partnership,” is unlikely to succumb to geopolitical pressures.

The commemoration ceremonies have strengthened relations between Russia, China and India. Besides the Indian contingent, a contingent from the Chinese army participated in the parade. Chinese President Xi Jinping and South African President Jacob Zuma were also present along with President Mukherjee. While India and China are members of the trilateral RIC, with South Africa, they are also members of BRICS. The next BRICS summit will take place in Ufa in July, under Russian chairmanship.

The Allied Victory in World War II led to the creation of the United Nations Organization as the guarantor of international peace and security. Russia and its partners in BRICS have stressed on the UN’s role in evolving a just and fair global order. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s participation at the Victory Day celebration was significant because it showed that, despite the stand-off between Russia and the West over Ukraine, the UN recognized the enormous significance of the event. The trouble in Ukraine cast its shadow as Western leaders boycotted the event. However, Putin shrugged off their non-participation and went on to thank the people of the Allied powers. “We are grateful to the people of Great Britain, France and the United States for their contribution to victory,” he said.

The non-participation of western leaders on such an occasion has further widened the chasm between Russia and the West. Though German Chancellor Angela Merkel visited Moscow the day after the parade (on May 10) to pay homage to those who sacrificed their lives during the war, the non-participation of the other war-time allies has narrowed the scope for negotiation over differences on Ukraine. The polarization in international politics, in terms of the East-West stand-off, may not augur well for international peace and security, which was, in fact, the original message of the Victory Day 70 years ago.

Dr. Debidatta Aurobinda Mahapatra is an Indian commentator. His areas of interests include conflict, terrorism, peace and development, South Asia, and strategic aspects of Eurasian politics.

Source: http://in.rbth.com/world/2015/05/12/victory_day_and_the_evolving_global_order_43049.html

China’s New Silk Road Will Be America’s Ultimate Nightmare

The website of a Spanish media reported on October 9 that while US “New Century” is rapidly aging, the Beijing-Moscow-Berlin strategic trade alliance may be a reality in the future. The website said: Beijing and Moscow leaders attach great importance to the alliance, in which Beilin, New Delhi and Tehran have all shown interest. However, US elites have entirely ignored it. Anyway, it is difficult for Americans to accept the end of the all-round superiority that Pentagon has enthusiastically pursued.

Moscow believes that Washington and its NATO are increasingly interested in setting up an “Iron Curtain” to separate it from the West. The Ukraine issue is but the commencement. For Chinese President Xi Jiping, his Chinese dream includes the new Silk Road that will provide a fast corridor for European-Asian trade to ease the pressure on the sea from Washington and Tokyo. He is setting up two Silk Roads: one through Siberia and the other through Central Asia.

Both China and Russia hope to see a Germany that Washington lacks strength to control. Germany is adopting a geopolitical strategy clearly different from Washington’s and German industrial circles earnestly want to maintain unlimited trade cooperation with China and Russia. That may cause Germany to pursue world power within the framework of EU. China is now playing a new geopolitical role in Europe and Asia rare in modern history. It is building and will build networks of highways, high-speed railways, oil pipelines and ports connecting China with West Europe and the Mediterranean.

The Obama Administration mainly responds with containment of China in the sea area from the Indian Ocean to the South China Sea and intensification of China’s conflicts with Japan and India to establish and strengthen its strategic alliance with India and Japan. However, German industrial and commercial circles have already become aware that while Chinese products may come through the Silk Road, German goods can also go East via that road. It will enable China to surpass the US and France and become Germany’s largest trade partner

When German Chancellor Merkel visited China three months ago, she began discussion of a high-speed railway between Berlin and Beijing. That reaiway will finally become Washington’s nightmare.

The Obama Administration has remained short-sighted. It always believes tthat US technical and military strength will enable the US to maintain its superior position. However, when Beijing has controlled the ways to European and Asian markets, its huge financial and Moscow’s abundant energy resources will deepen the strategic cooperation between China and Russia, which will attract other large European and Asian countries to join them. We can believe that in future European-Asian era, it is quite possible for the US to be excluded from Europe and Asia. By 2025, it will be clear whether there will be a changed world with a Beijing-Moscow-Berlin axis.

Source: https://tiananmenstremendousachievements.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/chinas-new-silk-road-will-be-americas-ultimate-nightmare/

The SCO 2012 Shanghai Summit – on the Way to New World Order

The 12^th Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit took place in Beijing on June 6-7, 2012. The annual event brought together the heads of states to review and gauge the importance of the SCO in global affairs. China hosted the summit for the third time since its inception. The organization has crossed the threshold of the second decade of its existence. It was founded on 15 June 2001 in Shanghai by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan on the basis of the Shanghai Five active since 1996. Iran, India, Mongolia, Pakistan and now Afghanistan are the observer states. Belarus and Sri Lanka became SCO dialogue partners in 2010. The participation of officials representing the United Nations, the CIS, the Eurasian Economic Community and the Collective Security Treaty Organization gave the event a new dimension converting it into an international forum of global scale and importance. In the past 11 years the SCO has faced the challenges of our time, its very existence illustrating the multipolarity of the contemporary world. 

The leaders exchanged views on current world events and discussed the goals and missions defining strategic planning and prospects for future. The signed Declaration on Building a Region with Lasting Peace and Common Prosperity defined the core policy guidelines. It stressed that “the member states support the building of a world free of nuclear weapons and in strict compliance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The SCO calls on all nuclear weapon states to sign the relevant protocols to the Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia and take real steps to move forward the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia”. In support of Russia’s stance on the issue the document said “unilateral and unrestricted build-up of missile defense by an individual country or a country bloc will endanger international security and strategic stability. The relevant issues must be resolved by all the countries concerned through political and diplomatic efforts. The member states firmly believe that one should not pursue its own security at the expense of other countries' security” – a clear message to the USA led NATO’s European missile defense component.

It was decided to revise the SCO Regulations on Political and Diplomatic Measures and Mechanisms of Response to Events Jeopardizing Regional Peace, Security and Stability in order to enhance joint early warning, crisis management, interaction and interoperability capability. The participants came up with the program of fighting terrorism, separatism and extremism for 2013-2015 that specified plans to counter the activities of these "three forces" in the region. With terrorism, separatism and extremism as well as other transnational crimes on the rise, the SCO member states agreed to make the organization an effective instrument of regional security. An agreement was also reached on mutual disaster relief assistance. The countries will communicate in a timely manner in case of emergency, send rescue teams, provide relief supplies and minimize the impact of disasters.

The establishment of the SCO development bank and special account to advance regional economic development was an important part of economic agenda. Gradual transition to national currencies settlements and financing joint projects is a great step forward on the way to gradual economic integration. The member states agreed to enhance cooperation in transportation, energy, telecommunications and agriculture. They also believe it is necessary to promote cultural and educational exchanges and expand people-to-people contacts and social interaction. 

The Beijing summit outlined the “mid-term development strategy”. The main objective is to “build the SCO as a practical and highly effective platform for cooperation”. This is the first time that the SCO has come up with a comprehensive policy plan of long-term cooperation in tackling strategic issues. The strategy presupposes expanding the mandate of the SCO and its membership. Membership expansion will be done on a “consensual” basis and based on the results of road map fulfillment. In the immediate future the process is to be limited to bringing in a few observers and dialogue partners. The summit expanded the organization by granting Afghanistan an observer status and making Turkey a dialogue partner. Sri Lanka and Belarus were taken in as dialogue partners in 2010. The summit welcomed the proposed accession of India and Pakistan to the security grouping, but no timetable was set to grant them full membership. The SCO will strengthen cooperation with its observer states and dialogue partners, the United Nations and its affiliated organizations, as well as other international and regional actors. Expanding the SCO mandate is reflected in adoption of an ambitious action plan for Afghanistan. It was a key issue of the agenda. Kabul is hosting an international conference on Afghanistan on June 14. The participants stressed that the situation in Afghanistan has a direct impact on the entire region. Russia, for its part, views drug trafficking and extremism as main threats. The detailed plan envisages reconstructing that country and bringing stability to the region. 

The Iranian President’s attendance at the summit was an important contribution. Defying the US and EU sanctions over Iran imposed to punish it for nuclear activities, the SCO asks for “negotiated solution” of the problem and is strongly opposed to unilateral actions in the Middle East. It finds the use of force against Iran "unacceptable". The summit’s statement on Syria also calls for a "peaceful resolution of the Syrian problem through political dialogue". 

The intent of the SCO members to strengthen joint security policy had been displayed by real actions just before the summit. In April this year Russia and China conducted the joint naval exercise Sea Cooperation 2012 in the Yellow Sea, following four bilateral military exercises since 2005. The training team-up involved several simulated missions, including the rescue of a hijacked ship, the escort of a commercial vessel and the defense of a sea convoy against air and sea attacks. The exercise demonstrated the will of the two leading SCO members to strengthen the capability to jointly confront new regional threats. The event came after US President Barack Obama signaled a "return to Asia" following a decade of conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq last November. The timing of the Sea Cooperation by and large coincided with the joint exercises launched by the U.S. and Philippine military in the South China Sea. 

During the President Putin’s two days state visit to Beijing preceding the SCO summit Russia and China stated they found common language in foreign affairs and undertook to cooperate to ensure security in the Asia Pacific region. “We believe our joint initiative to strengthen security in the Asia Pacific region is important,” Putin said. “In this context we will, of course, maintain relations between our defense ministries.” He added: “We are for the formation of an open and equal architecture of security and cooperation, based on the principles of international law in the region”. The Russian President emphasized burgeoning military ties with China. He noted Russia and China vowed to expand military exchanges setting the above mentioned Russian-Chinese naval exercises in the Yellow Sea as an example. Military exchanges between Moscow and Beijing have accelerated under the aegis of the SCO that hosts regular border protection and anti-terrorism drills. The both sides agreed to bolster strategic relationship in a corresponding statement. 

Defense and security cooperation is a really an important part of the SCO agenda. The armed forces of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization members will hold the "Peace Mission 2012" drill in Tajikistan from June 8 to 14 involving more than 2,000 servicemen from China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The scenario envisages joining forces in an anti-terrorist operation in mountainous areas against the background of a regional crisis caused by terrorist activities. The SCO summit emphasized the organization holds regular meetings of defense chiefs. The member states have already held eight large-scale anti-terrorist drills, five security forums and have made personnel exchanges and joint training a routine matter. The SCO training activities have evolved from company-level tactical training events to large-scale joint combined exercises over the last decade. 

Wrap up

Judging by the outcome of the summit the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is in for major changes. The crises in the Middle East triggered by the Arab Spring, the withdrawal of ISAF from Afghanistan, the growing number of hotbeds in different regions - it all calls for the intensification of the SCO efforts to strengthen regional security. The summit confirmed the intention to jointly counter the challenges. A new mechanism to do it will be launched as early as next month, right on the eve of an international conference on Afghanistan slated for June 14 in Kabul. The CSO has a very important role to play in managing the situation. Of course it would be wise to unite efforts with NATO to tackle the problem jointly, though until now the Alliance has stubbornly refused to act together with either the SCO or the CSTO.  The decisions on the CSO expansion is a momentous event. Now the organization has clearly grown beyond the scope of regional problems. The fact of mentioning the US missile defense outside the national territory in the declaration is a bright example. A consolidated SCO position on the issue may become a significant counterweight to NATO’s plans. Bringing in Turkey, a NATO member, is the confirmation of the rising global influence. The main summit result is that the SCO has significantly varied and deepened the cooperation process in all fields and enhanced its international clout. It’s a win-win result for those who oppose a unipolar vision of the contemporary world.

Source: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2012/06/08/sco-2012-shanghai-summit-way-new-world-order.html

Paul Craig Roberts: Will Russia and China Hold Their Fire Until War Is the Only Alternative?

Obama’s September 24 speech at the UN is the most absurd thing I have heard in my entire life. It is absolutely amazing that the president of the United States would stand before the entire world and tell what everyone knows are blatant lies while simultaneously demonstrating Washington’s double standards and belief that Washington alone, because the US is exceptional and indispensable, has the right to violate all law. It is even more amazing that every person present did not get up and walk out of the assembly. The diplomats of the world actually sat there and listened to blatant lies from the world’s worst terrorist. They even clapped their approval.
 
The rest of the speech was just utter bullshit: “We stand at a crossroads,” “signposts of progress,” “reduced chance of war between major powers,” “hundreds of millions lifted from poverty,” and while ebola ravages Africa “we’ve learned how to cure disease and harness the power of the wind and the sun.” We are now God. “We” is comprised of the “exceptional people”–Americans. No one else counts. “We” are it. It is impossible to pick the most absurd statement in Obama’s speech or the most outrageous lie. Is it this one? “Russian aggression in Europe recalls the days when large nations trampled small ones in pursuit of territorial ambition.”
 
Or is it this one? “After the people of Ukraine mobilized popular protests and calls for reform, their corrupt president fled.  Against the will of the government in Kiev, Crimea was annexed.  Russia poured arms into eastern Ukraine, fueling violent separatists and a conflict that has killed thousands.  When a civilian airliner was shot down from areas that these proxies controlled, they refused to allow access to the crash for days.  When Ukraine started to reassert control over its territory, Russia gave up the pretense of merely supporting the separatists, and moved troops across the border.”
 
The entire world knows that Washington overthrew the elected Ukrainian government, that Washington refuses to release its satellite photos of the destruction of the Malaysian airliner, that Ukraine refuses to release its air traffic control instructions to the airliner, that Washington has prevented a real investigation of the airliner’s destruction, that European experts on the scene have testified that both sides of the airliner’s cockpit demonstrate machine gun fire, an indication that the airliner was shot down by the Ukrainian jets that were following it. Indeed, there has been no explanation why Ukrainian jets were close on the heels of an airliner directed by Ukrainian air traffic control.
 
The entire world knows that if Russia had territorial ambitions, when the Russian military defeated the American trained and supplied Georgian army that attacked South Ossetia, Russia would have kept Georgia and reincorporated it within Russia where it resided for centuries.
 
Notice that it is not aggression when Washington bombs and invades seven countries in 13 years without a declaration of war. Aggression occurs when Russia accepts the petition of Crimeans who voted 97 percent in favor of reuniting with Russia where Crimea resided for centuries before Khrushchev attached it to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Ukraine in 1954 when Ukraine and Russia were part of the same country.
 
And the entire world knows that, as the separatist leader of the Donetsk Republic said, “If Russian military units were fighting with us, the news would not be the fall of Mariupol but the fall of Kiev and Lviv.”
 
Which is “the cancer of violent extremism”–ISIS which cut off the heads of four journalists, or Washington which has bombed seven countries in the 21st century murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians and displacing millions? Who is the worst terrorist–ISIS, a group that is redrawing the artificial boundaries created by British and French colonialists, or Washington with its Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign policy, which declares Washington’s dominant objective to be US hegemony over the world?
 
ISIS is the creation of Washington. ISIS consists of the jihadists Washington used to overthrow Gaddafi in Libya and then sent to Syria to overthrow Assad. If ISIS is a “network of death,” a “brand of evil” with which negotiation is impossible as Obama declares, it is a network of death created by the Obama regime itself. If ISIS poses the threat that Obama claims, how can the regime that created the threat be credible in leading the fight against it? 

Obama never mentioned in his speech the central problem that the world faces. That problem is Washington’s inability to accept the existence of strong independent countries such as Russia and China. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine commits the United States to maintaining its status as the sole Unipower. This task requires Washington “to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.” A “hostile power” is any country that has sufficient power or influence to be able to limit Washington’s exercise of power.
 

The Wolfowitz Doctrine explicitly targets Russia: “Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere.” A “rival” is defined as any country capable of defending its interests or those of allies against Washington’s hegemony.
 
In his speech, Obama told Russia and China that they can be part of Washington’s world order on the condition that they accept Washington’s hegemony and do not interfere in any way with Washington’s control. When Obama tells Russia that the US will cooperate with Russia “if Russia changes course,” Obama means that Moscow must accept the primacy of Washington’s interest over Russia’s own interest. Clearly, this is an inflexible and unrealistic position. If Washington keeps to it, war with Russia and China will ensue.
 
Obama told China that Washington intended to continue to be a Pacific power in China’s sphere of influence, “promoting peace, stability, and the free flow of commerce among nations” by building new US air and naval bases from the Philippines to Vietnam so that Washington can control the flow of resources in the South China Sea and cut off China at will.
 
As far as I can tell, neither the Russian nor Chinese governments understand the seriousness of the threat that Washington represents. Washington’s claim to world hegemony seems too farfetched to Russia and China to be real. But it is very real. By refusing to take the threat seriously, Russia and China have not responded in ways that would bring an end to the threat without the necessity of war.
 
For example, the Russian government could most likely destroy NATO by responding to sanctions imposed by Washington and the EU by informing European governments that Russia does not sell natural gas to members of NATO. Instead of using this power, Russia has foolishly allowed the EU to accumulate record amounts of stored natural gas to see homes and industry through the coming winter. Has Russia sold out its national interests for money?
 
Much of Washington’s power and financial hegemony rests on the role of the US dollar as world reserve currency. Russia and China have been slow, even negligent from the standpoint of defending their sovereignty, to take advantage of opportunities to undermine this pillar of Washington’s power. For example, the BRICS’ talk of abandoning the dollar payments system has been more talk than action. Russia doesn’t even require Washington’s European puppet states to pay for Russian natural gas in rubles.
 
One might think that a country such as Russia experiencing such extreme hostility and demonization from the West would at least use the gas sales to support its own currency instead of Washington’s dollar. If the Russian government is going to continue to support the economies of European countries hostile to Russia and to prevent the European peoples from freezing during the coming winter, shouldn’t Russia in exchange for this extraordinary subsidy to its enemies at least arrange to support its own currency by demanding payment in rubles? Unfortunately for Russia, Russia is infected with Western trained neoliberal economists who represent Western, not Russian, interests.
 
When the West sees such extraordinary weakness on the part of the Russian government, Obama knows he can go to the UN and tell the most blatant lies about Russia with no cost whatsoever to the US or Europe. Russian inaction subsidizes Russia’s demonization.
 
China has been no more successful than Russia in using its opportunities to destabilize Washington. For example, it is a known fact, as Dave Kranzler and I have repeatedly demonstrated, that the Federal Reserve uses its bullion bank agents to knock down the gold price in order to protect the dollar’s value from the Federal Reserve’s policies. The method used is for the bullion banks to drive down the gold price with enormous amounts of naked shorts during periods of low or nonexistent volume.
 
China or Russia or both could take advantage of this tactic by purchasing every naked short sold plus all covered shorts, if any, and demanding delivery instead of settling the contracts in cash. Neither New York Comex nor the London market could make delivery, and the system would implode. The consequence of the failure to deliver possibly could be catastrophic for the Western financial system, but in the least it would demonstrate the corrupt nature of Western financial institutions.
 
Or China could deal a more lethal blow. Choosing a time of heightened concern or disruptions in US financial markets, China could dump its trillion dollar plus holdings of US treasuries, or indeed all its holdings of US financial instruments, on the market. The Federal Reserve and the US Treasury could try to stabilize the prices of US financial instruments by creating money with which to purchase the bonds and other instruments. This money creation would increase concern about the dollar’s value, and at that point China could dump the trillion dollars plus it receives from its bond sales on the exchange market. The Federal Reserve cannot print foreign currencies with which to buy up the dollars. The dollar’s exchange value would collapse and with it the dollar’s use as world reserve currency. The US would become just another broke country unable to pay for its imports.
 
Possibly, Washington could get Japan and the European Central Bank to print enough yen and euros to buy up the dumped dollars. However, the likelihood is that this would bring down the yen and euro along with the dollar. Flight would occur into the Chinese and Russian currencies, and financial hegemony would depart the West.
 
By their restraint, Russia and China enable Washington’s attack upon them. Last week Washington put thousands of its NGO operatives into the Moscow streets protesting “Putin’s war against Ukraine.” Foolishly, Russia has permitted foreign interests to buy up its newspapers, and these interests continually denounce Putin and the Russian government to their Russian readers. Did Russia sell its soul and communication system for dollars? Did a few oligarchs sell out Russia for Swiss and London bank deposits?
 
Both Russia and China have Muslim populations among whom the CIA operates encouraging disassociation, rebellion, and violence. Washington intends to break up the Russian Federation into smaller, weaker countries that could not stand in the way of Washington’s hegemony. Russian and Chinese fear of discord among their own Muslim populations have caused both governments to make the extremely serious strategic mistake of aligning with Washington against ISIS and with Washington’s policy of protecting Washington’s status quo in the Muslim world.
 
If Russia and China understood the deadly threat that Washington presents, both governments would operate according to the time honored principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Russia and China would arm ISIS with surface to air missiles to bring down the American planes and with military intelligence in order to achieve an American defeat. With defeat would come the overthrow of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Egypt and all of the American puppet rulers in the area. Washington would lose control over oil, and the petro-dollar would be history. It is extraordinary that instead Russia and China are working to protect Washington’s control over the Middle East and the petro-dollar.
 
China is subject to a variety of attacks. The Rockefeller Foundation creates American agents in Chinese universities, or so I am informed by Chinese academics. American companies that locate in China create Chinese boards on which they place the relatives of local and regional party officials. This shifts loyalty from the central government to the American money. Moreover, China has many economists educated in the US who are imbued with the neoliberal economics that represents Washington’s interests.
 
Both Russia and China have significant percentages of their populations who wish to be western. The failure of communism in both countries and the success of American cold war propaganda have created loyalties to America in place of their own governments. In Russia they go by the designation “Atlanticist Integrationists.” They are Russians who wish to be integrated into the West. I know less about the Chinese counterpart, but among youth Western materialism and lack of sexual restraint is appealing.
 
The inability of the Russian and Chinese governments to come to terms with the threat posed to their existence as sovereign countries by the neoconservative insistence on American world hegemony makes nuclear war more likely. If Russia and China catch on too late in the game, their only alternative will be war or submission to Washington’s hegemony. As there is no possibility of the US and NATO invading and occupying Russia and China, the war would be nuclear. 

To avoid this war, which, as so many experts have shown, would terminate life on earth, the Russian and Chinese governments must soon become far more realistic in their assessment of the evil that resides in what Washington has turned into the world’s worst terrorist state–the US. 

It is possible that Russia, China, and the rest of the world will be saved by American economic collapse. The US economy is a house of cards. Real median family incomes are in long-term decline. Universities produce graduates with degrees and heavy debts but no jobs. The bond market is rigged by the Federal Reserve which necessitates rigging the bullion markets in order to protect the dollar. The stock market is rigged by the outpouring of money from the Federal Reserve, by the Plunge Protection Team, and by corporations repurchasing their own stock. The dollar is supported by tradition, habit, and currency swaps. 

The American House of Cards continues to stand only as a result of the tolerance of the world for vast corruption and disinformation and because greed is satisfied by the money made from a rigged system. Russia and/or China could pull down this House of Cards whenever either country or both had leadership capable of it. 

Source: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/25/will-russia-china-hold-fire-war-alternative-paul-craig-roberts/

Russian-Chinese Drill in Mediterranean Sends Signal to US – Western Media

The Russian and Chinese navies began joint naval exercises in the Mediterranean Monday in the latest sign of strengthening ties between the two countries.

The naval drill, to include live-fire exercises in the strategic sea connecting Europe, Africa and the Middle East, is seen by Western media as a signal being sent to Washington of a powerful new alliance emerging “in the very backyard of Western Europe”. “While only two Chinese warships are joining the Mediterranean exercises, their deployment reflects China’s desire to help Russia counter American power”, the New York-based National Preview magazine wrote in a comment. “The enmity that defined Sino-Russian relations during much of the Cold War has long faded. In its place, an evolving China–Russian alliance is rising against American and international security. This alliance has a profound security component”.

The import of the ten days of maneuvers that got underway Monday was not lost on The Los Angeles Times either.

“The point is lost on no one: A powerful new alliance of eastern giants is flexing its muscles in the very backyard of Western Europe — much as China has done on its own in the Pacific", the newspaper wrote on Monday. The Swiss newspaper Tages-Anzeiger wrote about the friendship between Moscow and Beijing going beyond purely political and economic considerations. “They are forging an alliance also in the military field as a counterbalance to the US and its European and Asian allies”, the paper warned.

“Though small scale, it is a signal of growing defense ties between Beijing and Moscow and a demonstration that China's maritime horizons are broadening", the BBC said in a report Monday.

“What is going on in the Mediterranean is hard proof of military might aimed against Washington”, the German Der Spiegel wrote, adding that Russia and China were drawn together by the presence of a common enemy – the United States. “The joint Russian-Chinese drill hints to Washington that a new rivalry is now in the making in the Mediterranean Sea”, the magazine wrote. The Sea Coopeeration-2015 exercise will run until May 21. A total of nine ships from both sides are taking part in the first drill of its kind to happen in the Mediterranean. The drills' goal has been stated as deepening friendly cooperation between China and Russia and strengthening their combat ability in repelling naval threats.

Source: http://sputniknews.com/europe/20150512/1022024379.html

Global Shift in the Balance of Power Is Moving from West to East

A major recent event last week largely went unnoticed by both MSM and independent news sources alike. The British are apparently jumping ship away from the US dollar/petrodollar in an overt effort to align itself more closely with the BRICS alliance as it seeks a new standard international currency. For several years Russia, China, Brazil, India and South Africa (BRICS) have been preparing the world for its transition from USD standard international currency to its own alternative-in-the-making. America’s so called mother country England has seen the writing on the wall and knows the global balance of power is rapidly tilting in favor of where the sun always rises in the emerging East. 

The European central banking cabal from the City of London, a separate and private political and financial entity apart from the rest of both London and England, sent British royalty Prince William to China to quietly sign a deal to become a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). This surprising new development is a clear indication that the royal Bank of England is placing its financial bet and future on China and the East as its rock solid anchor. Much of the world has been looking to move away from and abandon the longtime global financial stronghold of the US Federal Reserve, its World Bank and US dollar standard. A US official feebly chastised UK in the Financial Times:

We are wary about a trend toward constant accommodation of China, which is not the best way to engage a rising power. More consternation arose when Germany, France and Italy have additionally made overtures in the same direction. This worldwide trend spells utter defeat for Obama and his disastrous foreign policy. After Washington’s been exerting strong-armed pressure on Australia as its key allied partner supporting its failing Asian pivot designed to check China’s growing regional and global dominance in the Pacific Asian market, Australia is now also looking to follow suit accepting and embracing China’s lead. According to international investor and entrepreneur Simon Black, the US is experiencing major economic blowback after two plus decades of aggression as the only global superpower:

… After years of endless wars, spying, debt, money printing, bailouts, and insane regulations, the rest of the world has had enough. And they’re looking for an alternative.

Enter the China led BRICS alliance and its New Development Bank and now China’s other investment bank entry AIIB. Simon takes liberty in his interpretation of Britain and Europe’s bold rebellion after decades relegated to being a mere puppet of the US Empire:

Look, you have $18.1 trillion in official debt, you have $42 trillion in unfunded liabilities, and you’re kind of a dick. I’m dumping you. Perhaps some Americans may feel a bit betrayed and unsettled by our longtime strongest global allies one by one seemingly abandoning the US dollar and American Empire in its reckoning time of need. If these geopolitical and economic trends are examined beyond their face value though, the changes occurring now may reflect much more significant, deeper changes than a mere alteration of standard international currency (as impactful as that will likely be for the US). These deep rooted fundamental changes have everything to do with the major global shift now taking place where the West’s ruling power elite itself is losing to the emerging global power rising in the East.

The latest act of bold economic defiance breaking rank with US Empire interests mirrors last month’s bucking trend that Europe exercised when putting the skids on the US campaign for sending heavy armaments to Ukraine and pushing for war against Russia. The fact is Europe and especially Germany depend on natural gas from Russia and the US imposed sanctions on Russia hurt Europe even more than Russia. That along with wanting to avoid war in their own backyard has nations like Germany and France softening their hardline, US pushed anti-Russian posturing.

Several weeks ago German and French leaders attended meetings in Mink, Belarus to negotiate a peaceful way out of the escalating violence in Eastern Ukraine between the government forces in Kiev and the ethnic Russian separatists seeking autonomy in the Donetsk and Lugansk region. In the same way Netanyahu attempted to fan the war flames against Iran, the same day Germany and France were gathering in Minsk to meet with Putin and Ukraine leaders, Secretary of State Kerry showed up in Kiev mouthing the same worn out lie of “Russian aggression” in a transparent feeble attempt to sabotage the Minsk talks. Again, the tie-in is the Israeli-US crime cabal constantly at work every chance they get peddling and promoting more global violence, death and war.

For over a year now Washington’s war drums have been beating louder for NATO to join forces with Ukraine, pressuring Europe to submit as it always has in going along with its permanent war agenda, all the while falsely demonizing Russia’s President Putin with outrageous propaganda lies and nonstop false flags not unlike the WMD lies against Hussein in 2002-3 Iraq. But in a rare gesture of independence, unwilling to start a war so close to home against nuclear powered Russia that Europe relies heavily as a critical source for its natural gas consumption, the powers of Europe are seeking a non-violent resolution to its regional conflict that carries the devastating potential of triggering World War III.

Meanwhile, NATO Supreme Commander US Air Force General Philip Breedlove fashions himself to be a Dr. Strangelove incarnate, making repeated bogus claims and lies of Russian army presence inside Eastern Ukraine in a vain yet persistent attempt to foment war. Having such a deluded and deceitful warmonger in charge of the NATO nuclear arsenal poses a calamitous threat to the entire world. Yet his commander-in-chief Obama has chosen not to relieve him of command. Instead German leaders have openly criticized Breedlove and the European Union wants to replace NATO with its own continental army. This very public geopolitical conflict over such widely differing Western approaches toward Ukraine seriously undermine American Empire’s global influence and power, again underscoring simultaneous developments around the world that indicate consistent across the boards US foreign policy failures and from the broader context, a rapid US decline as the sole global hegemonic superpower.

Putin advisor Sergei Glazyev nailed it when he said:

The war has been provoked to destroy the Russian World, to draw Europe into it, and to surround Russia with hostile countries. Unleashing this world war, America is trying to deal with its own internal problems.

Current economic turmoil reverberating in Japan is in large part due to the notorious corruption of the Abe government that may soon have additional problems to contend with once accusations over a fraudulent past elections get fully exposed. Abe has been a subservient tool used by the same international crime syndicate controlled by subversive Israeli-American forces. As such, Japan will also be moving away from the USD/West geopolitics and very likely pivoting toward China and a Pacific alliance that excludes the US Empire finding itself increasingly isolated on the outs.

Though incumbent Prime Minister Netanyahu is the apparent winner in today’s Israeli election, the despot had to claw and fight for his political life to survive another day. Recent revelations that he’s been a Russian spy surfaced right after his disgraceful debacle in front of the Israeli captured US congressional audience on Capitol Hill two weeks ago and then came the despicable treasonous display of 47 Republican senators threatening letter to Iran. Bibi’s days of hate, war and paranoia are numbered as the ugly truth about his evildoing will continue to unfold that will soon bring him down. Showing his true evil colors right to the end, the day before the election Netanyahu once again reminded the world that an autonomous Palestinian state will never come to pass while on his watch.

Within the last couple weeks other mysterious events suggesting some cataclysmic, behind-the-scenes development included the apparent disappearance of Vladimir Putin for 11 consecutive days, fueling speculation from an internal political coup to possible sickness and/or death to witnessing the birth of his child at the bedside of his girlfriend in Switzerland. Because so many monumental breaking stories and developments seem to abound every week, Putin’s normally high profile lifestyle would naturally generate even higher profile speculation over his abrupt, extended disappearance. Of course it begs the question asking if it’s merely coincidental with these other earth-shaking events or very much related.

For years the CIA and US Empire have been hard at work in nations from Eastern Europe through the Caucasus to Central Asia all the way to China courting the favor of corrupt dictators and supporting coups promoting anti-Russo-Sino US puppet governments along the entire corridor bordering Russia and China. Despite such Obama’s plan after the 2008 Russian-Georgia conflict was to a reset relations with Russia. But with last year’s US-induced Ukrainian coup and Russia’s annexation by consensual vote of Crimea that “reset” plan went out the window. In 2011 Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan signed the economic alliance of the Eurasian Union. Meanwhile, recognizing the strategic importance of the land bridge between Europe, the Middle East and Asia, Putin has made inroads strengthening ties with the three South Caucasus nations. Putin enticed Armenia to also join the Eurasian Union and has mediated hostilities between Armenia and oil rich Azerbaijan while seeking to repair and realign with Georgia that previously leaned toward the West. US Empire has largely failed to gain a foothold in this part of the world.

Other key geopolitical developments that have been ongoing for some time center in such remote places as western China’s mineral and oil-rich Xinjiang Province. With the powerful US Navy patrolling and to a great extent controlling Pacific waters in conjunction with Obama’s flop of an Asian Pacific pivot, the geopolitics chessboard strategy to hem the two adversarial giants in with hostile neighbors has generally backfired. Furthermore, the US was not prepared for Russia and China to suddenly renew an ultra-close economic, political and military bond that would effectively counter US Empire’s hegemonic aggression. They promptly signed a $400 billion oil-gas pipeline deal that will span a landlocked pathway, thereby foiling the US plan to seal off the China’s energy access via the Pacific. Hence, Moslem populated Xinjiang Province that is the proposed pipeline passage route has become a highly contentious target where the West and CIA in particular have been funding and supporting a separatist movement and acts of terrorism as a disruptive interdiction tactic. Overall this covert strategy has failed.

The Western cabal controlled crime syndicate led by the likes of kingpin Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu financed and supported by the likes of multibillionaire Sheldon Adelson and the Saudi royal family along with congressional henchman and ISIS friend Senator John McCain and the rest of his treasonous Republicans, the rogue US intelligence agency the CIA and NATO’s General Breedlove are all bent on plunging the US Empire-NATO forces into World War III on multiple warfronts at every global hotspot – Ukraine, Syria, Iran, the Caucasus all the way eastward to China’s Xinjiang Province and northward to the oil-rich Arctic against the forces of the two most powerful nations of the East – Russia and China. As a desperate last ditch attempt to retain its many centuries of Rothschild-Rockefeller power and dominance, these evil-minded, megalomaniacal psychopaths know that their hitherto unchallenged global control and strength that have bankrupted and nearly destroyed the planet is fast slipping away. So they seem all the more erratically resolute in seeking revenge by taking the entire earth down with them.

The truth about the horror and destruction these Western oligarchs have conspired and caused worldwide for centuries cannot even be fathomed. They have ensured a permanent state of war (in the US alone 93% of its 239 years) right up to the present Bush crime family-neocon fabrication of the “war on terror,” then under Obama this last year alone wrongly plunging America into another dangerous cold war with Putin’s Russia, and dozens of tragic false flag events like 9/11 designed to demonize Moslems into becoming the instantaneous post-Communist designated enemy of the twenty-first century with the US-Saudi-Israeli creation of al Qaeda/ISIS. These dark malevolent forces of evil that have propagated so much misery and suffering on humanity for so long are finally at last being exposed like never before.

The Western oligarch agenda to inflict a globalized system of absolute totalitarian fascist police state NWO control on every nation and people on earth trapped in hopeless debtor bondage may just be running into a brick Eastern wall as clear losers in the ongoing economic/currency war. Despite the constant jabbing of Putin and his Russian bear in vain attempts to manipulate him to react with military force in eastern Ukraine and despite the failed overt assault in the form of US Empire’s Asian pivot designed to close in and isolate China from the rest of Pacific Asia, ironically it’s the United States that finds itself increasingly alone as the longtime global village bully that’s finally met its match about to get its comeuppance. The smarter, economically stronger forces emerging from the East are winning the power war potentially without even firing a single shot against Western oppressors. Hopefully peace will prevail and the international crime syndicate that has long controlled the West will be deposed of as the murderous traitors to both peace and humankind.

As a necessary qualifier, actual real life tends toward shades of gray far more than black and white. Undoubtedly elements of corruption and evil lurk behind all the most powerful nations in both the West and the East. But the forces of China and Russia appear to be seeking a far more rational, humane and even peaceful resolution to the West-instigated West vs. East geopolitical military showdown sinisterly orchestrated by the international crime cabal’s global agenda of polarization, militarization, privatization and unsustainable, insurmountable debt-driven feudalism based on pure theft, deception, exploitation, impoverishment and pervasive planetary destruction.

Seeking to avoid the inevitable bloodbath that would result from world war and possible nuclear annihilation of all life forms on earth, the East appears to be seeking to avert such global disaster by ensuring that this ongoing war is won by successfully transitioning to an international currency backed once again by the gold standard. The Western central banking cabal consisting of the Bank of England and other European central banks, America’s Federal Reserve Board, its World Bank and International Monetary Fund along with the Israeli-US government crime cabal all stand to ultimately be stripped of their absolute power that have the entire world drowning in debt, crushing destabilization and impoverished despair. But now a light at the end of the tunnel at least is shining a little brighter.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing and has a blog site at http://empireexposed. blogspot. com/.

Source: http://empireexposed.blogspot.com/

The Beginning of World Shift

Anglo-Saxon agression against Russia is taking the form of financial and economic warfare. However, Moscow is preparing for armed hostilities by developing its agricultural self-sufficency and multiplying its alliances. For Thierry Meyssan, after the creation of the caliphate in the Levant, Washington would lay down a new card in September in Saint Petersburg. The ability of Russia to maintain its internal stability will determine the course of events.

The offensive led by Anglo-Saxons (USA, UK and Israel) for world domination continues on two lines simultaneously: both the creation of the “Greater Middle East” by attacking simultaneously Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine, and separating Russia from the European Union through the crisis they organized in Ukraine.

In this sprint, it seems that Washington wants to impose the dollar as the single currency in the gas market, the energy source of the twenty-first century, the way it imposed it on the oil1 market.

The Western media hardly cover the war in Donbass and their population is ignorant of the scale of the fighting, the US military presence, the number of civilian casualties, the wave of refugees. On the other hand, Western media have a delayed reaction to events in North Africa and the Levant, presenting them either as the result of a so-called “Arab Spring” (that is to say, in practice, a takeover by the Muslim Brotherhood), or as the destructive effect of a civilization which is inherently violent. More than ever, it is necessary to help the Arabs who are incapable of living peacefully in the absence of Western settlers.

Russia is now the leading power capable of leading the resistance to Anglo-Saxon imperialism. It has three tools: BRICS, an alliance of economic rivals who know they can not grow up without one another, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), a strategic alliance with China to stabilize Central Asia and finally, the Organization for Collective Security Treaty, a military alliance of former Soviet states.

At the Fortaleza Summit (Brazil), which was held from 14 to 16 July, BRICS took the plunge and announced the creation of a monetary reserve fund (mainly Chinese) and a BRICS Bank as alternatives to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the dollar system2.

Even before this announcement, the Anglo-Saxons had established their answer: the transformation of the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in order to prepare unrest among all Muslim peoples of Russia and China.3 They continued their offensive in Syria and spilled over the borders both in Iraq and in Lebanon. They failed, however, to expel part of the Palestinians to Egypt and to destabilize the region even more deeply. Finally, they keep away from Iran to give President Hassan Rohani a chance to weaken the power of the anti-imperialist Khomeinists.

Two days after the announcement of the BRICS, the United States accused Russia of destroying Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over the Donbass, killing 298 people. On this basis, purely arbitrary, they forced the Europeans to enter into economic war against Russia. Situating itself as a court, the Council of the European Union tried and convicted Russia without any evidence and without giving it an opportunity to defend itself. The CEU issued “sanctions” against its financial system.

Recognizing that European leaders are not working for the interests of their people, but for those of the Anglo-Saxons, Russia has gnawed at the bit and refrained from going to war in Ukraine. It supports the insurgents with arms and intelligence, and hosts more than 500'000 refugees, but declines to send troops into the fray. It probably will not happen until the vast majority of Ukrainians revolt against President Poroshenko, even if it does not enter the country until after the fall of the People’s Republic of Donetsk.

Faced with economic warfare, Moscow has chosen to respond with similar measures, but in agriculture, not finance. Two considerations guided this choice: first, short-term, other BRICS can mitigate the consequences of so-called “sanctions”; on the other hand, medium and long term, Russia is preparing for war and intends to completely rebuild its agriculture to go it alone.

Moreover, the Anglo-Saxons have planned to paralyze Russia from within. First by activating, via the Islamic Emirate (EIS), terrorist groups within its Muslim population, and organizing a media challenge in the municipal elections of 14 September.4 Large sums of money have been distributed to all opposition candidates in the thirty largest cities involved, while at least 50'000 Ukrainian agitators, mixed with refugees, are regrouping in Saint Petersburg. Most of them have dual Russian citizenship. This is clearly to reproduce at the provincial level protests that followed the elections in Moscow in December 2011 – with the addition of violence; and engage the country in a color revolution process to which certain officials in the ruling class are favorable.

To do so, Washington has appointed a new ambassador to Russia, John Tefft, who had prepared the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia and the coup in Ukraine. It will be important for President Vladimir Putin to be able to trust his prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, whom Washington hoped to recruit to overthrow him.

Considering the imminent danger, Moscow would have been able to convince Beijing to accept the accession of India in exchange for that of Iran (but also those of Pakistan and Mongolia) to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The decision should be published at the summit in Dushanbe (Tajikistan) on 12 and 13 September. It should put an end to the conflict which has opposed India and China for centuries and engage them in military cooperation.

This reversal, if confirmed, also would end the honeymoon between New Delhi and Washington who was hoping to distance India from Russia in particular by giving access to nuclear technologies. The membership of New Delhi is also a bet on the sincerity of the new Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, despite the suspicion that he encouraged anti-Muslim violence in 2002 in Gujarat when he was the leading Minister.

In addition, the accession of Iran, which is a provocation in the face of Washington, should give the SCO precise knowledge of jihadist movements and ways to counter them. Again, if confirmed, it would reduce Iran’s willingness to negotiate a lull with the “Great Satan” that led it to elect Sheik Hassan Rohani to the presidency. It would be a gamble on the authority of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Indeed, these memberships would mark the beginning of the shift in the world from the West to the East.5 Still, this trend must be protected militarily. This is the role of the Organization for Collective Security Treaty (CSTO), formed around Russia, but to which China does not belong. Unlike NATO, this organization is a classic alliance, consistent with the Charter of the United Nations since each member retains the option to leave if it wants. So it is based on this freedom that Washington has tried in recent months to buy some members, including Armenia. However, the chaotic situation in Ukraine appears to have cooled those who dreamed of US “protection”. Tension is likely to increase in the coming weeks.

 
Source: www.voltairenet.org/article185074.html

The Eurasian Project: A Threat to The New World Order

One might be tempted to regard Russian premier V. Putin's paper “A new integration project for Eurasia: The future in the making”, which saw the light of day in Izvestia on October 3, 2011, as the presidential front-runner's sketchily laid out program, but upon scrutiny that appears to be only one part of a wider picture. The opinion piece momentarily ignited wide-scale controversy in and outside of Russia and highlighted the ongoing clash of positions on global development…

Regardless of interpretation details, the reaction of the Western media to the integration project unveiled by the Russian premier was uniformly negative and reflected with utmost clarity an a priori hostility towards Russia and any initiatives it floats. Mao Zedong, though, used to say that facing pressure from your enemies is better than being in such a condition that they do not bother to keep you under pressure.

It helps to understand why, at the moment, Cold War-style headlines are constantly popping up in Western media and what perceived threat the West discerned in Putin's recent Eurasian integration. The obvious explanation is that, if implemented, the plan would come as a geopolitical challenge to the new world order, to the dominance of NATO, the IMF, the EU and other supranational bodies, and to the undisguised US primacy. Today's increasingly assertive Russia suggests and is ready to start building an inclusive alliance based on principles providing a viable alternative to Atlantism and neoliberalism. It is an open secret that these days the West is putting into practice an array of far-reaching geopolitical projects, reconfiguring Europe in the wake of the Balkan conflicts and against the backdrop of the crises provoked in Greece and Cyprus, assembling the Greater Middle East based on serial regime changes across the Arab world, and, as a relatively novel design, implementing the Asia project in which the recent disaster in Japan was an active phase.

In 2011, the intensity of geopolitical dynamics was unprecedented since the collapse of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc, with all major countries and international bodies contributing. Moreover, the current impression is that military might somehow became a legitimate instrument in international politics. Just days ago, Moscow drew avalanche criticism after vetoing the UN Security Council resolution which could authorize a replay of the Libyan scenario in Syria. As a result, US permanent envoy to the UN S. Rice slammed Russia and China over the veto, while French foreign minister Alain Juppé declared that “it is a sad day for the Syrian people. It is a sad day for the Security Council”. During the heated UN security Council debates on September 5, Syrian representative lambasted Germany and France, and charged the US with perpetrating genocide in the Middle East. After that, S. Rice accused Russia and China of hoping to sell arms to the Syrian regime instead of standing by the Syrian people and stormed out of the meeting, and French envoy Gérard Araud opined that “No veto can clear of their responsibility these Syrian authorities that have lost any legitimacy by murdering its own people”, leaving an impression that murdering people, as in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, should be a NATO privilege.

Moscow's Western “partners” are outraged whenever Russia, in concert with China, puts obstacles in the way of the new world order. Syria, albeit a regionally important country, only fleetingly tops the agenda, but Putin's ambitious plan for the whole Eurasia - “reaching a higher level of integration – a Eurasian Union” - had to be expected to evoke deep and lasting concerns in the West. Moscow openly challenges the West's global dominance by “suggesting a model of a powerful supranational union that can become one of the poles of today's world while being an efficient connecting link between Europe and the dynamic Asia-Pacific Region”. No doubt, Putin's messages that “the combination of natural resources, capital, and strong human potential will make the Eurasian Union competitive in the industrial and technological race and the race for investor money, new jobs, and advanced production facilities” and that “along with other key players and regional institutions such as the EU, the USA, China, and APEC, it will ensure the sustainability of global development” sounded alarming to Western leaders.

Neither the collapse of the USSR and the bipolar world nor the subsequent proliferation of pro-Western “democracies” marked a final point in the struggle over global primacy. What followed was an era of military interventions and displacements of defiant regimes with the help of information warfare and the omnipresent Western soft power. In this game, Eurasia remains the main prize in line with John Mackinder's geopolitical imperative by which “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; who rules the World-Island controls the world”.

In the late XX century the US became the first-ever non-Eurasian country to combine the roles of the world's top power and the final arbiter in Eurasian affairs. In the framework of the new world order doctrine, the US and the West as a whole see Eurasia as a zone of key importance to their economic development and growing political might. Global dominance is an openly stated and constantly pursued goal of the Euro-Atlantic community and its military and financial institutions – NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank - along with the Western media and countless NGOs. In the process, the Western establishment remains fully aware that, in Z. Brzeziński's words, „America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained”. Sustaining the “preponderance”, in turn, takes control over Europe, Russia, China, the Middle East, and Central Asia.

Untamed Western hegemony in Europe, Central Asia, and, to an extent, in the Middle East and even Russia used to count as an unquestionable outcome of the past couple of decades, but at the moment the situation appears fluid. Western, Chinese, and Russian watchers alike are predicting an imminent failure of the neoliberal globalization model embedded in the new world order, and the time is coming for the political class to adopt the view.

By opening up opportunities to shield original models of national development from Atlantist pressure and to maintain real international security, Putin's new integration project holds a major promise for Russia and its allies, and thereby presents Russia's foes with a serious problem. Neither Russia nor any other post-Soviet republic can survive in today's world single-handedly, and Russia as Eurasia's key geopolitical player with economic, political, and military potentials unparalleled across the post-Soviet space can and should stake a bid for an alternative global architecture.

The West's allergy to Putin's plan is therefore explainable, but, regardless of the opposition the project is bound to run into, of the weakness of some of its elements, and of the potential difficulty of putting it into practice, the Eurasian integration project grew out of the life of the post-Soviet geopolitical and cultural space and is consonant with current global trends. Surviving, preserving the economic and material foundations of national existence, keeping traditions alive, and building a secure future for the children are the objectives the Eurasian nations can accomplish only if they stay aligned with Russia. Otherwise, isolation, sanctions, and military interventions awaits them…

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27015

Rodney Martin: Russia is the last major check on US imperial status

An American analyst says the United States is trying to extend its hegemony in the world and Russia is the "last major check on US imperial status."

“The United States is trying to extend hegemony in the Middle East as well as Eastern Europe. It is trying to finish off and solidify its imperial status and the last major check on US imperial status is Russia,” Rodney Martin, a former US Congressional staffer, said in a phone interview with Press TV on Monday. He made the remarks in response to comments by former US congressman Ron Paul who criticized the Obama administration’s hypocrisy in foreign policy. In a recently published article, Paul said Washington’s double standards in its foreign policy is evident in the way US President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State, John Kerry, have treated recent presidential elections in countries like Syria and Ukraine. Kerry called the recent election in Syria, in which over 88 percent of the voters voted for Bashar al-Assad, a “non-election” and a “great big zero” while describing the presidential election in Ukraine, in which the Western-backed billionaire Petro Poroshenko won with just over 50 percent of the vote, “a victory for democracy.”

“The United States is trying to do in Syria what it is also trying to do in Ukraine and that is to extend its geo-political interests and that goes to a document that you can see online called PNAC, Project for the New American Century,” Martin told Press TV. “The United States is looking beyond being just the only superpower. It’s looking at basically running the world, the world’s affairs. Look at its bases in Africa, its locking horns with China. It’s a very dangerous power play. I would say that President Obama has far exceeded any sort of global expansionist ideas that George W. Bush had,” he concluded.

Source: http://presstv.com/detail/2014/06/09/366260/russia-last-check-on-us-imperial-status/

 Kevin Barrett: Putin puts fear of God in New World Order

In the wake of Crimea's independence referendum, Hillary Clinton says Russian President Putin is a "new Hitler."  Zbigniew Brezezinski, former National Security Advisor agrees, calling Putin not just another Hitler, but also a thug, a menace, a Mafia gangster, and a Mussolini. The Western mainstream media echoes this childish name-calling.

Why is the whole Western foreign policy establishment so afraid of Putin?

Because Putin is standing up against Western aggression – not only in Ukraine, but also in Syria and Iran. Ongoing Western attempts to destabilize these and other countries are just the most recent examples of a decades-old pattern of aggression. The long-term goal: Total destruction of traditional nations and values, and the creation of a New World Order global dictatorship.

 

Since the 1953 CIA-MI6 coup in Iran, the West has been using the same formula to overthrow legitimate but uncooperative leaders:  First, sabotage the country's economy. Then bribe corrupt military officers and thugs and pay rent-a-mobs to create chaos in the streets. Next (this step is optional) incite violence by paying snipers to fire into crowds – and maybe set off some bombs. Finally, send the corrupt military units and gangsters to overthrow the target nation's legitimate leader, murder or imprison his supporters, install a Western puppet in his place – and announce that "order has been restored."

 

The CIA did it to Iran's democratically-elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953, to Indonesia's President Sukarno in 1965, and to Chile's Prime Minister Allende on September 11th, 1973. They did the same thing to Ukraine's legitimate president, Viktor Yanukovych, a few weeks ago. Neocon regime-change apparatchik Victoria Nuland (The assistant US secretary of state,) got caught admitting that the US had spent five billion dollars to overthrow Ukraine's democratically-elected government; and EU Foreign Affairs Chief Catherine Ashton was heard on tape discussing the "news" that the Maidan Square snipers were part of the US-sponsored coup.

 

The people of Ukraine should be worried. US-sponsored coups can turn very bloody very quickly.

 

The CIA's 1965 Indonesia coup was one of the biggest holocausts in history. According to Princeton history professor Bradley Simpson, as cited by the Jakarta Globe: "The US and British governments did everything in their power to ensure that the Indonesian army would carry out the mass killings" of more than one million people following the coup against Sukarno. Most of the victims were tortured before they were murdered. The list of names of people to be tortured and murdered was provided by the CIA to their hired Indonesian thugs. While this was going on, five-year-old Barrack Obama was living in Indonesia with his stepfather Lolo Soetoro, who was working for the American mass murderers.

 

That's right: Obama's stepfather was a holocaust perpetrator.

 

In 1971, following the CIA's coup in Chile, the American stooge Pinochet murdered 3,000 people and tortured 30,000. These actions were fully supported by Pinochet's American sponsors, who trained and paid the thugs and torturers. The hecatomb in Syria, too, is best understood as yet another US-sponsored coup attempt.

 

The NWO-driven Americans and their Western allies have killed tens of millions in these coups, interventions, destabilization campaigns, and undeclared wars. According to André Vltchek and Noam Chomsky's book On Western Terrorism, the total number killed is over 50 million since World War  II. If we add to this the number of people tortured, brutalized, falsely imprisoned, forced to become refugees, or who had their lives ruined by Western terrorism, the number of victims reaches the hundreds of millions.

 

Today, the American terrorists and their NATO allies seem less interested in installing puppet governments than in reducing entire nations to chaos. The CIA-NATO coup against Gaddafi has destroyed Libya as a modern nation-state. Western-backed false-flag terror in Iraq is splitting up that country. Syria is being decimated by a Western-backed attempt to overthrow Assad. Venezuela, too, is being destabilized by a CIA-backed coup effort.

 

In short, the New World Order – a shadowy group of global banking oligarchs bent on establishing a one-world dictatorship – is trying to overthrow every leader on earth who resists. Russian President Putin is resisting. That is why the Western propaganda machine is calling him names. It is worth noting that Russia and Iran – the two nations most successfully resisting NWO regime change – are doing so in the name of God.

 

According to Catholic intellectual E. Michael Jones, the 1979 Iranian Revolution was the opening salvo of a global backlash against secularism's destruction of traditional values. Like the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan (driven by Americans' disgust with the so-called sexual revolution) and the rise of Poland's Solidarity movement (which opposed communist atheism), the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran was a landmark event signaling an end to the 20th-century wave of militant secularism and atheism – and a revival of traditional religion.

 

President Putin enjoys overwhelming popularity in Russia due to his defense of traditional religious values. In his State of the Nation address last December, Putin said: "Many Euro-Atlantic countries have moved away from their roots, including Christian values… Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan."

 

Putin's reference to Satanism was a pointed rebuke to the New World Order elites, who – though they push militant secularism on the societies they are trying to undermine – are closet Satanists. Anyone who doubts this should run the name "Lt. Col. Michael Aquino" through a search engine. Aquino, an avowed Satanist and credibly-accused mass child abuser, was rewarded for his crimes against children with an appointment as Chief of Psychological Warfare for the US military. (For background on the satanic international banking elite, and its near-total control of Western institutions, read Nick Bryant's book The Franklin Scandal alongside the work of Canadian scholar Henry Makow.)

 

The shock troops of the NWO's war against religion and tradition (and Russia and Iran) are the neoconservatives. Operation Gladio terrorist Michael Ledeen explains: "Creative destruction is our middle name, both within our society and abroad. We tear down the old order every day, from business to science, literature, art, architecture, and cinema to politics and the law. Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace ... We must destroy them to advance our historic mission."

Putin is stopping New World Order "creative destruction" in Syria and Ukraine. He is part of a growing coalition opposing the NWO – not just religious traditionalists, but also progressive anti-globalization forces, including Hugo Chavez inspired anti-imperialists in Latin America. We are facing an epic struggle between those who espouse sacred values such as justice and decency versus those who wish to destroy all values.

 
God bless President Putin, who is putting the fear of God into the New World Order.

Source: http://presstv.com/detail/2014/03/19/355259/putin-puts-fear-of-god-in-nwo/

'Subs off Norway can hit Moscow in 17m': Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned of the threat posed by US submarines "on permanent alert" off Norway. ”They are equipped with missiles that can reach Moscow in 17 minutes," he told Italy’s Il Corriere della Sera newspaper. "And you would call us aggressive?“

Putin’s comments came after Prime Minister Erna Solberg on Friday said that Norwegian involvement in Nato’s Missile Defence System was “necessary”, committing her country to taking a role in the network, a move certain to irritate Russia, which sees the system’s role out as an act of aggression.

In his interview, Putin denied that Russia was becoming more aggressive, instead suggesting that a growing Nato presence in Norway and other countries on Russia’s borders was forcing his country to respond.

“We are not expanding anywhere,” he said, “It is Nato infrastructure, including military infrastructure, that is moving towards our borders. Is this a manifestation of our aggression?”

He singled out Nato’s missile defence system for criticism.

“The United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was to a large extent the cornerstone of the entire international security system,” he noted, pointing to George W Bush’s unilateral decision to withdraw in December 2001 in order to build a predecessor of the Nato system.

“Anti-missile systems, bases and radars are located in the European territory or in the sea, e.g. in the Mediterranean Sea, and in Alaska,” he went on. “We have said many times that this undermines international security. Do you think this is a display of our aggression as well?”

The Russian president also complained that the much-reported increase in the number of flights by Russian military aircraft in the Baltic Sea, and near the US borders off Alaska, was intended only to match Nato’s existing flight programme.

“Sometimes I am asked about our airplanes flying somewhere far over the Atlantic Ocean,” he said. “Patrolling by strategic airplanes in remote regions was carried out only by the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. In the early 1990s, we, the new, modern Russia, stopped these flights, but our American friends continued to fly along our borders. Why? Some years ago, we resumed these flights. And you want to say that we have been aggressive?

He pointed out that while Nato was still active in Norwegian waters close to Russian territory, Russia had long-since closed down its own missile bases in Cuba. “We dismantled all of our bases in Cuba a long time ago, even the non-strategic ones,” he said. Finally, he made a powerful argument that Russia’s growing military spending still left it far behind Nato.

“US military spending is higher than that of all countries in the world taken together,” he said. “The aggregate military spending of NATO countries is ten times, note – ten times higher than that of the Russian Federation.”

“Russia has virtually no bases abroad,” he added, pointing to the base in Armenia and another in Kyrgyzstan. “I invite you to publish the world map in your newspaper and to mark all the US military bases on it. You will see the difference.”

“Everything we do is just a response to the threats emerging against us,” he continued. “Besides, what we do is limited in scope and scale, which are, however, sufficient to ensure Russia’s security. Or did someone expect Russia to disarm unilaterally?”

Source: http://www.thelocal.no/20150608/us-subs-off-norway-can-hit-moscow-in-17mins-putin