Secretaries Rice and Gates arrived in Moscow for another round of talks in the 2+2 format - with their counterparts at the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And, of course, for the meetings in Kremlin.
Missile defense, of course, will be on the agenda. It is frustrating to see that this completely artificial controversy around a useless system consumes that much attention, time, and effort, but this is where the U.S.-Russian relationships are today.
The U.S. officials sound cautiously optimistic about the prospects of reaching some kind of resolution this time, but it is not quite clear what has changed since the last 2+2 meeting in October 2007. At that time, the United States floated the idea of a delay with activating the system "until there was concrete proof of the threat from Iran". That was something that Russia seemed to be willing to consider, but the United States took the offer back - Yuri Baluyevskiy and Sergei Lavrov both complained that when Russia received the formal U.S. offer there was nothing about the delay there.
U.S. officials admitted that they "tweaked" the original proposal, but they are too shy to say exactly how (and reporters are too shy to ask). What happened was that instead of the delay with deployment Russia was offered access to the missile defense sites to monitor the deployment. It's a good idea, no doubt, but it's not even close to the original proposal. Which explains why it got "mixed reaction" from Russia.
This time there is no talk about the delay on the U.S. side - only about monitoring. Robert Gates said that he is not bringing any new proposals to Moscow. And Russia most likely would not believe him even if he were - last time it did not work very well.
The book
Comments
Interestingly, Poland and the Czech Republic refused to allow Russian military “monitoring” of their proposed Missile Defense Sites. I suppose the memory of the old Soviet days was too fresh on the minds of these host countries. I think the US made this overture to the Kremlin without first consulting Poland and the Czech Republic and Warsaw and Prague were furious. It was reported that Poland and the CR did suggest some form of on-site inspection might be allowed but no permanent Russian presence would be acceptable.
Frank Shuler
USA
And not a word about the Turkish radar negotiations? ..... ?!
Frank: This is one more example how this useless system is producing nothing but problems and controversies.
Feanor: I'm not sure there is anything worth mentioning about the radar in Turkey. It was known long ago that the system will need a forward-deployed radar. Isn't it this it?
So, Armavir's Voronezh-DM and/or Qabala's Daryal are firmly off the table?
What a waste of time.
It seems to me that Putin simply doesn't want a repeat of what happened when Bush abrogated the ABM treaty and Russia just meekly went along for the ride, while Condi and Bob Gates don't want to back down on their "Iran is a threat" paradigm. In the end, it will all go down the same way it did with the original NMD sites, U.S. doing their thing and Russia registering its displeasure loud enough for "Old Europe" to get jittery about future military cooperation with America.
Also, I am surprised that Russian MoD has been so quiet about those Japanese and USN SM-3-equipped AEGIS destroyers in the Western Pacific. If anything, they are a more immediate threat to Russian deterrent than some future-maybe-possible-if-nothing-else-comes-up European system.
Pavel you are calling GBI ABM system useless. I know its far from being tested against even longer ranged BM and those with decoys on it etc but have you any reasons beside it for calling it uselles???
After Russia suggested the Gabala radar which was turned down that won't go down well.
Pavel, you're doing us all a great service by running this site and keeping it up to date. But is there any need to litter your informative news articles with derogatory remarks? I think you will agree that Rice, Gates or Lavrov are at least as smart and knowledgeable as anyone on this board, including you. Then why suggest that they are not by portraying them as stupid people wasting their time on "useless system" and "artifical controversies" once and once again? Isn't the very fact of the question being the subject of repeated talks at such level enought to realize that the system is not useless and controversies are not artifical? I'm very thankful to you for providing this site, and I'll be even more if you spare me from the feeling of reading some 14 year old's blog.
I imagine if Ukraine joins NATO, the US will be able to send AEGIS ships to the Black sea, so they will have even more capabilities to oversee the Russians, what I think is the long term intention.
Kubo:
There’s no reason the US can’t send AEGIS ships equipped with the SM-3 system to the Black Sea now if there was a perceived need. I’m not sure a permanent base for such ships in the Black Sea would be necessary but, if so, I suspect one could be provided by Romania at Constanta.
Frank Shuler
USA
Majority of Ukranians don't want into NATO. It could provoke a crisis in the country. Even split it in two.
To kubo:
"Ukraine joins NATO"...just dream on...why not suggesting "Russia joins NATO"...because that would be the end of all fears about GBI, SM3 and about so many other things....
While it's interesting to hear what's in the US proposal, it would be even more interesting to know what the US want from Russia in return. Something related to Iran, probably?
Reko:
This is going to sound unbelievable but I don’t think the US wants anything from Russia. I honestly think the entire American government was taken completely by surprise at Russia anger over the European Missile Defense System proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic. The concept and desire for such a European system was well discussed and documented by the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) in open Congressional meetings and in the US press. Later, when the initial request was made to NATO, Russia hardly yawned. It was only when the discussions with Warsaw and Prague took place, after the MDA made its preferred site location determination, that the Kremlin exploded. I think the US is still confused as to Russia’s motive here; ten European interceptors (or a hundred) won’t prevent Russia from its defense. We know this; Russia knows this. I think the United States is trying to make this system the most transparent it possible can to Moscow while at the same time retaining national control. The decision to launch interceptors from Poland will be in the hands of the Pentagon and no one else.
I think the US wants to know what Russia wants in return.
Frank Shuler
USA
> I think you will agree that Rice, Gates or Lavrov are at least as smart and knowledgeable as anyone on this board, including you.
- Well, Pavel considering President Putin as 'incompetent':
http://russianforces.org/rus/blog/2007/09/protivoraketnaya_oborona_v_evrope.shtml#c145052
- And what can we guess about Pavel's opinion regarding other politicians, smaller-than-president in their ranks?
;-)
reko: That's an interesting take on my post. Of course, if someone is offended by characterization of missile defense as a "useless system", then this is a wrong blog to read. What can I say? I've studied missile defense development for quite some time to have an opinion about usefulness of these systems. And I've seen enough controversies to see what is artificial and what is not.
If someone would like to make a case that the system is useful and the controversy is not artificial, then I would like to see better arguments than "because our governments say so". (This, by the way, is not to say that they are not using this controversy, however artificial, in their quite real political interests.)
If government officials come out looking as "stupid people wasting their time" it's not because I portray them that way. Which, by the way, I never do. Most of these people are certainly quite smart (otherwise they wouldn't be where they are). On the other hand, I have had enough interaction with all kind of officials to see that they can also be quite limited in their understanding of many issues.
The reason for the controversy is a simple one. Permanent American bases in Eastern Europe. It's the fact that this permanently integrates Eastern Europe into NATO.
Feanor:
Why do you draw the distinction between NATO bases in Western Europe and those in Eastern Europe? Why do you suppose Eastern European NATO members aren’t “permanently” integrated into NATO now?
Curious to your thoughts.
Frank Shuler
USA
Pavel, no matter what the subject, when you tell us about officials spending time on something "useless" or arguing about something "artifical" (which you do often) you're suggesting that you're either smarter or more knowledgeble than them. Otherwise they'd see what you see and won't waste their time, would they?
And being derogatory never made anyone sound smarter. Only the reverse, especially when you're trying to ridicule highly successful people in the area of their professional competence.
Of course, whether to sound smart or stupid is completely up to you, and I don't have a problem with your choice. I was just trying to point out something about your posts you might not realize.
But if you do, then fine. As long as you keep aggregating news and running this message board, I'm very thankful to you for what you do.
reko: Your belief in the wisdom of government officials is very charming indeed.
Putin hopes to revive Russian influence in the area. It's pretty obvious he's worked hard to rebuild the geopolitical foundations of the USSR. While he hasn't been entirely successful, to him Eastward NATO expansion is a sign of threat from the West.
Everyone seems to be assuming that the so called ABM system is only defensive. Used as offensive systems a few of these batteries are enough to destroy a whole country and far more accurately due to their superior tracking and striking capabilities. The U.S. while projecting these as defensive and small in nos. has the covert intention of using them as offensive - just in case. They are engaged in projeting a low key to lull the enemy to inaction thru' friendly overtures while hiding the truth. Any intelligent observer can see what's happening - the surrounding of Russia and nearby countries fiendly to Russia with these ABM systems.
> Why do you draw the distinction between NATO bases in Western Europe and those in Eastern Europe?
- Frank, 'New NATO Members' and 'Old Europe' are quite different things... Try to guess, - why?
> Later, when the initial request was made to NATO, Russia hardly yawned. It was only when the discussions with Warsaw and Prague took place, after the MDA made its preferred site location determination, that the Kremlin exploded.
- First of all, we all must understand that 'Kremlin' (and the most part of Russian society, by the way), considering EuroNMD site as a 'dirty double game' against Russia.
Technically speaking:
(a) GBI's KKV (Kinetic Kill Vehicle) has significantly more chances to hit the BIG and SLOW OBJECT - an ICBM in a boost phase, than to hit SMALL and ULTRAFAST warhead in a terminal phase of ICBM trajectory.
(b) Even in a peace time, X-band radar could be successfully used as a 'spy tool' for tracking (for example) RS-24 MIRV and / or SS-27 MARV trajectories, collecting precious data very helpful for further 'fine tuning' of NMD components against Russian ICBMs.
(c) 'Kremlin' (and ALL people I speak here in Russia, I should say) do believe that Poland is only 'a feeler'. Present US administration, does not wish to give any guarantees, that scales of NMD expansion will be limited by something: today, US is crying about 'Iranian missile threat' and want to install 10 interceptors while NO Iranian ICBMs exist; tomorrow, US may want to install 100 or 200 GBI-class interceptors to 'defend itself' from the few Iranian ICBMs.
(d) In fact, GBI-class, NLGM-30F/Orbus-1А-based interceptor, - is an IRBM with 5000 km range and 1770 km apogee; in century of GPS and modern computer techs, changing of this missile behavior is just a question of few-minutes reprogramming. GBI payload can easily be changed, too, - from the KKV to the conventional explosive or to the small nuke, - 64-kg payload do allow it without dramatical constructive changes.
So, Frank, - you still wonder why 'Kremlin exploded'?
On the surface it's the usual ,
a stirring of the dying amber of the cold war ( mixed metaphor )to frighten those west Europeans and get them to forget any notion of independent European army.
but then the successive U.S. administrations have shown a remarkable consistency in developing , funding ,testing and deploying an anti-ballistic missile capability
the X bands radars locations from Norway , Poland , England , Greenland are consistent with Russia being targeted .
refusing any other sites was the proof that Iran wasn't the intended object ....Russia is ,
So far all the negotiations were either of the "sit on it and spin" or of the time wasting sort while the search for Czech and polish approvals to break ground have been proceeding with great dispatch .
The present administration is obfuscating the issue ,a strong anti Russia agit-prop campaign started in earnest with the VP Cheyney Vilnius speech , reaching a summit of personal attack in January
It might be a poker bluff intended to gather the stray Europeans back under U.S. guidance but they are already pretty submissive or gun-ho
On the face of it,
The U.S. are putting themselves in a position to be able to proceed with a decapitating first nuclear strike ,
that is a fact , the rest is lies
.
Feanor:
Russian policy in Eastern Europe seems misplaced. The more the Kremlin threatens these countries with economic or military means, the more they seem determined to forge a deeper relationship with the United States in response. If Georgia and Ukraine actually join NATO, Moscow will bear some of the blame by its actions. If the Kremlin feels threatened by the proposed American bases in Poland and the Czech Republic, wait until the Stars & Stripes fly over some base in Ukraine. One only has to look at the map to realize the strategic advantages of a NATO Ukraine. If Georgia goes NATO, can Azerbaijan be far behind?
Frank Shuler
USA
KA Sharma:
[…Used as offensive systems a few of these batteries are enough to destroy a whole country and far more accurately due to their superior tracking and striking capabilities…]
While your suspicions about the US GBI system in Alaska and California and planned for Poland is duly noted, your technical conclusions are entirely wrong. How does a Ground Based Interceptor missile have superior tracking and striking capabilities when used as an “offensive” weapon? It’s like saying the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile system could be modified into a superior land attack system because of its accuracy and design. (?) I’m at a loss to understand your reasoning.
That being said, I sincerely appreciate your input to these discussions and wish you would post your thoughts more often.
Frank Shuler
USA
Russian:
There is no “new NATO members” and “Old Europe NATO members”. This is something my friend you are just going to have to adjust to.
Technically speaking, the GBI-KKV is designed to hit targets while the target itself and the KKV are in ballistic orbit. I’m at a loss to explain how you do that in “boost phase”.
I grant you that the Polish GBI site may well grow in the future, based on threats twenty years in the future from Iran, but I don’t think it will grow into the type of facility you envision. I honestly think the concept of today’s GBI system will be superseded by a future system that may be space based and not dependent on any host country. I think the GBI system is only an interim solution.
The X-Band radar system in the Czech Republic would be a formable tool in surveillance. However it seems to me if the United States really wanted to place intelligence gathering radar in position to scan European Russia, I would install such a system in, say, NATO Estonia.
This has been discussed on this site many times, but I’ll add my thoughts again. Working under the conclusion the American GBI system could be somehow re-modified into an IRBM that could carry a small nuclear weapon, why? What advantage would such a weapon system have over a Trident submarines or a B-2 bomber? What advantage would such a “weapon system” have that would be more valuable than its intended role as a ballistic missile interceptor? If a German teenager in the 1980’s could pilot a Cessna 150 airplane across the Soviet Union and land unannounced in the Kremlin’s courtyard, what chance does Russia have against an old F-15E armed with B-61 nuclear bombs? (Please allow for my sarcastic humor here. I mean no disrespect.) How would the GBI system modified to be such an offensive weapon be an advantage?
Frank Shuler
USA
As far as ABM being a threat to Russian strategic deterrent, this has been recently admitted by the US delegation (Rice, Gates), according to Lavrov. So I think we can stop counting interceptors, ranges, etc, and close the case. They apparently did the math for us.
Russia has not been threatening Eastern Europe economically or militarily. However Russia is opposed to NATO expansion into the area. Russian relations with much of Eastern Europe are good, with the exception of Ukraine which is in a permanent political crisis, and Poland, who is determined to do everything they can to piss Russia off. Finally Georgia joining NATO would mean losing any change of resolving the Abkhazian and S. Ossetian issues favorably for Georgia. As for Ukraine I still have a strong feeling that it might collapse.
reko:
"As far as ABM being a threat to Russian strategic deterrent, this has been recently admitted by the US delegation (Rice, Gates), according to Lavrov. So I think we can stop counting interceptors, ranges, etc, and close the case. They apparently did the math for us."
Could you point us to the relevant news articles?
> Technically speaking, the GBI-KKV is designed to hit targets while the target itself and the KKV are in ballistic orbit. I'm at a loss to explain how you do that in 'boost phase'.
- Boost phase is just a part of ballistic trajectory. Slowest part, by the way.
- And you're completely WRONG HERE as USAF have the plans to install KKV on the relatively small air-launched missile, intended for hitting 'Iranian' IRBMs and ICBMs at the boost phase; these small KKV-tipped ALMs are intended to be launched from F-15s, and all this project positioned as a 'cheap but effective' alternative to the expensive Boeing ABL program.
So, how about KKVs hitting ICBMs at boost phase? Still can't believe it?
> It's like saying the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft missile system could be modified into a superior land attack system because of its accuracy and design. (?)
- Frank, before made this funny comparision (completely wrong from the technical point of view), you need to compare launch mass, range and payload for both systems (S-400 vs GBI).
Please do this, - and you'll be surprised, - how different these systems are at their capabilities...
- Again, I'll repeat: GBI is 5000-km range IRBM with 64 kg payload; three types of anti-aircraft missiles for S-400 system, have a range from 100 to 400 km... Is any difference between (100 - 400 km) range and 5000 km range?
> How does a Ground Based Interceptor missile have superior tracking and striking capabilities when used as an 'offensive' weapon?
- Just install on a GBI nuclear reentry vehicle (RV) with (10 - 40 kT) yield and rather simple (in our days) GPS-based control system, reprogram GBI bahavior - et voila!
- Please note that GBI unit will only correct the existing precision GBI inertial system, allowing this GBI-based IRBM to be extremely precision. Also, other means for RV precision targeting may be used - remember here Pershing IIs with targeting radars installed inside the RVs (aeroballistic correction of RV trajectory on PIIs was achieved via usage of small triangle-shaped 'wings' on the RV)...
> What advantage would such a weapon system have over a Trident submarines or a B-2 bomber?
- And why we MUST NOT consider these capabilities as a 'hidden potential' of GBI? GBIs are IRBMs, - at least formally, - or, - at least, - they are 'IRBM-ready'.
- Frank, why do you think that Russia should be enthusiastic regarding this hidden potential?
> a stirring of the dying amber of the cold war ( mixed metaphor ) to frighten those west Europeans and get them to forget any notion of independent European army.
- Yes, 'warm friendship' with Eastern-European US sattelites might pursue a target 'to get Europeans to forget any idea of independent European Forces'...
- But the idea of independent European Forces is unstoppable, I think.
> The more the Kremlin threatens these countries with economic or military means...
- Well, I can only say that Russia surely 'threatens these countries with economic or military means'... insufficiently :-). For example, - compare a 1-year embargo for the 'Polish' (in fact - low-sort Argentinian :-) ) meat import to Russia with more than 30-years TOTAL economic blocade of Cuba by US...
> the more they seem determined to forge a deeper relationship with the United States in response.
- Eastern Europe may proceed to rely on US. It seems that US is at the system, USSR-type, crisis now, - and I can a lecture to you my vision of situation for a hours, but I'll prefer to save my time, saying about only one SMALL symptom of this crisis: if nobody wanted US dollars here at Russia during the last 1.5 years, - the last-week news were that the 'Old Europe' do not need the dollars, too. Some currency exchangers simply refuse to buy cash dollars even from American tourists in Europe!
- And all this looks like a deep crisis of American 'civilizational model', based on the brute force.
> ...wait until the Stars & Stripes fly over some base in Ukraine.
- Just ONE correction: 'fly over some base in the Western Ukraine.
This case is possible, and I may agree with you after my note above.
- NATO expansion to the East MUST BE stopped, and NATO expansion on the East WILL BE stopped; Ukraine and Georgia are just a frontier, a borderline.
> If a German teenager in the 1980's could pilot a Cessna 150 airplane across the Soviet Union and land unannounced in the Kremlin's courtyard, what chance does Russia have against an old F-15E armed with B-61 nuclear bombs?
- And should we remember here an 'unauthorised flights' of 4 big civel planes over the heart of America during 9/11? With all respect to the innocent victims of these 'flights' and their relatives...
- Sword is usually more powerful than a shield, - we need always remember this.
Russian:
To recap your conclusions, the basic Russian fear is the Polish ABM site of 10 missiles today may grow to 100 or 1000 missiles tomorrow. Given America’s technical ability it might well be possible to reconfigure these missiles to be an offensive IRBM equipped with 10 warheads each (64 kg) and pose a grave danger to Russian security as a first-strike weapon.
This is the part of the conversation that always gets a little confusing for me. Explain again to me why the United States would want to launch a nuclear war with Russia and lose 20 American cities in victory? Why is the United States such a threat?
Interesting conversation as always.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank:
Silly question! Haven't you realized we are just one giant hegemon hell-bent on taking over the world! Countries such as Russia are just a speed bump in our way...better take them out with nukes and be done with it. :)
Best answer: A "Pioneer-M" or 2-stage-Topol-M. It will have 6.500 km range, it will be cheaper and technically is an ICBM, so the INF will be live but void. I think, it is the optimal answer.
Frank,
you're missing the point. The puropose of US ABM or IRBMs with first-strike capability is NOT to start and win a nuclear war against Russia. But to achieve decisive nuclear dominance over Russia to DETER it from any nuclear escalation of a conventional conflict.
Suppose Russia is fighting a conventional war with NATO and losing. Between the two options - a conventional loss and a nuclear "draw", it may well choose the second one. But imagine choosing between conventional loss, and a nuclear loss. Are you getting my point?
Given current and, especially, projected balance of power in conventional arms, this enables the US to defend freedom and human rights in Russia's closest areas of influence, as well as on Russia's own territory.
Do you think it's fair that Kosovo got independence, but Chechnya got not?
I can't understand what is the need of NATO in present day international security scenario! Communism is not there, Warsaw Pact is not there and Soviet Union is not there, then why NATO is existing and expanding? I think even if all the countries of Europe (except Russia and Switzerland of course) joined NATO, still the US hardly get any benefit from this alliance because there is no enemy, no real military threat at all. NATO is not needed for fight against terrorism.
When Soviet Union disintegrated, I thought NATO would be wind-up as well. But very surprisingly this military alliance is now expanding! NATO has nothing to do but peacekeeping (like in Afghanistan), which is the job of the UN. I think NATO is heading for another UN like organization because without any military objective/agenda towards a potential military enemy, an organization like NATO cannot be existed.
I think the US, only superpower of the world, having all the military capability, doesn't need any military alliance to protect its own interest. There is no match of the US at this moment. America alone can protect its own interest(military) anywhere of the world.
As far as the ABM system in central Europe is concerned, as Pavel rightly pointed out, 'useless' the US will hardly get any benefit from this ABM system. It has unnecessarily created controversy and tension throughout Europe. The countries which are tirelessly talking about the evil of Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact are now joining another military alliance, which is against their so called philosophy.
I like America more pragmatic, more realistic and more humanistic. They should stop these military games and work towards a nuclear and war free world. Newton's third law should be remembered by all.
Rich:
I constantly try to remind myself to think from the Russian perspective. Historically, Russia is the largest country in the world; surrounded by enemies. If it wasn’t the French, replaced by Germany in the 19th Century, it was the Japanese. If the Persians weren’t trying to check the ambitions of the Czar in the Near East it was the Turks. To deny Christian Russia control of Constantinople and the straights, “Christian” Great Britain and France aided the “Muslim” Ottomans for control of the Black Sea in the Crimea War. Great Britain played their “Great Game” in Central Asia for 200 years to keep the Russians out of India. Today, Russia has no allies. Paranoia seems to run in the national character of Russia but, perhaps, it’s somewhat justified. I continue to think, as crazy at it seems, Russian and the United States have many things in common and have few points of disagreements. If we could ever get past the constant “state of mistrust”, we might find out that Washington and Moscow are natural allies.
I give you this; some on this board have taken paranoia to a new height. (smile)
Frank Shuler
USA
Reko:
What situation could you think of that would take Russia and NATO to war? From NATO’s perspective, none I can think of. I can see a great economic interdependency between Russia and the European Union in the coming decades that would make war, and any reason for war, remote. My opinion is also that in a conventional war, Russia is unconquerable. NATO can’t even put together a large enough force-of-arms to pacify Kabul much less an occupation of Mother Russia.
The United States is the best friend Russia has. If we decide to pull out of Europe, Germany will take our place. If we decide to withdraw from Asia, Japan waits.
No matter what the perceived nuclear advantage the United States might hold against Russia, a nuclear exchange between the Pentagon and the Kremlin would result in the loss of 20 American cities. What would be gained?
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank Shuler:
you'll only have a hard time imagining war on Russia if you keep thinking of war as a massive ground invasion with the purpose of conquering the country. That's a valid definition, but a little too outdated for XXI century. What we must be thinking here is the Milosevic example.
As for US-Russia relations, please allow me not to discuss them here. Everyone always has so much to say on this subject that any interesting discussion is quickly drowned in banal remarks you've already read and heard a thousand times.
The point I'm trying to make is that achieving decisive nuclear superiority over Russia is one of legitimate US's interests. Because it allows them more freedom in use of conventional forces, sometimes required to fulfill their percieved duties as chief human rights protector and international arbiter in the modern World.
BTW, I never argued that exchanging 20 American cities for devastating Russia would be benefical to the US, so please don't ask me to back up this claim.
What "stinks" the most about this whole business is this percieved "threat" from Iran. No matter how many times I go over it, even a nuclear armed Iran would be no more of a threat to Europe than Pakistan or India. They would face certain nuclear annihilation by either France or GB. If there was anyone they would want to use nuclear weapons against, it would be the U.S. or Israel, but again, they would face massive nuclear retaliation on both counts.
So, the purpose of this BMD system defies logic; unless of course, the purpose is to justify the billions already wasted on BMD and/or expand NATO (now just a US power-projection vehicle) and keep Russian influence in check.
Since when is the US concerned about the safety of eastern Europe unless it benefits the US in some way?
If this system does become operational, I would most definitely target the sites with IRBM's if I was Russia.
This, or any other BMD system will only serve to increase proliferation and foster a new arms race. That was the whole point of the ABM treaty for God's sake! This "rouge nation" theory is a baseless fabrication in my opinion, simply used to justify the "preventative actions" that require the sustainment of massive military spending.
Reko:
You draw insightful conclusions and I agree on the “banal remarks” point. However, I don’t think the United States will ever achieve “decisive nuclear superiority” over Russia or the “Nuclear Primacy” that writers Lieber and Press so argue. I think all this is a myth. Today, Russia relies on her nuclear arsenal for power because, after 15 years of neglect, her conventional forces are so weak. It is that weakness in conventional forces that allow the United States so much freedom in its “international arbiter” missions. The nuclear forces of both countries just cancel out nuclear weapons as a tool of such diplomacy. The “Nuclear Threat” is just that, a threat.
Good exchange of views.
Frank Shuler
USA
If you're going to give independence to Kosovo, then why not Abkhazia and S. Ossetia? Keep in mind they're already de-facto independent. It won't take an expensive NATO intervention. They already have functioning economies unlike Kosovo. And the land they live on was theirs for centuries; they're not immigrants like the Kosovan Albanians. Oh wait. I know why. They're pro-Russia oriented. Where as their mother country, Georgia, wants to join NATO. Huh. Well better not mention this double standard then.
Feanor:
I have no disagreement in the independence of Abkhaz, South Ossetian or Transdniestrain in principle. You make a good point.
Frank Shuler
USA
Feanor, Russia had already started commercial relationships with Abkhazia. This gives them a de-facto independence. Georgians are screaming but they can’t’ do anything. Just scream. NATO may complain but also can’t’ do anything. After all Abkhazia is near Russia and NATO officers are not fools. Retaliation on Kosovo has started and will not end here. It will be asymmetrical, low intensity but time prolonged. The forces that separated Kosovo deserve the retaliation.
Too bad the US government doesn't think like you Frank. (yes that was sarcasm) And you know while we're at it why not give independence to Tibet, Taiwan, the Basques, Corsica, Northern Ireland, and the Lakota Indian tribe? Where does it stop? Where do we draw the distinction between regionalism struggling against a beneficial unifying authority and nationalism fighting against an oppressive foreign presence?
I think any talk of a war between Russia and NATO is ridiculous. NATO agree on anything; how would they fight a war against Russia? In truth, I think NATO is past its usefullnes as a military alliance and now only serves as a European/North American pulpit from which to work out common issues.
The major risk for such support-to-separatism policies lies in Ukraine. The NATO/EU have started a process that will backfire on them. Eventually when Eastern and South Ukraine express their self-determination desires they will understand and scream. Too late. The process had started, not only there.
Feanor:
Well, of course, my opinion is just my opinion.
I think the practical conclusion to your point is that not all “indigenist nationalistic struggles” are created equal. World politics play the designing role in determining how “local politics” play out. The world would have been a far better place if the old Yugoslavia could have held together in a society that could have accepted change and provided local democracy and equal protection to its citizens. It didn’t and Kosovo is the sad result.
None of us know the future; will Canada stay together or will Quebec decide to go its own way one day? Great Britain? I have my doubts. I do believe that the Korean peninsula will be united and Taiwan will be part of China one day. However on February 8, 1861, the Southern American states formed a new national government, the Confederate States of America, to pursue nationhood from their succession from the United States of America. Thinks didn’t work out too well for them. I do believe conquering a people and forcing those people to assimilate into a nation not of their choice, never works out over time.
Frank Shuler
USA
JF Cooper:
Replace "NATO" with "US with possible allies", if you wish. Doesn't change much for Russia in the context of a hypothetical war fought Milosevic style.
Frank Shuler:
Whether US can achive decisive nuclear superiority over Russia is an open question. I'd say they have a chance good enought to be worth pursuing. Which is exactly the reason ABM came around. If current trends continue, I bet that US will succeed before 2050. But, as we all know, history is often unpredictable.
Kolokol:
I only slightly disagree. I think the major risk for such “support-to-separatism policies” lies with Russia herself. This is the true risk illustrated by Kosovo. The world is drifting to an uncertain future here.
Frank Shuler
USA
So to sum it up the U.S. is acting under the influence of shortsighted policy geared towards creating the perception of a beneficial democratic independence process.
As for the ABM once again time will show whether the Russian nuclear arsenal will stop shrinking and expand enough to overwhelm the system.
Frank, I disagree. The joint ultraIslamic-Western support to the Chechen separatism was useless and the operation was appropriately crashed. The message was correctly received. There are now more ultraIslamic in Iraq fighting his former bosses than in Chechnya. Furthermore Georgia, despite NATO support is militarily nil.
Kolokol:
Once the flames of nationalism spread, there is little control. It’s like the snowball rolling down the mountain that becomes an avalanche. Let me ask a delicate question, “Do you think the United States “actively aided” Chechnya in their war with Moscow?” I mean overt aid; arms, intelligence. And, do you think this war is over?
Frank Shuler
USA
Well Frank, Russian soldiers found US-army shoes, American communication equipments (better than the ones of the Russian Army) and some other Western stuff on jointly with Chechen terrorist cadavers. I am not furious on this. I understand that’s part of “the game”, but it is clear the covert support of US to Chechen fighters. Clearly I remember also the Western mass media (propaganda machine) exalting the “heroic men and women” that took the theatre in Moscow and advertising about the “bloody and murderous” Russian special forces. I understand the desire of some people in the West to see a weak a feudalized Russia. I think Frank you are no between these people but things like this are useful for pattern identification purposes.
Do I think this war is over? No, I think, it is evolving in a sort of “Basque-Spain” conflict and this is quite affordable for a country like Russia.
Understand, I do not want to offend anybody. I want just to make clear mi opinion.
Kolokol
Georgia is militarily nil compared to Russia. But on a regional scale it has quite an army, especially given recent weapon purchases. To rephrase it, if Georgia decides to end Abkhazian and S. Ossetian independence by force it would take a Russian intervention to stop them.
As for the Chechen war, Frank the Chechen war is indeed over. It's been over on any meaningful level, as a war, since around 2001 when the bulk of Russian army forces were withdrawn from the province. There are limited COIN operations going on in the republic right now, but that certainly doesn't amount to a war or even a major resistance movement.
Kolokol:
I always appreciate your honesty and your point-of-view.
A ton of equipment, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, Oerlikon 20 mm guns, mortars, combat radios, body armor, and such used by the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980’s made its way to Chechnya in the 1990’s. Did the United States actively support the Chechen revolt? The realist in me would tell you I’m sure that some faction of our government did but I think the general policy was to support Boris Yeltsin. I think the US government was dismayed in the time it took to mobilize the Russian Army and the early setbacks. The longer the conflict took, the more international pressure the American government felt to intervene.
There is a big lesson here. The friend of today can become the enemy of tomorrow. If al Qaeda ever gets a nuclear weapon, Israel is at risk. If they get two, the United States will be attacked. If there are three, Russia will find itself a target. This must not happen.
Frank Shuler
USA
North America is surrounded by seas on both East and West and the U.S. is effectively insulated from any land attacks. Canada and Mexico are economically dependent on U.S. and will never express independent views or dare to interfere with U.S. policies. De-classified documents from the past reveal that after the collapse of Russia in the nineties the U.S. adopted the doctrine of the "New World Order" of single superpower which included preventing any other nation to compete with it in the world.
The world knows that U.S. invested enormous funds to support numerous organizations like Al Qaeda, Pakistan's ISI and Chechen rebels to create turmoil in Russia and India. It is not as if there are no differences between people at other places. The U.S. actively participated in promoting dissidence and helping opposition groups in almost every region of the world giving teeth to trouble makers describing them as freedom fighters. This helped U.S. hike its arms sales and prevent other nations from having an independent path forward for progress, thus catering to their new doctrine. "Act in line with U.S. or perish" became the dictum. These actions of U.S. have effectively shut out any trust in U.S. initiated treaties and agreements.
KA Sharma:
In principle, I find no disagreement in your comments. However, don’t you think the Soviet Union played just as big of role as America forming this world we now live in? The United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a fifty-year “Cold War” with many battles and battlefields. The result of that struggle continues to shape American foreign policy even today; rightly or wrongly. Moscow is not the blameless victim here.
I do believe with some common sense, Russia and America can find common ground to work on issues together. We have much in common and no real defining differences. I think since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, not enough time has passed for the Kremlin and the Pentagon to adjust to the “new political realities” of the world. Old habits of distrust die slowly. I continue to be optimistic that the future will bring our countries closer together.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank,
Your wish is as good as mine. But the realities are far-off from these mirages. The U.S. is a conglomerate of European settlers including those from British Empire who sought to explore new exotic lands. They lived in patches spreading all along the East coast. After the war of independence brought the men close a sense of urgency was felt to build a strong bond between these settlers who are heir to the new land. It was then that "American Nationalism" took root and became the means to keep them united. This feeling has now become an extremism. Every action by the government is critically analysed to make sure that it benefited America, however much it harmed other nations and is against the universal justice.
As long as America continues to ignore the good people of other nations and protect the wrong-doers merely because they benefit America and therefore deserve to be protected, there can be no solution. When America stops supporting those who commit crimes against others to benefit America, there is the possibility of a solution. The support of U.S. to ISI of Pakistan against India, to the Islamic Extremists and Chechen rebels against Russia in order to further their doctrine of the "New World Order" only goes to show there can be no enduring trust between U.S. and Russia.
KA Sharma:
Is Russia so different? Does not Russia maintain a forceful and directed foreign policy with the goal of economic prosperity and national security? It seems these are the tasks of government in any country. The United States is no different than France, Great Britain, Japan, Israel, Iran, Cuba, Chile, Niger, Poland… or even, Russia.
My point is that the United States falls under far greater international criticism because of the unique place we find ourselves in today, the “world’s only superpower”. Every decision we take in our economic or security defense will always be perceived as being taken at someone else’s expense. In fairness, this is actually true. Russia wants the world to return to the politics of the 1800’s whereby “the great nations” could meet and divide the worlds into political “spheres of influence”. I think the United States rejects such a political solution; it’s too remindful of the old Soviet days and the Iron Curtain over Europe. Russia and the United States have much in common. I suspect we will learn to work on common issues and agree to disagree on the rest. For example, it will be interesting to see in the next few weeks if Russia agrees to the US European ABM site and NATO over-flights & access to Russian air bases in support of the Afghanistan mission and NATO passing on Ukraine and Georgia in response. I think the result of these decisions will give us greater insight into future Russo-American relations.
Frank Shuler
USA
All,
Great article below on the weakness of NATO.
Russian friends, you have nothing to worry about.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725548-1,00.html
Great article, quite an accurate portrayal of NATO unwillingness to engage in long term combat operations. Also points out the fact that Russia is stronger then any single European NATO member alone. However for one NATO is a powerful channel for US political and economic interest. Second off NATO membership is usually paralleled by EU membership. So this does little if anything to calm fears of NATO expansion. To be honest the article is inapplicable to the European theater, because NATO members are more then willing to fight a continental war in defense of their newer members.
"If it wasn’t the French, replaced by Germany in the 19th Century, it was the Japanese. If the Persians weren’t trying to check the ambitions of the Czar in the Near East it was the Turks. To deny Christian Russia control of Constantinople and the straights, “Christian” Great Britain and France aided the “Muslim” Ottomans for control of the Black Sea in the Crimea War. Great Britain played their “Great Game” in Central Asia for 200 years to keep the Russians out of India." - Frank Shuler
- A little 'adjustment' here: you forgot mentioning the American interest in checking a very possible Soviet occupation of Europe by setting foot in Normandy in 1944. :)
"Today, Russia has no allies. Paranoia seems to run in the national character of Russia but, perhaps, it’s somewhat justified." - Frank Shuler
- For one, I'll take this 'paranoic' character over TEN American ones anytime. It might be paranoic, but nevertheless more ethical. :)
"I continue to think, as crazy at it seems, Russian and the United States have many things in common and have few points of disagreements." - Frank Shuler
- Try to invert the statement Frank,
it'd probably get closer to the truth.
"If we could ever get past the constant “state of mistrust”, we might find out that Washington and Moscow are natural allies." - Frank Shuler
- As it is now, the US can ONLY blame itself for not achieving this posibility.
Anyhow, I personaly believe that in stating that Russia and US could be 'natural' allies is as if wishing the heat could be as wet as rain. I believe that it's an overstatement.
"The United States is the best friend Russia has. If we decide to pull out of Europe, Germany will take our place. If we decide to withdraw from Asia, Japan waits." - Frank Shuler
- I respect your opinions Frank, but here...well, let's put it this way: if US pulls out of Europe and Asia it will have to have one heck of a contingency plan ready to be put in action, because otherwise it will have to:
a)scuttle two entire Fleets and dismantle tens of military bases and re-find employment for hundreds of thousands of people,
b)accept that there is no more a Cold War and the 'evil Empire' to fear,
c)accept that in trying to emerge new threats to its security in making black lists of states that can be restrained by International and not national law/action is an act of unethical offense brought upon those nations and that
d)that controling the world in American interests is as condemnable as millions of similar cases that passed before Human kind's Court of Law.
Can you see Washington signing to these terms? I don't.
The above constitutes the reason why US is not inclined to pull out of the mentioned regions. Not Germany. Not Japan.
"No matter what the perceived nuclear advantage the United States might hold against Russia, a nuclear exchange between the Pentagon and the Kremlin would result in the loss of 20 American cities. What would be gained?" - Frank Shuler
- Does Russia have only 20 MIRVs? Is 100KTs not enough to wipe a an American city?
"What "stinks" the most about this whole business is this percieved "threat" from Iran. No matter how many times I go over it, even a nuclear armed Iran would be no more of a threat to Europe than Pakistan or India. They would face certain nuclear annihilation by either France or GB. If there was anyone they would want to use nuclear weapons against, it would be the U.S. or Israel, but again, they would face massive nuclear retaliation on both counts.
So, the purpose of this BMD system defies logic; unless of course, the purpose is to justify the billions already wasted on BMD and/or expand NATO (now just a US power-projection vehicle) and keep Russian influence in check.
Since when is the US concerned about the safety of eastern Europe unless it benefits the US in some way?
If this system does become operational, I would most definitely target the sites with IRBM's if I was Russia.
This, or any other BMD system will only serve to increase proliferation and foster a new arms race. That was the whole point of the ABM treaty for God's sake! This "rouge nation" theory is a baseless fabrication in my opinion, simply used to justify the "preventative actions" that require the sustainment of massive military spending." - Jon Grams
- Agreed.
Frank,
What has Russia done that is harmful to U.S.? Has it set up bases in Canada or Mexico? Russia has never provoked the U.S. but always strived to maintain its independence. But the U.S. never liked anyone who expressed an independent opinion about world affairs. Even as I wrote my last posting the U.S. president authorised supply of arms to Kosovo and called it will help U.S. security! Such statements from U.S. can only damage the credibility of U.S. further.
Don't you find it ironic that U.S. which is the most powerful and secure country in the world is the most worried country about its security. It can't be true. There's something more than meets the eye. The U.S. is only making a ruse of its security to set up military centres around the world to dictate to other countries and deny them the freedom to make their own decisions. Would U.S. be still friends with any country that encourages its states to secede from U.S. through propaganda and distortion of the truth and plot to set up bases there in order to threaten it? To set up ABM systems all around Russia that can carry warheads to 5000 miles and call them as against rogue states, is ridiculous to say the least. There is definite massive advantage to U.S. thru' these potentially offensive weapons.
Does Russia have only 20 MIRVs? Is 100KTs not enough to wipe a an American city? -971
Actually, it depends on the size of the city, the angle of reentry, height of burst, etc. 100kt would not destroy Los Angeles, but it could wipe out Washington DC or Buffalo for example.
Russian friends,
Do you beleive armed conflict between the US and Russia is inevitable? By the tone, I would say yes.
971:
The United States is reducing its “military footprint” in Europe and Asia as we speak. Thousands of Germany based troops are coming home and the bulk of the US Marines in Japan are moving to US Guam. The number of American forces in South Korea has fallen from 38,000 to 25,000 in just the last four years. Long term prospects in the Middle East call for an enduring Army presence in Kuwait and the USAF to retain a base in Qatar while the US Navy remains in Bahrain, as we have since the 1950’s. Diego Garcia is the key base in the Indian Ocean, at least until the US lease runs out in 2016 (probably extended to 2032 by treaty). Future projects like “Global Strike” will be based in the United States and not require foreign military base support. While the number of bases across the world the United States has access to seems to be growing, the number of troops in these bases seems to be diminishing. Most new American facilities, such as our bases in Romania and Bulgaria are designed to serve as forward support bases in times of need but not permanent locations for troops. This seems the trend.
The United States does not fear Russia.
Despite robust trade, the resolution of the political status of Taiwan separates the United States and China.
Our relationship with the Arab states and Iran will always be framed by our support of Israel.
Other than the tired, preposterous argument the US is out to “dominate the world”, what single argument actually separates the United States and Russia? None I can think of.
I stand by my prediction that in the next thirty years, the US will be the best friend Russia has.
Frank Shuler
USA
KA Sharma:
I think the event of 9/11 changed the US security policy in ways that haven’t always been clear and understood even today. I also think this policy is evolving and is still in a period of adjustment to this new threat. America is still trying to “find its way” in this new world and many of its policy decisions reflect this. To directly answer your question, I don’t think Russia had done anything to harm the United States in the context of your question. However, I would ask the same question in return. What has the United States done to harm Russia?
Frank Shuler
USA
What separates Russia is the issue of a sphere of influence. Russia wants one and the U.S. won't let us have one. The sphere of American influence is global, which means no other nation can be allowed to create it's own that would be politically, economically, and militarily, beyond American pressure.
Feanor:
Very insightful and I certainly agree. By definition, “spheres of influence” have to be negotiated and can’t be taken for granted. What do you think is Russia’s natural sphere of influence and what does she have to offer in return for such recognition?
Interesting conversation; good exchange of views.
Frank Shuler
USA
Feanor:
Specifically what has the U.S. done to prevent Russia from gaining a sphere of influence? Has it been direct action or has the others Russia may have influenced decided to side with U.S. instead of Russia. Russia has made some interesting decisions in the last decade and not all of them are globally accepted. The same can be said for the U.S. and in return we have lost some global influence...
Rich
I don't know what I would consider Russia's sphere of influence. However Mr. Putin clearly consider it to be primarily the ex-USSR, and potentially in the future Eastern Europe. I think the refusal of the USA to recognize this "traditional" sphere of influence has led to decisions like increasing Russo-Cuban contacts, as well as arms sales to many of America's enemies, including the Tor M1 deal with Iran, the huge multi-faceted arms deal with Venezuela, etc. etc. etc.
Rich the American ways of attempting to prevent Russian resurgence are straightforward and simple: color revolutions financed from outside, "democracy" oriented NGO's, NATO expansion eastward, military bases (CAR in particular), and attempts to create non-Russian alternatives to import and export opportunities for client states (pipelines and weapons primarily).
Feanor
Slightly disagree. I don’t think Russian arms sales to China, India, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, or, say, Venezuela, have much to do with politics. I honestly believe these transactions are for the most part a commercial business venture to help stabilize the Russian arms industry. The common dominator with the nations on this list is their ability to pay for these arms in cash. The old “Soviet days” of giving away weapons to any nation that opposes the United States is long over.
By the way, Russia’s “influence” in Cuba is also long gone. Have you been following Raul Castro’s reforms? Did you hear that now the “average” Cuban can have a cellular telephone, own a television and DVD player, have access to American television programming, rent a car, stay in luxury Cuban hotels, and trade in dollars. Once travel restriction between Cuba and the US are removed, a hundred billion Yankee dollars will flow to Havana. Times are changing.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank. It is great that “Cuban can have a cellular telephone, own a television and DVD player”. But this is not “anti-Russian”. This is related to improve the living standards for Cubans. Raul Castro seems to be a very pragmatic man. I hope the next America president will also be.
May be Feanor, when talking about increasing Russo-Cuban contacts, refers to the rumour about the construction of a Voronez-DM radar in Cuba to look the American ICBM bases in order to “free” high elliptic orbit satellites to look to another parts of the globe. Anyway just rumours.
Finally, I agree: Russian sell of weapons are just business. Russia is “very capitalist” in this sphere now.
I have been following Cuban reform very closely. None of the reform represent anything, at least at this point, other then the end of the "special" period instituted to deal with the economic crisis that followed the collapse of the USSR. They're not direct market reforms, it's simply a smoothing out of the edges of the current system. Nor is it analogous to the reforms of Russia or China. The thing is that changes instituted are cosmetic rather then system changing. Russian influence in Cuba is currently nowhere near what it used to be, but the point is that it's growing. As for arms sales yes and no. Some of it is business, but some is also politics. For example Indonesia got a 1 bln. USD credit line to buy Russian weapons. No cash up front there. Algeria essentially got their debt written off in exchange for buying Russian weapons and signing an exclusive natural gas contract with Russia. The deal with Iran, in defiance of the U.S., as well as continued nuclear cooperation, was also in large part political.
Kolokol
Feanor
My Cuban statements were more in reference to “Russian Sphere of Influences” than practical reflections on Russo-Cuban relations today. I took some liberties to illustrate how quickly things can change in this new world of today; forgive me.
I doubt a new radar system would be installed in Cuba by Russia for economic and political reasons but it might serve as a useful bargaining chip with the US. Just a personal opinion.
To be honest, the only weapon system the Russians have sold that raised any public opinion concerns here in the US was the purchase of 100,000 Kalashnikov AK-47 rifles, and a factory to make more, by Venezuela. The fear here is that these weapons will fall into the hands of radicals, left or right, in Latin America, a part of the world that has seen enough death over the last 20 years. I would have the same fear if the Colt's Manufacturing Company (CMC) sold 100,000 M-16s to Liberia with a factory to make more. Nothing good will come from this.
Frank Shuler
USA
The main Cuban-Russian deals are in the area of machinery and aero-space, in particular the purchase of civilian airliners and the construction of an airport hub in Cuba. This is all being done on a credit line.
By the way Venezuela bought 100 000 AK-107's and a factory to make more, not AK-47's. Two rather different rifles.
As for diplomatic hurdles, how about selling Tor M1 air defense systems to Iran (who is likely to attempt to reverse engineer them), and Pantsyr ad-systems to Syria and Iran? That cause quite an uproar. And once more the nuclear cooperation between Russia and Iran. I would argue that most of those things were aimed at giving more breathing room and leverage when negotiating with the US.
Feanor
Actually, I don’t think the US military is too worried by the Tor M1 or, for example, the S-300 system. We train against both, from an electronic warfare capacity and from suppression tactics. We have access to the Pantsyr-S1 system although we’re waiting on, with interest, the latest radar system from the KBP Instrument Design Bureau. We have all three systems in our inventory. Uproar? No. However, the sale of the S-400 system to Iran or China would be troublesome and not well received by the Pentagon.
Frank Shuler
USA
Kolokol:
Maybe you have chosen the wrong word "pragmatic", and I hate to get political, but what has our esteemed President Bush done that was anything but pragmatic. Yes, he has launched a very unpopular war, but he has not done anything that is against the future well being of U.S. security. Maybe one can argue against that in that many in the world disagrees with his actions. But, in my opinion, when the world stops calling upon the U.S. to help solve issues then we may leave well enough alone. Some say that we interdict when not necessary, but when we don't act we get reprimanded. The U.S. has done much good globally and probably more that comparable countries, but that tends to get pushed aside to focus on the negative.
We are not perfect, our elected officials are not perfect, but as you hope for a more "sensitive" president for us, I hope for a more logical president from you. Unfortunately, we know that he will be a puppet and would be surprised if dramtic change arises.
Sorry for the tangent...
Rich, actually, I was talking just on the US-Cuba relationships. Let's be clear: The embargo only helped Fidel Castro on his "heroic" charn and those quasy-mafia Cuban-americans from Miami. It didn't heped Cubans, It didn't helped American interest in L.America.
Sorry for the tangent too.
Absolutely correct. In fact if I was Cuba I wouldn't want the embargo to be lifted. It would simply open the Cuban market to cheaper and better American goods, as well as destabilize the internal situation. Cuba has been far more successful then the surrounding Latin American nations and this is in major part due to the fact that they've been under an embargo and as a result have developed impressively on their own.
I apologize for my misunderstanding. I would choose "reasonable" as a better hope for the next wave of US-Cuba relations.