A Strategy With No Dangers
Vitaly Portnikov
May 15, 2009
Grani.ru

Having signed the National security strategy for Russia until 2020, President Dmitri Medvedev gave the chance for Western – you almost want to say “Sovietologists” – to talk once more about Russian foreign policy.  Perhaps this is a signal for Barack Obama, the new American president?  Perhaps the new Russian president in such a way demonstrates confidence in his own strengths and a continuity of policy?  Since it is absolutely indispensable for the American President, who plans to come to Moscow, to understand that the Russian leadership will continue to regard siting elements of US missile defense in Europe as all but the most important problem of their country’s security.

Any sensible Russian could tell her president about the major threats to the country’s national security.  In the natural resource dependence of the economy, which would turn Russia into a third-world country the next day after a fall in oil prices.  In the corruption suffocating the country.  In the catastrophic population loss, which calls into question the physical capability, not even of the development, but simply of populating Russia’s expanses.  But who among the Russian political elite cares about these trifles?

In the minds of the people who have by some accident ended up in Moscow’s corridors of power at the start of the new millennium, present-day Russia is a sort-of clone of the Soviet Union, rising from some imagined knees.  Naturally, the threats to this clone, which lives its life in a virtual Kremlin-televised space, are completely different.  Its major opponent is those same United States, who dream of beating Russia down and hindering its renewal.  Its major betrayer is the former Soviet satellite states, who dared to regard the happy years of sitting in the shade of their “big brother” as not quite the best times in their history, and are now entering into cooperation with the overseas adversary.  Its major ally is China, whose leadership hardly dreams about joint battle with the adversary, as it economically – and the crisis has clearly proven – depends on its well-being.

Remarkably, all the threats thought to be serious at the start of the century have practically disappeared from the new strategy.  The current authorities aren’t worried about the growing divisions in society, terrorism and separatism, despite the anything-but-simple situation in the Caucasus, the crisis of social welfare and public health, and the criminalization of social relations.  Is there actually none of this left?  One would really like for it not to be there – and so issues actually critical to Russia’s future are simply culled from the strategy.  Even allowing that this is an ordinary, bureaucratic document, at least it used to give evidence that the authorities understood what country they lived in.

But now, the strategy approved by its president has no relation to the problems of actual Russia.  From the document, we can learn everything we need about the fanciful day-dreams* of Russian officialdom.   About how every clerk, landing a job at the Security Council or in the head of state’s administration, thinks of themselves as a Napoleon, and what image of Russia takes shape in his mind on the road to Rublyevka**.  But we won’t learn anything about Russia itself, just as we won’t understand at all, what kind of country it will be in 2020.  One thing is evident – if the documents passed by the highest leadership of the country continue to be so far removed from the actual situation in Russia and the world, ten years down the line, Dmitri Medvedev’s successor won’t be concerned with disseminating strategy any longer.

*trans. note.  Portnikov references Manilov, a character from Gogol’s “Dead Souls” who has a lofty imagination.

**an unofficial name of a prestigious residential area West of Moscow, Russia.

translation by theotherrussia.org

The Kremlin has reasoned the move, which would put nuclear-capable missiles deep in Central Europe, as a response to an American missile defense system in Eastern Europe.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier called the step “the wrong signal at the wrong moment.”

Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the European Commissioner for External Relations, also shared her mind. “It’s a surprise to me,” she said, “a not very pleasant one. Deploying missiles in Kaliningrad won’t contribute to improving security in Europe.”

Eastern European leaders were also clear, describing Medvedev’s proposal as “deplorable,” and “blackmailing.”

“Dmitri Medvedev’s statement is no friendly act,” said Radosław Sikorski, Poland’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. “What worries us the most is that earlier we heard such rhetoric from generals, and now we hear it from the President when he delivers his keynote speech.”

Bronislaw Komorowski, the Chairman of the Polish Parliament, sounded more severe: “Now that a new administration has come to power in the US,” he said, “such statements only aggravate the situation. They resemble blackmailing, which no one approves of.”

In one week, the first Russia-EU summit since the August war in the Caucasus will take place in Nice, France. Diplomats had hoped to renew interrupted negotiations on a new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and Russia. Now, “Old Europe’s” nations, who fought hard to prevent sanctions against Russia, are finding it harder to push for normalizing relations with the Kremlin.

Lithuanian president Valdas Adamkus described Medvedev’s words as contradicting themselves. “He speaks about willingness to jointly confront common challenges and moves his missiles to Kaliningrad to neutralize the U.S. AMD system.”

NATO was also preparing a response to the Kremlin’s firm rhetoric. “Medvedev made a serious and aggressive statement,” a high-level official told Kommersant. “Moscow shouldn’t think that it will get away with it. No one has sought large-scale confrontation so far, but we are going to respond to the President’s words. We just need some time to analyze everything,”

—
Read Medvedev’s Complete Address (Eng)

A Statement by the United Civil Front

In his address to the Federal Assembly, D. Medvedev proposed amending the Constitution, increasing the presidential term limit to 6 years, and the State Duma to 5 years. It is apparent that the proposal will not be implemented through a nationwide referendum, but by the marionette Federal Assembly, and if need be, the regional parliaments.

The United Civil Front has long warned of the threat that the Constitution would be reworked to suit the needs of the illegitimate ruling regime. We assumed that V. Putin would himself implement this type of “Constitutional reform.” However, he has decided to cede these dubious reformative laurels to his younger partner, D. Medvedev.

The scenario where early Presidential and State Duma elections are called immediately after the Constitution is amended seems all the more likely today. And hardly anyone in Russia today has any doubts about who who will stand for election to the highest government post in this case. In such a way, the authorities solve the problem of President Putin’s illegitimate third term.

Appearing today as a speaker of the governing clan that seized power, D. Medvedev unambiguously let all of Russia’s citizen’s know: “we came forever, and there can be no talk about any alternative to our path.”

It is evident that not only the criminal intent to practically usurp power in Russia, but an attempt to divert the public’s attention from the unfolding socio-economic crisis in Russia is hiding behind Medvedev’s proposal to rework the acting Constitution. The United Civil Front declares that the ruling regime only aggravates the crisis with its illegitimate actions, putting the future of our country and all of her citizens at risk.

11.05.2008

According to Zavarzin, precision-guided weaponry may be installed on Kaliningrad’s border regions with Poland.

Russia is acting tough after Warsaw signed agreements on locating an American missile defense base housing 10 interceptor rockets in Poland, some 185 kilometers from Russian soil.

Responding to a journalist’s question, Zavarzin said that there was no present need to put nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad. However, he said the proposal had been floated, and that it “does not fall under the scope of agreements and negotiations on strategic stability, which we are holding with the Americans.” The decision, he said, was ultimately left to the commander-in-chief. At present, the colonel-general said, Russia needs to modernize its surface, underwater and coastal divisions.

Mikhail Babich, Zavarzin’s deputy on the committee, told Gazeta.ru that placing a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic was a hostile act on the part of the US, and confirmed that Russia was planning a symmetrical response.

“We are developing a series of measures for a symmetrical response to the USA in the context of the deployment of ABM [ballistic missile defense] in Poland and the Czech Republic, and other hostile acts,” Babich said. “They are being developed to guarantee Russia’s safety and as a response in case of a strike on our territory.”

Meanwhile, defense experts questioned by the publication were skeptical about the need for precision-guided weapons and tactical nuclear arms in Russia’s western enclave. Russia’s army, they said, had other hardware that already guaranteed the safety of the country’s western border.

—

Related stories:

US General Warns Russia Over Cuban Bomber Deployment

Missile Defense and Hot Air from the Russian Foreign Ministry

“I think we should stand strong and indicate that that is something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line, for the United States of America,” General Norton Schwartz said at a confirmation hearing in Washington on Tuesday. The General is nominated to be the U.S. Air Force chief of staff.

The General’s statement came in response to an article published in the Izvestia newspaper (Rus), which quoted a high-ranking unnamed source within Russia’s military establishment. The source indicated that Russia may bring strategic nuclear bombers to Cuba in response to the construction of a US Missile Defense Shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. “While they are deploying the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, our strategic bombers will already be landing in Cuba,” the source reportedly said. It remained unclear if bombers would be stationed in Cuba, or would use bases there to refuel.

Russia has spoken out vehemently against the construction of a US anti-missile system close to its borders, and has called the system a threat to its national security. Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement that the country would “be forced to react not in a diplomatic fashion but with military methods,” if elements of the system went forward.

Russian authorities declined to comment on the Izvestia report, although some military officials welcomed any steps that would enhance Russia’s global influence. Mikhail Oparin, a former commander of a Russian base in Cuba, which was closed in 2001, told the Interfax news agency that “Russia’s air fleet must work towards a presence in every corner of the world.”

Shortly after the Czech Republic signed an agreement with the US on the placement of anti-missile radar there, oil shipments from Russia were halved. Transneft, the Russian state-run pipeline monopoly claimed this was the result of technical reasons, although some experts saw political motivations. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin later ordered the government to ensure that there be no more shortfalls.

The US has maintained that its anti-missile system is targeted at defending against a possible attack from Iran, and that it poses no threat to Russian security.

Still, the placement of the system has drawn wide public scorn, with various proposals on how to respond.

Alexander Pikaev, the head of the disarmament and conflict settlement department of the Russian Academy of Sciences, spoke of one method to RIA Novosti (Rus):

“If Russian consumers were to forgo Czech beer in protest of the deployment of American radar, after, of course, all the ratification procedures, which may not even take place there, then this would likely be a serious response, more serious than restricting the supply of oil or a note of protest by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.”

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Authorized to Frighten
Aleksandr Golts
Yezhednevny Zhurnal
July 9, 2008

An anticipated and downright unpleasant event has taken place. At the very moment when Dmitry Medvedev, a “smart guy” (according to George Bush), acknowledged that certain disagreements remained between Russia and the USA, the US Secretary of State signed an agreement in Prague on the placement of radar for the American strategic missile defense system in the Czech Republic. Our own Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) immediately reacted with an extremely callous announcement [rus][eng].

First of all, the MFA asserts “that the setting of elements of the US strategic arsenal in place close to the Russian territory could be used to weaken the potential of our deterrent.” And secondly, it threatens, that “if a U.S. strategic anti-missile shield is deployed near our borders, we will be forced to react not in a diplomatic fashion but with military methods… It is understandable that the Russian side will take adequate measures in such circumstances to compensate for the emerging potential of threats to its national security.”

I have to acknowledge, that both assertions in no way correspond with reality. American anti-ballistic missile defense (ABM) cannot weaken Russia’s deterrent potential. For that simple reason, that the ten interceptor missiles, which could be deployed in Poland (if Washington comes to an agreement with Warsaw), in the best case scenario would be able to intercept a single one of the 1700-2200 nuclear warheads, which Moscow will command in 2012 (at present, there are around three thousand warheads). I will refer those who doubt the technical competency of yours truly to a text (RUS) by Vladimir Zinovyevich Dvorkin, a retired major-general, former commander of the 4th Research and Development Establishment in the Ministry of Defense, and one of the few real military experts in our country.

Even more curious is the promise to respond with “military methods.” Strictly speaking, there could be two such responses. The first – updating the means of overcoming the ABM. An exercise that is completely pointless and at the same time sure-fire, since the Americans are clearly not preparing their system to stand up to Russia. In addition, our domestic commanders have stated many times that we already have miraculous warheads at our disposal, capable of surmounting any ABM system. One can pay no attention to such trivial matters, that, according to media reports, these warheads begin to maneuver during the final stage of their flight (which seems to make their interception impossible), and as they approach their target, while the Americans plan to perform the interception in space. The Kremlin propagandists will tell the people about asymmetrical but effective measures, and the Americans will prudently say nothing. Anything to keep things quiet.

It’s a completely different story, if Moscow decides to respond by creating an additional threat to the USA or those countries where elements of the American ABM system will be positioned. “Dealing with” the Americans themselves will be rather difficult. In the last six years, Moscow has fiercely strived for renewed talks on nuclear armament with Washington. And now, after the speech by John McCain in Denver, which his Democratic rival Barack Obama is fated to respond to, hope has emerged that such talks can begin during the next administration. Trying to gain a military-strategic advantage over the USA in this situation (among all the illusiveness of success) – amounts to destroying every foundation for the negotiations.

A threat remains, which Russia’s generals have repeatedly put forward. Step out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, increase the range of the Iskander rockets, site them in the Kaliningrad oblast and aim them at the Czech Republic, where interceptors will also be stationed. I am certain, that such gibberish will never become reality.

It is appropriate to remember, that in the 1970s, the USSR tried to gain an advantage over NATO, by aiming intermediate-range missiles at Western Europe. However, when the Americans unveiled their “Pershings” and the “Tomahawks,” those in the Kremlin understood that Soviet rockets could destroy Brussels and London, but not Washington. But the American “Tomahawks” would reach Moscow in five minutes. As result it became necessary to sign the INF Treaty, whereby the USSR destroyed far more rockets that the USA. Then, the Soviet Union spent from 40 to 80 percent of GDP on military expenses. Now, Russia officially spends 2.7 percent of GDP on defense (some experts believe the spending reaches 4 percent). One way or another, this means that Russia is absolutely not ready for a new arms race. Besides, up to now only one division of “Iskanders” has been put into commission, and that with difficulty.

All this means that our Ministry of Foreign Affairs is blowing hot air. And nothing more. Furthermore, I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s curious what the person writing “Russia’s stances” feels, understanding that what he’s writing is, how to put this mildly, downright rubbish.

translated by theotherrussia.org