Ground Forces Training for 2007

ARMS-TASS (Russian link) reports on the training activity of the Russian ground troops in 2007. According to General Aleksey Maslov, the army conducted five full-scale brigade-level live fire tactical exercises, 26 regimental and over 1000 battalion and company-level exercises and about 10,000 platoon and squad-level live fire exercises.

Russian Repair Ship in Need of Repair

PM-138, a Black Sea Fleet repair ship on its way from Tartus, Syria to Sevastopol, Ukraine after participating in the recent Mediterranean Cruise, lost all power in the weather of the Aegian Sea on February 18, 2008. The ship sent out a distress call and has since been safely towed into port by the Hellenic Navy.

Algeria Refuses MiG-29SMTs

Algeria is returning 15 MiG-29SMTs it had purchased from Russia in 2006-2007. The reason given is low production quality of certain aircraft parts. Rosoboronexport (Russian state arms export monopoly) disagrees and sites political reasons. In any case, the Algerian president is currently in Moscow for talks and it appears that Russian-Algerian "cooperation" will continue, but the original contract may be altered, possibly in favor of more Su-30MKI(A)s. Kommersant has an overview of the situation and Russia Today has a news report.

Yuri Dolgorukiy Launched (Again)

The Sevmash construction yard launched the first 'Borei' class SSBN, the Yuri Dolgorukiy, on February 12, 2008. If this sounds familiar, it's because the submarine was already "launched" on April 15th, 2007. However, it was no secret at the time that the boat remained incomplete and more dry-dock work was necessary. It appears the work is now complete.

In related news, the Northern Fleet officially accepted the overhauled and upgraded K-117 'Bryansk' (Delta-IV) SSBN on February 9, 2008. Russianforces.org has more details:

" This is the fourth Project 667BDRM submarine that has underwent overhaul in recent years - K-51 Verkhoturie, K-84 Ekaterinburg, and K-114 Tula were the first three. K-18 Karelia is still at the Zvezdochka plant and K-407 Novomoskovsk will probably join it there soon."

Although no details of the upgrades are available, they are likely to include various tactical improvements (silencing, sonar equipment, etc.) and possibly introduction of the RS-29RM 'Sineva' missiles.

Defense Export Reform

Continuing the discussion of Russia's defense export industry and the series of recent contract problems, kommersant has an informative article reviewing the history of and recent plans to further reform the state monopoly - Rosoboronexport. See bottom of the page for a summary of 2007 export contracts and deliveries.

Strategic Implications of the Mediterranean Cruise

Information Dissemination has an interesting analysis of the possible long-term strategic implications of the Russian naval cruise to the Mediterranean. As announced last year, Russia plans on building the world's second largest naval force in the 2020-2030 time frame, including numerous aircraft carriers for the Pacific and Northern fleets. Contrary to popular opinion, Information Dissemination believes such a force is required less for a potential military confrontation with the U.S., but more for economic accessibility to forward markets in a globalized economy. An excerpt:

"The exercises involved the fighter aviation forces onboard the Admiral Kuznetsov in escort of the long range, land based Tu-160 bomber forces at the point of attack. This demonstration highlights that the Russian military has retained the military capability of forward strike, and given the distances involved, is a military capability beyond that of every nation in the world with one exception, the United States.

From a strategic perspective, long range bomber sorties from Russia guarded at the point of attack by forward deployed CV aviation is an enormous capability. With the military option of forward strike supported by sea power comes an option unique to super powers, the ability of Russia for military intervention in forward locations.

...

This will give Russia the capability to emerge in [the future] as a major military power in a world influenced heavily by the rapid expansion of globalization. The purpose of building these military capabilities is not, as some contend, to compete against the United States as a military power in forward markets, rather emerge instead as an alternative to US military power in forward markets. In that context we see long term plans for expanding Russian carrier based naval aviation, which is defensive in nature per doctrine, aligned within the scope of Russia's strategic goals for economic influence in forward markets."

Putin Speech

Vladimir Putin conducted a nationally televised address to the Russian Federation Council (the Russian parliament) on February 8, 2008. In a 50-minute speech, he reviewed major accomplishments over the last eight years and set goals for the decade ahead. Before concluding, he spoke about Russia's foreign policy and national security needs. The full transcript is available in English from the official Kremlin website, but here is the foreign policy and national security segment, which outlines Russia's perspective on recent and future developments, as well as considers the problems of what Putin calls a new arms race:

"I cannot but say a few words about Russia’s security and defence capability, and also about our foreign policy strategy. They all depend in large part on the level of economic and social development in our country.

It is now clear that the world has entered a new spiral in the arms race. This is does not depend on us and it is not we who began it. The most developed countries, making use of their technological advantages, are spending billions on developing next-generation defensive and offensive weapons systems. Their defence investment is dozens of times higher than ours.

We have complied strictly with our obligations over these last decades and are fulfilling all of our obligations under the international security agreements, including the Conventional Forces in Europe [CFE] Treaty. But our NATO partners have not ratified certain agreements, are not fulfilling their obligations, but nevertheless demand continued unilateral compliance from us. NATO itself is expanding and is bringing its military infrastructure ever closer to our borders. We have closed our bases in Cuba and Vietnam, but what have we got in return? New American bases in Romania and Bulgaria, and a new missile defence system with plans to install components of this system in Poland and the Czech Republic soon it seems.

We are told that these actions are not directed against Russia, but we have received no constructive responses to our completely legitimate concerns.

There has been a lot of talk on these matters, but it is with sorrow in my heart that I am forced say that our partners have been using these discussions as information and diplomatic cover for carrying out their own plans. We have still not seen any real steps to look for a compromise. We are effectively being forced into a situation where we have to take measures in response, where we have no choice but to make the necessary decisions.

Russia has a response to these new challenges and it always will.

Russia will begin production of new types of weapons over these coming years, the quality of which is just as good and in some cases even surpasses those of other countries. At the same time, our spending on these projects will be in keeping with our possibilities and will not be to the detriment of our social and economic development priorities.

The use of new technology also calls for a rethinking of strategy in the way our Armed Forces are organised. After all, new breakthroughs in bio-, nano- and information technology could lead to revolutionary changes in weapons and defence.

Only an army that meets the most modern demands can be entrusted with the deployment, servicing and use of new generation weapons. The human factor is becoming more important than ever. What we need is an innovative army, an army based on the very highest modern standards of professionalism, technical breadth of horizon and competence.

To achieve this, we need to make military service more prestigious, continue to raise wages for servicemen, provide them with better social protection and resolve their housing problems.

Overall, strengthening our national security requires a new strategy for developing the Armed Forces through to 2020, a strategy that takes into account the challenges and threats to our country’s interests today.

Today’s world is not becoming any simpler. On the contrary, it is becoming ever more complicated and tougher. We have seen how the lofty slogans of freedom and an open society are sometimes used to destroy the sovereignty of a country or an entire region. We have seen how, behind a veneer of clamorous rhetoric about free trade and investment, the most developed countries step up their protectionist policies.

A fierce battle for resources is unfolding, and the whiff of gas or oil is behind many conflicts, foreign policy actions and diplomatic demarches.

In this context, it is understandable that the world should be showing growing interest in Russia and in Eurasia in general. God was generous in giving us natural resources. The result is that we are running up against repeats of the old ‘deterrence’ policy more and more often. But what this usually boils down to, essentially, are attempts to impose unfair competition on us and secure access to our resources.

It is essential to remain steadfast and firm in such a situation, to avoid being drawn into costly confrontation or a new arms race that would be destructive for our economy and disastrous for our country’s domestic development.

Our choice is clear. Russia is a reliable partner for the entire international community in resolving global problems. We are interested in mutually beneficial cooperation in all areas – in security, science, energy, and in tackling climate change.

We are interested in being as involved as possible in global and regional integration and in close trade, economic and investment cooperation, in developing high technology and making it a part of our everyday lives. This is all in accordance with our strategic goals. If we want to achieve our national goals we need a peaceful and positive international relations agenda. And we will pursue this course

I stress that we have no intention of trying to take anything away from anyone else. We are a self-sufficient country. And we have no intention either of closing ourselves off from the outside world and living in isolation.

I am certain that an independent, pragmatic and responsible policy will enable Russia to strengthen its international authority as a reliable and honest partner."

U.S. Intelligence Concerned with Russia

In a report delivered to the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee on 2/5/08, Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, devoted considerable attention to Russia. His concerns included potential use of Russia's increasing financial, energy and military influence for political goals and capability to conduct cyber attacks against U.S. interests. In addition, the report includes a briefing on a number of national trends in politics, economics and military activity in Russia. The full report is available online, but here are the relevant excerpts:

"[Issues include] concerns about the financial capabilities of
Russia, China, and OPEC countries and the potential use of
their market access to exert financial leverage to achieve
political ends.

...

We assess that nations, including Russia and China, have
the technical capabilities to target and disrupt elements of the
US information infrastructure and for intelligence collection.
Nation states and criminals target our government and private
sector information networks to gain competitive advantage in
the commercial sector.

...

In March, Russia is set to reach what many anticipated would
be an important milestone—the first on-schedule change in
leadership since communism and the first voluntary transfer
of power from one healthy Kremlin leader to another. That
milestone has been clouded, however, by President Putin’s
declared readiness to serve as prime minister under his
hand-picked successor, Dmitry Medvedev, a move that raises
questions about who will be in charge of Russia after Putin’s
presidential term expires in May. Coming at a time of uncertainty
about Russia’s direction, the Medvedev-Putin “cohabitation”
raise questions about the country’s future and the implications
for Western interests. While many of the essential features of the
current system are likely to endure, including weak institutions,
corruption, and growing authoritarianism, we will be alert for
signs of systemic changes such as an indication that presidential
powers are being weakened in favor of a stronger prime minister.

We judge the Russian economy will continue to expand
under a new leadership, although at a slower rate than over the
last eight years, given capacity constraints, the slow pace of
institutional change, the impact of real ruble appreciation, and
developments in the international economy. Negative
longerterm demographic challenges loom and investment will
remain a significant constraint, particularly in the energy sector.
Other elements of Russian national power—from trade and
energy, to diplomatic instruments and military and intelligence
capabilities—are on a path to grow over the next four years.
For example, Russia is positioning to control an energy supply
and transportation network spanning from Europe to East Asia.
Aggressive Russian efforts to control, restrict or block the
transit of hydrocarbons from the Caspian to the West—and to
ensure that East-West energy corridors remain subject to
Russian control—underscore the potential power and influence
of Russia’s energy policy.

The Russian military has begun to reverse a long, deep
deterioration in its capabilities that started before the collapse of
the Soviet Union. Although determined that defense spending
not harm Russia’s economic performance, Putin has been
committed to increases for defense commensurate with GDP
growth that has averaged just under 7 percent this decade. By
2006 the military had significantly increased the number of
high-readiness units from 1999 levels, ramped up ground forces
training—including mobilization exercise activity—and begun
to man its high-readiness units with longer-term “contract”
personnel rather than conscripts.

Moscow also is making more use of its strengthened armed
forces. A growing number of exercises with foreign militaries
and an increased operational tempo in the North Caucasus
Military District, often focusing on potential Georgian
contingencies, are designed primarily to demonstrate regional
dominance and discourage outside interference. Russia has
used widely publicized missile launches and increased longrange
aviation (LRA) training flights to the Pacific, Atlantic,
and Arctic Oceans to showcase Russia’s continued global reach
and military relevance.

The military still faces significant challenges, and recent
activity does not approach Soviet era operations. Demographic,
health problems, and conscription deferments erode available
manpower. Strategic nuclear forces remain viable, but Russia’s
defense industry suffers from overcapacity, loss of skilled and
experienced personnel, lack of modern machine tools, rising
material and labor costs, and dwindling component suppliers.

...

The other states of Eurasia remain in a state of flux.
Unresolved conflicts in the separatist Georgian regions of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia will remain potential flashpoints
even if Russia—in response to Western recognition of
Kosovo—does not follow through with its implicit threat to
recognize the two regions as independent. President
Saakashvili’s reelection in January will help renew his
democratic credentials and leadership mandate.

Elsewhere in the Caucasus, the stalemated Nagorno-
Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia continues
to produce dozens of casualties annually along the Line-of-
Contact. Moreover, Russia’s recent suspension of its
Conventional Forces in Europe obligations could lead to similar
suspensions by Azerbaijan and Armenia and a subsequent arms
race.

...

High energy prices and escalating demand for oil and
natural gas, also has resulted in windfall profits for producers.
OPEC countries earned an estimated $690 billion from oil
exports last year, nearly three times the revenues earned in
2003. The increased revenues also have enabled producers like
Iran, Venezuela, Sudan, and Russia to garner enhanced
political, economic and even military advantages and
complicated multilateral efforts to address problems such as the
tragedy in Darfur and Iran’s nuclear program.

...

...We also see a sharp rise in Russia’s investment abroad, much
of it driven by Russian energy companies. Moscow is using the
power of its energy monopoly to ensure that East-West energy
corridors remain subject to Russian influence.

...

High food prices in several countries, including Russia, China,
India, and Vietnam, are forcing governments to engage in
market distorting practices such as banning food exports,
increasing subsidies, or fixing prices: Food prices are likely
to be an issue in several upcoming elections, particularly
Pakistan."