ChristiansUnite Forums

Russia Boosts Military Presence at Home and Abroad

Russia is looking at boosting its military presence in the Mediterranean with plans to set up two naval bases in Syria. Together with the production of intercontinental ballistic missiles in the works and an air defense missile system in the Moscow region, this may be one of the first signs of the "asymmetrical" response to the United States that President Vladimir Putin spoke of in February. But while the West is already alarmed by the response, it may not be as threatening as it appears.

Russian Navy Chief Admiral Vladimir Masorin announced Friday in a televised address to journalists that Russia would return warships to the Mediterranean, marking the first military presence outside Russia since the breakup of the USSR. While Masorin did not mention Syria as the host of any bases, the Arab state has two ports, Tartus and Latakia, that hosted Soviet bases until 1992, making them the only likely ports to accommodate the new Navy bases. "The Mediterranean Sea is very important strategically for the Black Sea Fleet," Masorin told journalists in the Crimean port town of Sevastopol, the home of Russia's Black Sea fleet despite being on Ukrainian territory. "I suppose that, with the involvement of the Northern and Baltic fleets, the Russian Navy should restore its permanent presence there," RIA Novosti quoted Masorin as saying.

The development has already startled Israel, where the Yediot Aharonot came out with a front page headline, "The Russians are Coming." Israel fears that Russia could use the bases as intelligence centers to share information with countries like Iran. Analysts in Russia, however, tended to downplay the threat that this seemingly symbolic act held.

Speaking in Sevastopol on Sunday, Masorin also revealed that Russia has ordered production of components for the Bulava-M missile, designed for a new generation of nuclear submarines. These intercontinental missiles were successfully test launched June 29 from a submarine in the White Sea to the Far East Kamchatka. This move to boost a key component of Russia's strategic forces was immediately interpreted as a response to U.S. plans to install 10 missile interceptors in Poland.

In a separate development, meanwhile, the S-400 Triumph missile defense system went into to combat alert in the Moscow region, Alexander Selin, Commander in Chief of Russia's Air Force, announced Monday.  Designed to destroy aircraft made with Stealth technology, small cruise and tactical missiles, and warheads, the S-400, which operates from the town of Eletrostal, is intended to protect Moscow from missile threats.

Together the moves showed that Moscow was taking its words about an "asymmetric" response seriously.

"Moscow has said several times that it does not intend to get into an arms race (this is completely meaningless, considering U.S. capabilities), but is ready for asymmetrical responses," says Fyodor Lukyanov, who edits the foreign policy journal Russia in Global Affairs. "Testing new weapons is certainly in this category, although their development began a lot sooner."

Whether meant as a response or not, these developments followed an unusually reconciliatory stance from the European Council, which said U.S. plans for the missile shield were not conducive to mutual understanding. "Especially not the way they tried to get it through and I am very happy that today there is a common working group between the U.S. and Russia so that they hopefully can find a common solution that is convenient for both parties," Rene van der Linden, President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, said in an interview last week with the Russia Today channel. "It is in my view a negative element if member states of the EU and of the Council of Europe on their own take the decisions without consultation with Russia."

As for bases in Syria, the threat signaled to Israel and the United States seems more immediate but is not as strong as the Israeli media may suggest. Ivan Safranchuk, director of the Russian branch office of the World Security Institute, doesn't see the plans as a necessary response to the United States.

"Of course the United States will take it badly," he told The Moscow News. "The United States has been conducting an operation to liquidate Syrian and Iranian influence in the Middle East since 1994. And Syria is the only adequate ally Russia has in the Middle East."

Lukyanov, meanwhile, says that it is too soon to draw any conclusions from the plans for the naval bases, but added that it might negatively impact Russia's relationship with the United States, which views Syria as an "unfriendly state."

On the other hand, Russia's plans in the Mediterranean might only signal that the country has the resources to begin reestablishing its world presence. Russia had a naval base in Tartus since 1971. It was shut down in 1991 simply because Russia didn't have the means to sustain it considering its internal upheavals. Safranchuk agrees that it was closed not as a friendly gesture to the United States, but because Russia had no money.

According to the Kommersant daily, money is indeed still the main obstacle in reestablishing a fleet in the Mediterranean. "All that Russia can afford to base in Syria is one or two warships," Kommersant quoted Konstantin Makienko of the Center for Analysis of Strategy and Technology as saying. 

Russia Boosts Military Presence at Home and Abroad (http://mnweekly.ru/politics/20070809/55266248-print.html)

Russians irritating Americans, no reason for Turkey to be worried

The New Anatolian / Ankara
11 August 2007

Asked about the significance of Russian-Syrian accord on letting Moscow to have naval base facilities in Syrian Mediterranean ports of Tartus and Latakia and should this worry Turkey prominent journalist and Middle East expert Cengiz Candar told The New Anatolian "This, obviously, is another Putin move to annoy Americans. There is no doubt in this. Emboldened by the increase in the oil prices and American political failures especially in the Middle East, Moscow is trying to ascertain its former big power status. It does not miss any opportunity."

Candar pointed out that the Russians invited a Hamas delegation to Moscow with an awareness that such a move will irritate Washington.

He said "Most recently, they seem to return to their former, the Soviet-era privileges in the Syrian Mediterranean ports. Should this be seen as a Russian return to warm seas? In appearance, yes. However, practically it does not make much sense, because Russians are militarily no more a power to match with the Americans. Technologically, they are lagging behind and their naval force is very outdated. But, the move, surely, constitutes an additional nuisance for the Americans, as it proves an emerging and un-cooperative Russia in the areas the Americans attach certain importance and expect international cooperation."

He said the Syrian move to give the Russians naval bases should not bother Turkey. "Turkey is keen not to disturb Russia in the Black Sea and Russians will reciprocate in the Mediterranean. The Cold War is over and Turkey and Russia are no more military adversaries. Moreover, given Turkey's close relations with Syria, there is no ground to worry Turkey because of Russian naval presence in Tartous and Latakia."

Russians irritating Americans, no reason for Turkey to be worried  (http://www.thenewanatolian.com/tna-28214.html)

Putin praises new radar station near St. Petersburg
11/ 08/ 2007
   
ST. PETERSBURG, August 11 (RIA Novosti) - President Vladimir Putin said Saturday he was satisfied with the new Voronezh anti-missile radar station recently built near St. Petersburg.

Putin, who attended a session on the development of the aviation engines industry, said he hoped the Defense Ministry would ensure the unconditional implementation of all plans for the modernization of the Russian Army and Navy.

"This [radar] is the first step toward the implementation of the overall program, which is intended to be implemented by 2015," Putin said. "It is pleasant to note that it was achieved not only within the set timeframe, but also with the use of Russian intellectual and production means."

The radar station, located in Lekhtusi, near St. Petersburg, began operating December 22, 2006, and is capable of monitoring territory stretching from the North Pole to North Africa.

"This is what we, in effect, call the modern development of our Armed Forces - an innovative development of those Armed Forces. It is considerably less expensive, more effective and more reliable," he said.

He noted that former Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov devoted a great deal of time to the question of modernizing Russia's Armed Forces.

"I hope that the new military leadership will also do all it can to guarantee to realization of plans for the modernization of the Army and Navy," Putin said.

Putin praises new radar station near St. Petersburg (http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070811/70981372.html)

Rusting Hulls for the Navy

 United Shipbuilding Corporation (USC) was established by the RF government in June and will be registered in St. Petersburg shortly. The USC is expected to be headed by Alexander Buturin, a presidential advisor on military-technical policy.

According to Buturin, in the next eight to 10 years, the state will invest about 170 billion rubles ($6.5 bln) in the modernization of shipyards. But these funds will be distributed rather unevenly. Under the Civilian Shipbuilding Development program, 140 billion rubles ($5.3 bln) will be earmarked. Government experts believe that military shipyards suffered less during the 1990s crisis so they will only receive about 30 billion rubles ($1.2 bln) by 2015 as part of the Military-Industrial Complex Development program.

But can Russian military shipbuilding develop dynamically with such modest support? In an interview with The Moscow News, Mikhail Barabanov, an expert with the Center for Strategic and Technological Analysis, addresses these questions.

MN: How would you assess the present situation in the Russian military shipbuilding industry?

Barabanov: It is a rather mixed picture. On the one hand, in the past few years, the Navy leadership has developed a fairly coherent shipbuilding program. New shipbuilding projects have been launched, including Project 955 Yury Dolgoruky-class nuclear powered submarines, Project 20380 Steregushchy-class corvettes, and Project 21630 Astrakhan-class small artillery ships.

Work is in progress to complete projects that were launched back during the Yeltsin or even the Soviet era and were stalled for long periods. In all, since 2001, construction has started on 30 new warships, boats and auxiliary vessels. This is lifting the St. Petersburg-based Northern Shipyard and the Severodvinsk Machine-Building Enterprise [a shipyard that makes nuclear-powered submarines.- Ed.] from the doldrums.

On the other hand, funding for the ongoing projects is evidently insufficient. The deadlines for completion of the majority of ships, whose construction was launched in recent years, have been extended beyond 2010.

There are at least another two imbalances. The first is a bias in favor of new warships at the expense of existing ones, especially their maintenance. As a result, the available fleet is getting rusty, while all the money is being funneled into ongoing construction projects, but no one knows exactly when they will be ready; furthermore, in the majority of cases, we do not have appropriate weapon systems to fit them out with.

The second problem is that a disproportionate volume of funding that is being sunk into strategic nuclear forces at the expense of general purpose forces.

MN: What measures do you believe should be taken to rectify the situation?

Barabanov: I think that priority should be given to funding the maintenance, modernization and upgrading of the existing naval forces with a view to keeping these warships operational for another 20 to 30 years. Only this will enable us to preserve naval personnel and at the same time provide shipyards with enough orders to keep them afloat.

As for new warships, it is critical not to disperse resources, spreading them thin on the ground. The focus should be on building new-generation lead warships that can ensure a real breakthrough in naval development. And only when the financial situation really improves, embark on series production.

It seems that greater spending on military shipbuilding programs is inevitable. In 2007, 13 billion rubles ($520 million) was earmarked. We estimate that at least 30 bln rubles must be provided every year to complete the ongoing construction projects within a reasonable time frame.
MN: In April, the first fourth-generation Yury Dolgoruky- (Borey-) class nuclear powered missile carrying submarine was launched at the Severodvinsk shipyard. How do you assess this event?

Barabanov: Construction of such a sophisticated warship in such difficult economic conditions is, without a doubt, a major achievement of our military shipbuilding industry. Putting Project 955 warships into service and arming them with the advanced Bulava missiles will considerably strengthen Russia's defense capability.

At the same time, amid the meager funding for the Navy as a whole, construction of Project 955 submarines leaves little or nothing for the Navy's technical equipment programs. Thus, of 13 billion rubles earmarked this year for new warships, 10 billion will go to submarines, with almost the entire amount due to be spent on three Project 955 missile carrying submarines. This includes almost 5 billion rubles that will be spent on the Yury Dolgoruky's testing and fine-tuning. To compare: a mere 200 million rubles was allocated this year for construction of the Admiral Gorshkov frigate, with an estimated price tag of 11 billion rubles.

The state should make a more realistic assessment of the viability of the ambitious program of building and maintaining a major nuclear-powered submarine fleet. In effect, Russia wants to have 14 missile carrying submarines (including six Project 667BDRM upgrades) - which is as many the U.S., whilst the U.S. Navy's 2007 budget is 50 times as large as Russia's! Furthermore, at present, the U.S. is not building a single nuclear powered missile carrying submarine, planning to start replacing its Ohio class submarines only from 2026.

MN: Meanwhile, substantial naval assets are required to provide cover and support for nuclear powered missile carrying submarines.

Barabanov: That's right. But this year's funding for construction of new surface warships is just one-third of funding for missile carrying submarines, while existing surface warships continue to be decommissioned. With such an imbalance, Russia will be simply unable to have sufficient forces to ensure the deployment, cover and support of the planned number of nuclear powered missile carrying submarines. However, general-purpose forces also have other important missions to perform - for example, protection and control of the shelf zone, where the main hydrocarbon deposits are concentrated.

MN: The RF Navy command recently announced plans to build aircraft carriers. How viable are these plans?

Barabanov: R&D work is this area is absolutely necessary, to lay a foundation for the future. But today, the Navy is not even in a position to ensure the normal maintenance and operation of our only aircraft carrier, The Admiral Kuznetsov. I believe that The Kuznetsov and its air group should be given higher priority. Taking into account the real condition of the Russian Navy and the Russian economy in the next 20 years, construction of aircraft carriers will be an unbearable burden.

MN: About 40 percent of Russia's warship building capacities are concentrated in St. Petersburg. Even before the decision was made to create the USC, plans were announced for restructuring St. Petersburg's shipbuilding industry, including the de facto closure of the Baltic Shipyard and the transfer of its capacities to the Northern Shipyard. Is this not a risky move?

Barabanov: No, I suppose that it is a natural process. In a free market economy, the existence of a large shipyard at the very heart of a megalopolis is an anachronism. So the closure of the Baltic Shipyard is inevitable. It is necessary to build new modern shipyards in more suitable areas, or to expand and develop existing shipyards, such as the Northern Shipyard. I believe that it will be followed by another St. Petersburg giant - the Admiralty Shipyard.   

Rusting Hulls for the Navy (http://mnweekly.ru/news/20070809/55266283-print.html)