Russia announces expansion of nuclear capabilities, sanctions pre-emptive nuclear strikes

[Antid Oto]

REPLY TO: D66 at nic.surfnet.nl

Russia announces expansion of nuclear capabilities, sanctions
pre-emptive nuclear strikes
By Andrea Peters
7 January 2010

In late December, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev announced that his
government intended to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons.
Medvedev’s statement came in the midst of ongoing and thus far
unsuccessful negotiations with the US over the signing of a new treaty
that would replace the recently expired START-I agreement on nuclear
weapons.

Speaking on television on Christmas Eve, the Russian president
presented the Kremlin’s plans to build new missiles as part of its
effort to protect the country’s “national interests.” According to
press reports, the main point of disagreement between Russia and the
US in the nuclear talks is Washington’s continuing plans to build a
missile defense system in Europe.

In September of last year, the Obama administration stated that it was
scrapping plans originated under President George W. Bush to station
an anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. However, the
administration has never completely abandoned the idea of developing
some sort of alternative elsewhere on the European landmass, a
prospect to which the Kremlin in equally opposed.

On December 29, in response to a reporter’s question regarding the
stalled START-I talks, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin
explained, “What is the problem? The problem is that our American
partners are building an anti-missile shield and we are not building
one. … If one is not to develop missile defense systems, then a threat
appears, because having created such an umbrella, our partners may
feel completely protected and will do what they want.”

While Medvedev claims that the new weapons Russia is planning to
develop will be in accord with whatever arms control agreement is
ultimately reached with the US, the Kremlin’s announcement makes it
clear that it has no intention of taking the threat of nuclear war off
the table.

Indeed, the Russian president’s announcement comes on the heels of a
revision of the country’s military doctrine to allow for pre-emptive
nuclear strikes. As reported in Russia Today, the Kremlin-sponsored
English-language news agency, in mid-December the Russian Security
Council approved the draft of a new policy that will permit not only
nuclear attacks to “prevent any military threat,” but also the “use of
nukes in small-scale conflicts.”

This change to the country’s nuclear policy, which is similar to
revisions made by the US to its military doctrine under the Bush
administration, is part of a broader effort by Russia to both
strengthen its armed forces and increase their profile in the
international arena.

Also in December, the upper house of the Russian Duma, the Federation
Council, passed a resolution giving the president broad powers to
authorize the use of force outside the country’s borders without
recourse to parliament. According to a December 10 article in the
Jamestown Foundation’s Eurasia Daily Monitor, President Medvedev can
now “send troops into action abroad anywhere, anytime; decide on the
size of force, specify the enemy, with no legal restraints or
limitations, ‘to defend the interests of the Russian Federation and
its citizens.’”

This move is widely seen as providing the Kremlin with the legal basis
to pursue military action akin to that which it took in August 2008
during its war with Georgia over the contested region of South
Ossetia. At that time, taking advantage of the opportunity given to it
by provocations orchestrated from Tbilisi, Russia entered Georgian
territory, routing Georgian forces.

In the aftermath of the war, questions arose within the Russian
political establishment about the constitutionality of the Kremlin’s
actions and the necessity for creating a clear basis within Russian
law for similar measures in the future. The fact that the
recently-passed legislation gives the president explicit power to take
action to defend Russian citizens abroad is significant, as large
ethnic Russian populations, portions of which have or can claim
Russian citizenship, reside in countries throughout the former Soviet
sphere.

Over the course of the past year, Russia has been involved in a reform
of its military, which has been in a state of general decline on all
fronts since the collapse of the USSR. The overhaul is aimed at
modernizing the armed forces both organizationally and technologically.

Roger McDermott of the Jamestown Foundation notes that the reforms are
driven by the Russian military’s efforts to draw the lessons of the
2008 war with Georgia, which demonstrated, despite Russia’s success,
that the country’s armed forces were poorly equipped for
rapid-deployment, small-scale operations.

“The extent of the changes under way,” wrote McDermott in August 2009,
“is unparalleled in the history of the Russian armed forces since the
end of World War II, perhaps even earlier.”

“While any comment on the policy implications is premature,” he added,
“it is likely that the Russian conventional armed forces will emerge
in the next five years as an unrivaled dominant force within the
former Soviet space, capable of sudden, decisive intervention.”

The recent changes made in Russia’s military doctrine and structure
are a reflection of the ruling elite’s nervousness about ongoing
challenges to Moscow’s geopolitical position in areas traditionally
within its sphere of influence. These also seem to be interspersed
with concerns about the future inviolability of Russia itself.

On December 17, Interfax quoted the commander of Russia’s strategic
missile forces, Andrei Shvaichenko. Commenting on the changes to the
country’s nuclear strike policy, he stated: “(Today) one must take
into account the geopolitical and geostrategic changes that are not in
Russia’s favor. In the future, it cannot be ruled out that Russia,
being a nation with unlimited natural reserves and resources, could
become a target of a large-scale military aggression.”

On Russia’s western flank the country confronts NATO’s ongoing efforts
to expand eastward. Both Georgia and Ukraine underwent US-backed
“color revolutions” during the 2000s, the immediate consequences of
which were the installation of regimes with close ties to Washington.
The two countries are of strategic significance to Moscow because of,
among other things, the role they play as transit points for energy
resources bound for European markets.

At the same time, Russia is facing an expanding American intervention
in Central Asia in the form of the escalation of the war in
Afghanistan. While in the short term the Kremlin may view the
possibility of a US defeat in Afghanistan with wariness, as this could
stoke up pro-Islamist sentiments in the region and undermine its own
agenda, the expansion of US military action is also a major cause for
concern for the Kremlin. It understands that the Obama
administration’s intensifying focus on Afghanistan is driven by an
agenda that has its sights on control of the energy resources and
pipeline routes of Central Asia, where Russia has longstanding
economic and geostrategic interests.

Russia’s anxieties about the challenge to its geopolitical position in
these regions have been worsened by its economic crisis. In 2009, the
country’s gross domestic product fell by 8.8 percent. It was,
according to Nezavisimaia Gazeta, “the deepest slump in 15 years.” The
intensity and speed of the collapse took the Kremlin by surprise. Over
the course of the year, it had to continually revise its economic
projections downwards.

Among the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China), Russia
distinguished itself by the size of its contraction relative to the
others in the group, with Brazil’s GDP declining by 0.25 percent and
India and China’s growth continuing, albeit at a slower pace. Russia’s
poor performance compared to other BRIC nations even led some experts
to question whether it should continue to be considered among the
world’s leading developing economic powerhouses.

The economic crisis exposed the depth and intensity of Russia’s
dependence on energy resources to sustain its economy. To the degree
that the hemorrhaging of the Russian economy has stopped over the
course of the past two months, it is largely because oil prices have
rebounded somewhat.

While elements within the political establishment have responded by
advocating a change in Russia’s economy away from its, as Medvedev
observed, “humiliating dependence” on energy resources, a whole series
of factors will prevent the ruling elite from pursuing, much less
finding, an alternative source of political power and wealth.

The experience of the economic crisis of the past year, alongside the
intensification of American military action under the Obama
administration, has heightened the determination of the Russian ruling
elite to prepare to militarily defend its oil wealth and its control
over energy transit routes through Central Asia and the Caucasus.

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/jan2010/russ-j07.shtml

**********
Dit bericht is verzonden via de informele D66 discussielijst (D66 at nic.surfnet.nl).
Aanmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SUBSCRIBE D66 uwvoornaam uwachternaam
Afmelden: stuur een email naar LISTSERV at nic.surfnet.nl met in het tekstveld alleen: SIGNOFF D66
Het on-line archief is te vinden op: http://listserv.surfnet.nl/archives/d66.html
**********