The Bomb and the Hedgehog

Despite the often invoked ending of the Cold War, Russia’s defence policy is still focused on nuclear deterrence, and particularly the nuclear balance with the United States.  Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov recently announced that Russia will continue to increase its potential in airspace forces and other parts of its nuclear deterrence strategy.

The Defense Ministry worked on building the early-warning radars along Russia's borders as well as permanent deployment of S-400 and S-500 anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems.

"We have a possibility to efficiently counter a high-technological enemy should it undertake aggression against Russia," Gerasimov said.

Writing in Pravda, a defence correspondent noted that

according to Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Wesley Miller, U.S. nuclear weapons are in need of urgent modernization. Defense structures experienced global reduction that affected nuclear armed forces of the United States. The Americans are also concerned about Russia's efforts to increase the readiness of its nuclear forces.

Russia’s conventional armed forces are still in a state of relative disarray, and are currently no match for their U.S. counterparts:

During a conference in Moscow last week, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said that an attack with the use of 3,500-4,000 units of high-precision weapons would deprive Russia of the possibility to resist in only six hours. "According to current estimates from the United States, as a result of such an attack, 80-90 percent of the Russian nuclear potential could be destroyed," said Deputy Prime Minister.

Commenting on Twitter, Carnegie Moscow Center director and defence analyst Dmitri Trenin points out that  while there is an absence of strategic trust between Russia and the United States, the enormous disparity in conventional military power between the two nations means that nuclear deterrence remains the only area in which Russia can maintain equivalence. For Russia, he notes, “this is a hedgehog posture”. 

IAEA head says Iran hampering agency’s work

IAEA Director-General Yukiya Amano has said that Iran is preventing nuclear inspectors from carrying out their work in the country, and has appointed a new top investigator, Herman Nackaerts, to replace Olli Heinonen, who resigned from the IAEA earlier this year. (Reuters)

Russia/Israel/Syria/Iran

• Israel’s defence minister Ehud Barak went to Russia on Sunday in a bid to halt an arms deal between Russia, Syria and Iran.
• On Monday Ehud Barak signed an arms deal between Israel and Russia
• On Monday the IAEA complained that Iran is preventing some of its inspectors from monitoring Iran’s nuclear program.
• On Tuesday the head of Iran’s nuclear program claimed that Iran has the right to bar some UN inspectors.
• According to IDF sources, NGOs are planning to sail up to 20 ships to Gaza in coming months.

(jpost.com)

Fuel loading delay in Iran’s Russian-built reactor

The process of loading fuel into Iran’s first Russian-built nuclear reactor at Bushehr will take another 10 to 15 days, according to Ali Akbar Salehi, head of Iran's AEO, AFP reports.

Heinonen: Iran nuclear program is a threat

The Jerusalem Post quotes former UN chief of nuclear inspections Olli Heinonen as saying that Iran has enough low-enriched uranium to make two nuclear weapons, though "it would not be logical for it to cross the bomb-making threshold": 

Heinonen called Iran's nuclear program a "threat" in a rare public interview, given shortly before he stepped down from his position as deputy director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Heinonen was head of the IAEA's nuclear safeguards arm, which monitors countries' nuclear programs to make sure they are intended for peaceful use. Heinonen left the post in August for personal reasons.

S-300s: Russia, Iran

While Russia says it has deployed the S-300 interceptor systems in Abkhazia “not only to cover the territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia but also to avert violations of their state borders in the air and destroy any vehicle illegally penetrating their air space, whatever the goal of its mission," (Gen. Zelin, via Reuters, Aug. 11), some analysts believe that the S-300 interceptor batteries have been placed in Abkhazia to block a possible Israeli air route to Iran.

On August 21 Russia will begin loading fuel into Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor.

Russia: Iran sanctions won’t stop delivery of S-300s

Via Jerusalem Post/AP:

Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko told journalists that the UN resolution does not apply to air-defense systems, with the exception of mobile missiles.

Turkey's role in the Gaza conflict

Israeli sources say it appears likely that the demonstrators who used knives. clubs and other weapons to attack IDF soldiers aboard the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara are themselves Turkish nationals, and belong to an Islamist group connected with global jihadi networks. In fact, around 400 of the 700 people who sailed in the 6-vessel convoy were Turks. A recent TIP release notes that

The IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi - “humanitarian relief fund”)…has provided financial support to Iran-backed Hamas and has ties to global jihadi networks and the Muslim Brotherhood – a global umbrella Islamic organization of which Hamas is a branch – as well as mujahideen groups in Afghanistan.

In 2006, a study conducted by the Danish Institute for International Studies showed that the IHH was involved in planning an al-Qaeda attack against Los Angeles International Airport in 1999. IHH reportedly acquired forged documents, enlisted operatives and delivered weapons to al-Qaeda in preparation for the attack, which was ultimately foiled.[6]

The Danish study also cites a French intelligence report which stated that in the mid-1990s the IHH sent a number of operatives into war zones in Muslim countries to get combat experience. The report said that IHH transferred money and “caches of firearms, knives and pre-fabricated explosives” to Muslim fighters in those countries.[7]

Israeli officials have expressed concern that Islamist groups that endanger Israeli national security now have considerable influence within the Free Gaza movement, the group that organized the flotilla. According to the group’s own mission statement, “We agree to adhere to the principles of nonviolence and nonviolent resistance in word and deed at all times.”[8]

6] “IHH, which plays a central role in organizing the flotilla to the Gaza Strip, is a Turkish humanitarian relief fund with a radical Islamic anti-Western orientation,” Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, May 26, 2010, http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e105.htm

[7] “IHH, which plays a central role in organizing the flotilla to the Gaza Strip, is a Turkish humanitarian relief fund with a radical Islamic anti-Western orientation,” Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, May 26, 2010, http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e105.htm

[8] “Our Mission,” Free Gaza Movement Web site, Jan. 30, 2009, http://www.freegaza.org/en/about-us/mission

[9] Wilson, Scott, “Israel says Free Gaza Movement poses threat to Jewish state,” The Washington Post, June 1, 2010, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/31/AR2010053103445.html

The release goes on to stress the links that are believed to exist between the IHH and Turkey’s ruling party, the AKP, observing that in recent years the Turkish government has moved away from cooperation with Israel and has adopted a less friendly stance on several issues, including a conciliatory approach to Iran on the question of sanctions and the Iranian nuclear program.

While in themselves the actions and statements of a self-styled humanitarian organization might not be thought to present a significant challenge to the security of other states, including Israel, the IHH group’s connections both with militant Islamists and with the Turkish government party do give considerable cause for concern. In particular, the news that the Turkish Navy is reported to be considering sending a naval escort for the next two boats carrying pro-Palestinian demonstrators presents the possibility that such an action could spark a major conflict between Turkey and Israel. That the Mavi Marmara incident was a deliberate provocation there seems little doubt – hopefully it did not mark the first stage in a planned series of escalations. Western peace activists who have joined the convoys need to be careful that their activities do not end in starting a regional war.

Update (4.25pm): Turkey’s foreign minister Ahmet Davutogu has said in Ankara that “it’s time calm replaces anger”.

The information war

Writing in the Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick perceives a straight line that “runs between the anti-Israel resolution passed last Friday at the UN’s Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference and the Hamas flotilla”:

Israel is the target of a massive information war. For it to win this war, it needs to counter its enemies’ lies with the truth.

The NPT has been subverted by the very forces it was created to prevent from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Hamas is a genocidal terrorist organization ideologically indistinguishable from al-Qaida. International law requires all states and non-state actors to take active measures to defeat it.

Israel is the frontline of the free world. Its ability to defend itself and deter its foes is the single most important guarantee of international peace. A strong Israel is also the most potent and reliable guarantor of the US’s continued ability to project its power in the Middle East.

This is the unvarnished truth. It is also the beginning of a successful campaign to defang the massive coalition of nuclear proliferation- and terrorism-abettors aligned against Israel. But until our leaders finally recognize the nature of the war being waged against our country, these basic facts will remain ignored as we move from one stunning defeat to the next.

Lukyanov in Stockholm

Tobias Ljungvall took notes during a recent speech given at a Stockholm seminar by Russian political analyst Fyodor Lukyanov. As Tobias observes, Lukyanov more or less reproduces the Kremlin's current view of world affairs and of Russia's role in them [my tr.]:

1. Russian foreign policy under President Medvedev has not undergone any fundamental change compared to the foreign policy that prevailed under Putin. The differences in nuance can be partly explained by the fact that Medvedev is a different sort of person.

2. Russia is not like the Soviet Union, partly because it lacks an ideology.The loss of empire in1991 was worse than other countries’ similar experiences (e.g, Britain's loss of its colonies) as the lost areas were extensions of the country and some were a part of the national identity. The building of the Russian state began many centuries ago in Kiev, and therefore Russia finds hard to accept that Ukraine should join NATO.

3. A key concept is the so-called multi-polar world. The United States' attempt at hegemony has failed but has made the world more unstable because it cannot rely on international law any more. Relations between emerging new poles will shape the present century.

4. While in the West the Kosovo war of 1999 was perceived positively as proof that it was possible to defend human rights by force, Russia's interpretation of the Kosovo events was that national sovereignty no longer applies in the world. Russian public opinion turned its back on integration with the West and Western ideas of morality.

5. Instead, Russia was forced to strengthen its own capability. The only real guarantee of sovereignty for Russia is its nuclear weapons. In the absence of the former capabilities of the Soviet Union, Russia has also politicized gas and oil, in a way that Lukyanov thinks ultimately does most harm to Gazprom itself. The Soviet Union never mixed business and politics in the way that is now happening.

6. So now Russia is trying to avoid new gas conflicts with Ukraine. Today it is only Ukraine’s President Yushchenko who tries to provoke them. But hopefully after the elections which are due to take place in two months’ time Yushchenko will go into political retirement. 

There is more.

Dream and reality

Marko Mihkelson, on Obama's prizewinning intentions [my tr.]:

A world free of nuclear weapons is certainly a beautiful goal, but is very difficult to imagine its achievement. Moreover, it is quite debatable whether a world entirely free of nuclear weapons would necessarily be less dangerous or more secure.

Two options

Stratfor's George Friedman writes that

Sanctions or war remain the two options, and which one is chosen depends on Moscow’s actions. The leaks this weekend have made clear that the United States and Israel have positioned themselves such that not much time remains. We have now moved from a view of Iran as a long-term threat to Iran as a much more immediate threat thanks to the Russians.

Hat tip: Mari-Ann Kelam

Obama on missile defence

"As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defence system that is cost-effective and proven."

President Barack Obama, April 5, 2009

The Wrong Reset Option?

On the issue of arms control, Jamestown's Pavel Felgenhauer writes that

Washington seems to have chosen a potentially self-defeating "Cold War style" policy in order to reset its relations with Moscow. A high-level international diplomatic effort to prevent a possible renewal of conflict in Georgia in the coming months might be more appropriate - addressing a present real threat.

On the other hand, Georgia's President Saakashvili, speaking today, appears almost sanguine:

So we have very firm support from the U.S. administration. You know that the U.S. general [James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] visited Georgia two days ago and that we are moving to a new stage of strategic partnership, which means completely new level of [cooperation] and in fact [means] launch of creation of new Georgian army.”

“We have no other alternative,” he continued. “Georgia needs strong allies; Georgia needs further development and Georgia needs to act hand in hand with our friends to rule out problems.”

In this situation, especially after yesterday’s meeting in London [between the Russian and U.S. Presidents], I practically rule out any further Russian military adventures against Georgia. And on the other hand of course, Georgia will not be happy until the de-occupation of Georgia and until the last invader soldier does not leave the territory of Georgia.”

Moscow-Tehran-Washington

Of all the analyses of the current stand-off between Russia and the U.S. over the Iran nuclear threat, those of Sky's Tim Marshall have struck me as being among the more perceptive. For one thing, it was Marshall who noted the presence of Russian officials, including the nuclear agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko,at the opening of Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant - a development that cast strong doubt on the likelihood that Russia will co-operate with the other UN permanent five members to compel Iran to open up all its facilities for inspection - missile defence deal or no. Now, Marshall suggests, the last hope may lie with the prospects of talks between Tehran and Washington. Marshall has another article on the subject today in his blog.

Russia trains its missiles on Tbilisi

Via AFP:

Russia trains its missiles on Tbilisi

RUSSIA has deployed several tactical missile launchers and supply vehicles to South Ossetia, putting the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, within their striking range, The New York Times reported on its website yesterday.

- - - - - - - - -

Before Russian deputy chief of staff Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn claimed the withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgia had began last night, The New York Times cited US officials familiar with intelligence reports as saying the launching positions were located north of Tskhinvali, the South Ossetian capital.

Officials told the paper that SS-21 missile launchers, as well as supply vehicles, had driven south through the Roki Tunnel into South Ossetia in recent days and were deployed within range of much of Georgia, including its second-largest city, Kutaisi, and Tbilisi. Russian forces used the short-range ballistic missile in the Chechnya conflict, where it was believed to have caused significant civilian casualties.

Moscow makes another nuclear threat

Having blithely threatened Poland with nuclear attack, the Russian leadership has apparently decided to follow this up with another such threat: the Sunday Times quotes a "senior military source in Moscow" as saying that "nuclear warheads could be supplied to submarines, cruisers and fighter bombers of the Baltic fleet based in Kaliningrad". This "press leak" is clearly intended for Western consumption, and should probably be treated with a modest dose of skepticism - given the current stance of the Russian government, the content of the statement is of less significance than its timing and form: it should - for the moment, at least -  be read as simply one more effort by Moscow to show its contempt for world opinion.

Russia pulls out of CFE Treaty

Via the BBC:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has suspended involvement in one of the key post-Cold War arms control treaties.

Russia, NATO and Europe

From RFE/RL Newsline (Feb. 20):

RUSSIA THREATENS TO TARGET SITES IN POLAND, CZECH REPUBLIC
Colonel General Nikolai Solovtsov, who commands the Russian Strategic Missile Forces, told a February 19 Moscow news conference that Russia might target missiles at Poland and the Czech Republic if those countries agree to host U.S. missile-defense sites, Russian media reported (see “RFE/RL Newsline,” February 2, 9, and 12, 2007). Solovtsov said that “if a political decision [is made by the Kremlin] to withdraw from [the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty] between the United States and Russia, the Strategic Missile Forces will be capable of carrying out the task [of targeting sites in the Czech Republic and Poland].” He added that, under the 1987 pact, “intermediate-range missiles were dismantled as a class, but the [knowledge of how to make them] is still there…. So, if such a decision is made, it won’t be difficult to resume their production.” Solovtsov noted that the United States and its allies are discussing the missile-defense project but have not yet taken any concrete steps. Federation Council Speaker Sergei Mironov said on February 19 that there will not be any new “Cold War” in Europe, the daily “Vedomosti” reported on February 20. He added that Russia is nonetheless prepared to defend “its national interests” by making an unspecified “symmetrical response” to the stationing of a missile-defense system near its borders. On February 15, General Yury Baluyevsky, who heads the Russian General Staff, said that Russia has “convincing evidence” that would enable it to abrogate the INF agreement under the terms of that pact, RIA Novosti reported. The state-run news agency described his remarks as “a strong warning” to Washington. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on February 16 that Baluyevsky was “simply stating the facts” and that Russia has made no decision on scrapping the treaty. The “International Herald Tribune” on February 20 quoted Moscow-based analyst Ivan Safranchuk as saying that Russia is threatening to abrogate the agreement in the hope that unspecified “Europeans” will “put pressure on the United States” not to go ahead with its missile-defense plans. “The Economist” of February 17 argued that Russia seeks recognition of its own “sphere of influence” in Europe. PM

NATO REJECTS RUSSIA’S ‘EXTREME LANGUAGE’
In a statement in Brussels on February 19, NATO spokesman James Appathurai described the comments by Colonel General Solovtsov as unacceptable, news agencies reported. Appathurai stressed that “the days of talk of targeting NATO territory or vice versa are long past us. This kind of extreme language is out of date and uncalled for.” On February 15, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that the missile-defense system “is no way directed at Russian strategic forces. This is in no way directed against Russia. As a matter of fact, we have offered to cooperate with Russia on missile defense.” On February 19, State Department spokesman Edgar Vasquez said that “we have offered to cooperate with Russia on missile defense because we believe we face a common threat emanating from the Middle East as well as other areas.” President Vladimir Putin and former Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov have said repeatedly that they do not believe that the defense system is directed against Iran (see “RFE/RL Newsline,” February 2, 9, and 12, 2007). PM

POLAND AND CZECH REPUBLIC ‘LIKELY’ TO HOST U.S. MISSILE-DEFENSE SITES
Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek and his Polish counterpart Jaroslaw Kaczynski said in Warsaw on February 19 that they are likely to accept U.S. missile-defense sites on their respective territories, international media reported. Topolanek added that “both of our countries are now preparing a response to the U.S. proposal. We have agreed that both countries are likely to give a positive response, and then we will begin negotiations.” Alluding to recent criticism of the missile-defense system by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Topolanek said that “saying that the United States did not consult with Russia is naive” (see below). Kaczynski noted that “the state of Polish-Russian relations is well-known, so seeking Russia’s acceptance [of a U.S. missile-defense system] will be difficult. But we will try to convince the Russians of the obvious fact that this deployment is by no means aimed against them.” He stressed that the system is not directed against “normal countries” but against those that do not abide by international norms. In a joint article published in the Polish daily “Rzeczpospolita” on February 19, Topolanek and Kaczynski said the system will serve as “passive protection from attacks” for all members of the Euro-Atlantic community. The project has aroused controversy in both countries, but many commentators there have noted that the harsh language coming from Moscow in recent weeks is likely to convince Czechs and Poles that they do indeed need a U.S. missile-defense system. Czech Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Vondra said on February 19 that Czechs have ample experience with Russian bullying and know that they will pay dearly if they give into it, the daily “Mlada fronta Dnes” reported on February 20. Jiri Sedivy, who is a former head of the Czech General Staff, said on February 19 that Colonel General Solovtsov’s remarks were “unnecessarily tough” because the U.S.-Czech alliance is no threat to Russia, CTK reported. Sedivy suggested that Solovtsov was “just flexing his muscles.” PM

CONTROVERSY IN GERMANY OVER MISSILE DEFENSE
German Foreign Minister Steinmeier of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) said in a recent interview that “because the sites for stationing [the missile-defense system] are quite near Russia, one should have talked with Russia about it beforehand,” Deutsche Welle reported on February 19. Later on February 19 in Baku, he qualified his criticism of the United States, Poland, and the Czech Republic by noting that the U.S. and Russian defense ministers have already begun discussions. Eckart von Klaeden, who is foreign-policy spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU/CSU), was quoted in the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” of February 20 as saying that “the thrust of any [German] criticism [over the missile-defense controversy] must not be directed against America.” He suggested that Germany should rather concentrate on warning President Putin that he is sending the wrong message to Iran by criticizing the U.S. missile-defense plans, since those plans are not directed against Russia but against Iran. Von Klaeden added that Russia is wrong to threaten to scrap its 1987 agreement with the United States. Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg, who is a CSU member of the parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, also stressed that the United States seeks to defend its own territory against a “plausible” threat from Iran. But Rolf Muetzenich, who is a disarmament spokesman for the SPD, praised Steinmeier’s comments. Muetzenich added that he has “basic doubts” about the missile-defense project, and he stressed that a “new arms race” should be avoided. He said that Russia’s threat to scrap the 1987 pact “shows how serious the situation is.” The CDU/CSU and SPD officials alike agreed on the need to discuss the missile-defense project within NATO and the NATO-Russia Council (see “RFE/RL Newsline,” December 1, 2006, and January 18 and 23, 2007). PM

UK "Dirty Bomb" Training to Increase

The BBC reports that the British government is “significantly increasing” the numbers of police trained to deal with a dirty bomb attack, with the Home Office planning to buy 12,000 extra personal protection suits for police officers to wear in the event of a radiological, biological or chemical attack.

Conservative homeland security spokesman Patrick Mercer said he was “delighted” by the move.

“It seems strange that they are doing it in December 2006 rather than October 2001,” he added.