[http://www.newsmax.com] FOR EDUCATIONAL AND RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY Analysis: The Russian Military, In Bad Shape?
Col. Stanislav Lunev
November 23, 1999

On October 25 Nikolai Mikhailov, first deputy defense minister of the RF (Russian Federation), shocked the international community by his strong statements to the press. At a time when the RF is still in dire economic straights, dependant on Western money for its very survival, Mikhailov warned that his countrys military has enough weaponry to overwhelm any antiballistic-missile system in the US.  He warned further that the RF will deploy more nuclear warheads if the U.S. continues its efforts to develop an anti-missile defense system. Mikhailov stated categorically, "This technology can realistically be used and will be used if the United States pushes us to it."

 The US reaction to these words came from Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright. In her speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations (November 10) she disclosed, "A Russian defense official recently proclaimed that his nation has the ability to overwhelm the missile defense system we are planning." "[T]hat is true--and part of our point," she added.

 These statements run counter to the standard reports in the US about the supposed deterioration of the Russian military and its demise as a major threat to the international community. Evidently the US media have been negligent in investigating the true state of the Russian war machine. Mr. Mikhailov, however, is an expert in these matters. Before his appointment as RF deputy defense minister he had spent 35 years working in both the Soviet and Russian military-industrial complexes.

 He has inside knowledge, then, that the Russian defense industry is accelerating its buildup of a new generation of weapons systems. Mikhailov, after all, is a primary mover behind the Russian General Staffs plan to implement the new ten-year arms-development program for completion by 2010.

 The Russian military has already begun operational deployment of the second-generation mobile-launch-based Topol-M ICBM, a weapon the US does not possess and also has not yet allocated funds to develop. The Russian VPK (Voenno Promishlenni Komplex--Military Industrial Complex) has also introduced a new generation of nuclear warheads as well as a new stealth bomber and a stealth cruise missile--which could reach US territory over the Polar Circle.

 As further examples, the RF has under construction (1) the fifth-generation Borei-class ballistic-missile submarine, (2) a new submarine-based ballistic missile, (3) the Akula-2-class nuclear attack submarine (Shark), and (4) the new Severodvinsk-class nuclear attack submarine. The VPK is likewise continuing to modernize its army, navy and air force, not to mention further development of chemical, biological, nuclear, and other types of mass-destruction weapons.

[This really sounds like the Russians have absolutely no intention of getting involved in a nuclear war, doesn't it?  Yeah, right.]

 The list of Russian weaponry could be extended many pages. Some of the new weapons do not have any counterparts in the arsenals of the West. According to the Russian General Staff these programs are to be in place by 2010 so that Moscow can regain the former stature of the USSR. Russia is determined to gain pre-eminence in unique nuclear and laser technologies for new types of systems.

 With the war in Chechnya, Russian military spending has increased about 1.5 times; and the increases are expected to continue. The Russian General Staff is requesting a gradual increase in military expenditures from 2.8 percent of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in 1999 to between 6 and 6.5 percent by 2005.

 The war in Chechnya has led also to an increase in military and special-services personnel, especially in the number and quality of the ground forces, which had been lacking in well-trained professionals. During the last few months the Russian units in Chechnya have received new weaponry in such quantities that it represents a violation of the CFET (Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty).

 Obviously, the RF does not need state-of-the-art weapons systems for the military action in Chechnya. They are ultimately intended for future full-scale wars against countries considered by the Russian General Staff to be "major potential military adversaries."  This intention is clear from recent "West-99" field exercises, the largest since 1985, during which Russian military commanders ordered simulated nuclear strikes against NATO countries, including the continental United States.

 This intention is also evident in a recent statement of RF Defense Minister Igor Sergeev, who on November 12 accused the United States of stirring up the war in Chechnya as part of a plot to weaken its former superpower adversary. He is quoted as saying, "U.S. national interests require that the military conflict in the North Caucasus, fanned from the outside, keeps constantly smoldering."

 It is interesting to note here that Sergeev didn't speak about fighting against "international terrorism" in Chechnya, which is the official pretext for the war, but speaks instead about the conflict as being "fanned from outside." About which "outside" is he speaking? There is no question that he means the United States. (Please see our forthcoming column.)

 But who is footing the bill for these enormous Russian military outlays? Isnt Russia broke? The answer to this simple question is not easy to comprehend, for it defies common sense. The money is coming from America and other Western countries; or, more precisely, it comes chiefly out of the pockets of American taxpayers. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and other financial institutions, which heavily depend on American money, have funneled tens of billions into Russia's corrupted economy. Some of these billions have vanished only to magically reappeared in the private accounts of so-called New Russians in Western banks.

 But some of it has also been diverted into improving the Russian military-industrial complex. Even the portion of this money that has actually been used to service debt, its original purpose, makes it possible for Russia to spend more of its own resources on military and armaments development.

 Much of this money ends up in VPK coffers via the special-assistance programs implemented by the West. For example, the United States has also initiated several bilateral assistance programs for Russia. After spending $1.7 billion, the Nunn-Lugar "Cooperative Threat Reduction Act" received a seven-year extension in mid-June 1999, which will cost an additional $2.8 billion to help secure RF fissionable materials and nuclear warheads.

 Another program, administered in 1993 by the U.S. Department of Energy, will disburse an estimated $11.5 billion over a 20-year period to purchase 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium, which should have been, according to the original agreement, diluted in the US for sale to private nuclear power plants. In violation of this, the RF claims now to be diluting this uranium itself; and the U.S. has credulously agreed to accept this change in the procedure. This modified agreement will be in effect through the year 2003.

 Over the next five years the US Department of Energy will pay $500 million in salaries to Russian scientists employed in closed, nuclear cities. Many of them are working secretly on weapons of mass destruction. According to a US General Accounting Office report, American officials "do not always know how many scientists are receiving funding."

 On November 1 of this year American and Russian officials observed the opening of a US-financed building in the city of Sergiev Posad to help improve security at Russia's nuclear-weapons sites. This Security Assessment and Training Center is a cooperative venture between the Pentagon and the Russian military, and will serve as a test site for security technologies. In other words, this center will serve to improve security for the Russian nuclear arsenal and its further development.

 Is any of this of benefit to the United States? Obviously, it is not. Americans have spent billions of dollars to help establish a democratic Russia but certainly not to help it secretly overtake the US in military capabilities or to line the pockets of gangster bureaucrats. When will Americans finally realize that the much-touted "strategic relationship" with Moscow exists only in the minds of a few misguided, or opportunist, American politicians? By now it should be obvious to all that the billions of US-taxpayer dollars squandered on the Machiavellian ambitions of Kremlin leaders should be spent on strengthening the security of the United States. Who, but Americans, would subsidize the armaments of admitted adversaries?
 

-- keep your (eye@onthebear.folks), November 23, 1999

Answers

Your taxpayer dollars at work. Gives you a warm, fuzzy feeling doesn't it?

-- Guy Daley (guydaley@bwn.net), November 23, 1999.

Russia is a country where gansters roam and control. Would you expect any less. I grew on the east side of the city, in a community controlled by gangs, old European gangs. Once they started to make money, illegal activities, they started to accumulate weapons, payoff people's debts (buy loyality) and corrupting public officials. I would think it odd that Russia with some of the hardest core gangs in the world would not be preparing for a power struggle with the west(but not war). They know where the money came from, and to get more they would have to pose has a threat to the west. So the tactic of soft but tough relations is not unpredictable. My only question is who is in control? Again I follow what I learned in the tough neighborhood, FOLLOW THE MONEY, who is making the profit and where is the money going. I would suspect if you follow the money, you will find industries in the EU making money selling equipment and arms products to the RF and the final place for the RF weapons money, is in the US stock market. So will they bomb the US, I don't think so. Will they threatin the US, yes of course, thats the game. But there is always a chance of a nut case, rising to power who does't care about money only power and maybe a hatred for the US or the EU that would bring him to push the button. I would suspect if a wild eyed middle eastern type was to seize power in the RF then I would be looking for Armegedon to appear.

Just thinkin

-- justthinkin com (y2khoping@ok.com), November 23, 1999.

Who was it that said something like:

'Capitalists will supply the weapons of their own destruction.' The key was the greed of the industrialist that would be more concerned about making a buck than defending their countries. Hell our president SOLD out our nuclear weapons labs for what couple hundred thousand. Either this was cheap or they have the real goods on the emperor.

-- squid (Itsdark@down.here), November 23, 1999.