Russia Opposes Taiwan Independence
March 17, 2004 :: Gateway to Russia :: News
On strategic Russia and China continue to exhibit a united front against the United States.
Secretary of the Russian Security Council Igor Ivanov announced today to Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo that Russia opposes Taiwan independence and supports Chinese efforts to subordinate the island to Communist rule. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: China, Russia, Taiwan
Russia Tests Two SLBMs: Russian Arsenal Combat Ready
March 17, 2004 :: Itar-Tass :: News
The Novomoskovsk nuclear submarine in Russia’s Northern Fleet today tested two RSM-54 (SS-N-23) intercontinental missiles, from a submerged position in the Barents Sea. The missiles are said to have hit their target at the the Kura testing ground on the far eastern Kamchatka peninsula, reportedly some 4,500 miles away. Versions of the SS-N-23 are called “Sineva” by Russia, and “Scythian” or “Skiff” in the West. The “Sineva” version, that tested today, is believed to be armed with 10 warheads rather than the usual four, and an additional system to permit it to penetrate missile defenses.
The two missile tests follow Putin’s March 1 order that the failed launches during the massive February 10-18 nuclear war exercise be repeated. (Article, Link)
» More stories on: Russia, Testing - Foreign
» Missile details: SS-X-14
First NATO-Russia Joint Missile Defense Exercise Should Raise Concern for Future of U.S. BMD
March 12, 2004 :: Jane's Information Group :: News
Under NATO auspices, the U.S. recently held a five-day joint missile defense exercise with Russia, lasting from March 8-12. The first such event was held at the U.S. space center in Colorado Springs, with some 60 participants from 10 NATO nations and Russia. While the exercise was quite limited, such cooperation should be viewed with some level of suspicion. Such joint exercises threaten to erode the sort of strategic clarity necessary to remember that Russia is not an ally, but indeed rather our “strategic competitor.” The concrete effect of such strategic obfuscation is that American missile defenses will not evolve into robust and comprehensive defenses capable of defending, but will be sharply limited to intercepting only second rate missiles from third rate countries.
The Command Post Exercise (CPX) consisted of computer simulations designed to “test equipment compatibility and other technical issues” related to “theatre missile defense,” i.e., those systems capable of intercepting short-range missiles.
Such cooperation has evolved from initial efforts in the mid-1990s under the Clinton administration. Missile defense cooperation may appear innocuous, even salutary. Yet there should also be a legitimate concern should these steps lead to more substantial cooperation, which prevents the limited missile defenses being deployed in Alaska and elsewhere from evolving into a defense capable of defending not only against rogue states, but especially against the Russian nuclear arsenal.
Such a partnership would effectively treat Russia as no less a threat than other nuclear powers such as Britain or France. As such, we would not even attempt to evolve our defenses to a level capable of defending against Russia or China. So far from missile defense’s promise overthrowing the dangerous doctrines of mutually assured destruction (MAD) or “strategic stability,” partnerships with Russia in the area of missile defense would only ensure that teh former Soviet Union retains the ability to threaten America with nuclear weapons for decades to come.
The NATO press releases emphasize the importance of “interoperability.” During the Cold War, interoperability, familiarily with allies’ systems, and interchangeable parts generally were important to unite NATO forces against a common enemy, the Soviet Union. Is America really prepared to trust the former Soviet Union as such an ally? We should not be. (Article, Link)
» NATO description of joint exercise
» Feb. 20, 2001: Bush Proposes Joint US-Russia BMD
» More stories on: Policy, Russia, Testing - American
Tenet: China’s Defense Budget Twice What They Report; Continue to Acquire Missiles From Russia
March 9, 2004 :: CIA :: News
Testifying before the Armed Services Committee, CIA Director George Tenet expressed the “greatest concern” with China’s military buildup.
China’s neighbors still harbor suspicions about Beijing’s long-term intentions. They generally favor a sustained US military presence in the region as insurance against potential Chinese aggression.
Our greatest concern remains China’s military buildup, which continues to accelerate. On Saturday, China’s Minister of Finance announced a new defense budget that is 11.6 percent larger than last year’s. China’s announced annual defense budget has grown from some $7 billion ten years ago to over $25 billion today. Moreover, we assess the announced figure accounts for less than half of China’s actual defense spending.
Last year, Beijing reached new benchmarks in its production or acquisition from Russia of missiles, submarines, other naval combatants, and advanced fighter aircraft. China also is downsizing and restructuring its military forces with an eye toward enhancing its capabilities for the modern battlefield. All of these steps will over time make China a formidable challenger if Beijing perceived that its interests were being thwarted in the region.
(Article, Link)
» More stories on: China, Proliferation, Russia
Russian Engineers Aided Iraq’s Long Range Ballistic Missile Programs
March 5, 2004 :: New York Times :: News
As often emphasized here, the greatest sources of ballistic missile proliferation are ultimately Russia and China, however much rogue state proxies may sometimes be involved. A story in today’s New York Times confirms this unappreciated fact, outlining how Russian ballistic missile technology aided Saddam Hussein’s missile programs until not too long before last year’s war.
The assistance of Russian engineers to Iraq’s missile programs constituted a violation of the United Nations sanctions. Like Russia’s assistance of Iran reported here yesterday, such aid also constitutes a reminder that Russia’s interests in proliferation are quite different than those of the United States. Russia’s contempt for parchment barriers such as UN resolutions or the Non-Proliferation Treaty would appear to be similar to that they had for the ABM Treaty, which they clearly violated.
It is worth nothing that whatever the status of Iraq’s formerly documented WMD programs, their work on ballistic missiles until just before the war began is undisputed. (Article, Link)
» Mar. 4, 2004: Russia Providing Equipment for Iranian Missiles
» Ties to Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, North Korea
» More stories on: Iraq, Proliferation, Russia
Asst. Secretary of State for Arms Control: “Russia should do better”
March 4, 2004 :: News
Stephen Rademaker, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, during his visit to Russia gave an interview published by the Russkii Kurier, where he indicated that Russia continues to contribute to the proliferation of ballistic missile systems and technology, here specifically in regard to Iran:
I informed my Russian colleagues that according to the information the US Department of State possesses, Iranian medium- and short-range missiles were equipped with Russian gear. It means that Russia should do better in implementing the treaty on nonproliferation of missile technologies. Russian colleagues assure me that Moscow sticks to the letter of the treaty and honors it, but I consider the matter open all the same.
Besides North Korea, Iran is the rogue state probably most likely to next develop long range ICBMs which could reach the United States. (More »»»)
» More stories on: Iran, Proliferation, Russia
Russia Transferring S-300 Air/Missile Defense Systems to Belarus
March 4, 2004 :: Gateway to Russia :: News
Some reports of Russia’s transfer of S-300 air and missile defenses to Belarus claim the systems are old and useless. Others, however, indicate that they may still be in working order.
The transfer consists of S-300s which are being taken out of service. One report has Acting Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov describing them to journalists as “not in an operational condition.” Another, from ITAR-TASS, has the same person saying that they are in operable condition. A third, from RIA-Novosti quoting a defense official, says that they will be sent to Belarus after being restored to combat-ready status.
A previous report from October, 2003 seems to favor the systems’ operable status, which cited Ivanov stressing of the reported deal that “What is important is that these systems will be in service use, and they will guard the airspace of the Union State.” The S-300 was then described as “the calling card of Russian air defense,” as well as defense against ballistic and cruise missiles, with an intercepting range of 7-100km, a height of 25-30km, and a flying speed of 300 meters per second. (Article, Link)
» Oct. 23, 2003: Belarus asks Russia for S-300s; transfer likely
» More stories on: Russia, Russian Missile Defenses
» Missile system details for: S-300P (SA-10 Grumble), S-300V (SA-12A Gladiator, SA-12B Giant)
After 43 Years, Russian Missile Defenses Still Ready for Anything
March 4, 2004 :: Interfax :: News
A statement released by the press service of the Russian Space Troops reports that “The missile defence system of the Space Troops is always combat-ready and capable of fulfilling any mission,” according to a news item from the Russian Interfax military news agency. The statement comes on the forty-third anniversary of the first test launch and successful intercept by a Russian missile interceptor, the V-1000 (later known as the SA-5, or Griffon), in 1961:
In addition to the interceptor missiles currently deployed, the missile defence system also comprises reconnaissance means (Dunay 3U and Don 2N radars) for target detection, tracking and guidance; command posts, missile silos and an all-encompassing data grid. The press service said that the Russian missile defence system can perform automatically and by signals from the early warning missile strike system. It automatically distinguishes between warheads and other (false) targets, jamming and interference.
Also quite interesting is the claim by the Space Troops’ press service that “Russian designers are at least 25 years ahead of their American counterparts.” (More »»»)
» Russia to send old S-300 air/missile defenses to Belarus
» Mar. 3, 2001: Pravda: 40th anniv. of Soviet BMD test
» More stories on: Russia, Russian Missile Defenses
Russia to Repeat Failed Missile Tests
March 1, 2004 :: Itar-Tass :: News
The Itar-Tass news agency reports that Russian President Putin has ordered his defense chief to redo the three failed missile tests during the massive and highly publicized February nuclear war exercise. “I task you to prepare as soon as possible new exercises, perhaps on a smaller scale, so I could make sure that all mistakes have been fixed,” Putin is quoted as saying at a meeting of top military officials.
On February 17, two SLBMs failed to launch properly from the Novomoskovsk submarine in the Barents Sea, and the following day another missile engaged its self-destruct mechanism after it diverted from its set course.
It was not clarified if these re-tests would be in addition to the ten tests already said to be planned for 2004. (Article, Link)
» Itar Tass account of order to redo tests
» Mar. 2, 2004: Itar Tass: Investigation results due in April
» More stories on: Russia, Testing - Foreign
New Russian Ballistic Missiles by End of Decade
February 27, 2004 :: NTI :: News
Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, senior deputy chief of the Russian General Staff, gave an interview published in the February 26 edition of Russkii Kurier. The interview has been noted by the Nuclear Threat Initiative, an anti-missile defense organization supported in large part by its co-chair, Ted Turner. What NTI reports from this interview, and what they do not, are quite illustrative of their bias. A more complete reading of the interview supports the conclusion that Russia’s ballistic missile arsenal remains a threat to the United States, and should properly be seen as an additional reason to deploy a comprehensive defense, rather than a reason not to do so.
Following up on Putin’s remarks a week ago, Baluyevsky spoke of the missiles’ increased maneuverability, designed to penetrate American missile defenses. NTI predictably quotes these, so as to emphasize that Russia will effortlessly make U.S. defenses, to use Putin’s phrase, “useless.”
In response to the question, of whether “Russia is totally opposed to building missile defense systems,” Baluyevsky responded that this was clearly not the case:
No, Russia is not against missile defense. Moreover, Russia is the only country to possess a missile defense system already. Built in accordance with the ABM Treaty of 1972, it is combat-ready… We have only one objective. We advocate missile defense systems that will ensure protection against single launches, not mass strikes. We mean protection from any missiles that may end up in the hands of international terrorists. At present, neither the Russian missile defense system nor the one the United States is building will provide protection against mass strikes. At the same time, we are opposed to missile defense systems that may pose a threat to Russia or devalue its arsenals. I’m talking about the strategic arsenals. Our objective is simple and clear, I think. All our actions, including actions in connection with the appearance of missile defense systems in other countries, aim to maintain Russia’s capacity to do unacceptable damage to an aggressor, no matter where the aggressor is.
As Baluyevsky noted—but NTI did not—Russia continues to maintain and advance the extensive missile defense system of the Soviet Union.
As frequently noted here, Russia wishes the United States to perpetuate the dangerous doctrine of mutually assured destruction vis a vis the former Soviet Union, no less after the withdrawal from the ABM Treaty than when MAD was the law of the land for the thirty years when the treaty was in force. Russia’s wish will be fulfilled if the United States deploys only very limited missile defenses, that is, those which do not protect from the nuclear-armed ballistic missiles of China and Russia.
The recent remarks by Putin and Baluyevsky should be seen as directed at U.S. plans to deploy a limited missile defense system this year, for the purpose of undermininng domestic support for the system within the U.S. The selective reporting by NTI seems to serve the same purpose. (More »»»)
» Feb. 18, 2004: Putin: Russia to get new offensive and defensive strategic weapons
» More stories on: Russia, Russian Missile Defenses
