Kremlin's nuclear binge?

The American commander warned of the potential danger of the Russian army, which became "more effective" than the Soviet

Did the Russian army surpass the Soviet army? Can it pose a threat to North America? Who scare the Kremlin nuclear threats?

We discuss these and other issues with Richard Vitz from the Gudzon Institute in Washington, Stephen Blanc from the American Council on Foreign Policy, Dmitry Gorenburg, an employee of the CNA research corporation, and Yuri Yarym-Agaev , an employee of the Guver Institute.

The American commander warned of the potential danger of the Russian army, which became "more effective" than the Soviet

The Russian army is now much more effective than the Soviet Army, one of the most senior US military, the head of the northern command of the US, Admiral Willyam Gorli, said on Tuesday during a press briefing . An unexpected assessment of the capabilities of the Russian army, made by the admiral, responsible for the sea and air defense of the North American continent, was also accompanied by an unconventional look at the potential intentions of the Kremlin. He cited the statistics of the significantly increased activity of the Russian Air Force in the North American region, suggesting that the United States allows such actions that it again sees itself as a "world power." However, the admiral sees in the actions of Russia not only the desire to show herself where she had not shown herself for a long time. According to him, there are signs that Russia is conducting electronic tracking for the North American air defense system and transfers information to Russian strategic bombers located in the region. He warned that Russia was trying to adapt a long -range winged missiles with conventional warheads for launches from bombers, submarines and destroyers, which would allow it to keep the United States under the sight of ordinary weapons. If this trend is established, then, as Admiral Gordney put it, the task of the air defense of North America "will be associated with a risk."

Does these assessments follow that the Russian army, in general, suddenly turned into a potential opponent of NATO, comparable to the army of the Soviet Union? Until now, the highest US military has not carried out such parallels, and they still look strained, in the opinion of American military experts.

“I think the difference is that the current Russian army is able to act more effectively on the periphery of Russia, in local conflicts,” says Richard Wightz from the Gudzon Institute in Washington. - She can, say, more successfully occupy Crimea today than she could do this just a few years ago, or faster to prevail over the opponent, say, similar to Georgia. As for the threat of Western countries, I do not think that Russia in this sense surpassed the Soviet Union. For example, in Soviet times, there was a real threat of capture by the Soviet bloc of West Germany in case of the beginning of hostilities, there was a high risk of serious nuclear conflict. We were always ready for the military intervention of Moscow in the Middle East. Now, in my opinion, there is no real threat from Russia to Western countries.

- Nevertheless, as one of the highest American generals claims, Russia shows "military assertiveness" far from its borders. He talks about the flights of military aircraft near the borders of North America, the appearance of Russian ships in the Caribbean. This is, from your point of view, as evidenced? Why do the Kremlin engage in similar, from the point of view of the West, counterproductive provocations?

- I think this is one of the manifestations of Putin’s desire to demonstrate that Russia is a large world power. But still, let's not forget that these actions are very inferior in scale to what happened during the Cold War.

- In the American press, a lot is written about what commentators call Vladimir Putin's “nuclear threats”, his statements that he could resort to nuclear weapons in case of difficulties with the capture of Crimea. Apparently, he wants to warn the West in this way. Do not you think that if this is so, then he can count and, conversely, configure Western countries against himself?

- No, if only because for now, he, apparently, gets away with him. He, it seems to me, is trying to indicate to the West that, from his point of view, Crimea belongs to Russia and for his protection he will put nuclear weapons. And, I suspect that such statements can actually help in the implementation of his plans. They may probably influence some European countries that will oppose, say, joining NATO Ukraine and Russia, because they will not want to enter the war with Russia.

-But still, in the United States, such statements cause a different reaction: at least, calls to take countermeasures in case of unpredictable behavior of Moscow. This is possible?

- I do not think that this will happen during the reign of the current administration, in the next two years. After the new president arrives in the White House, everything can happen. But in the near future I do not expect change.

The Kremlin’s incredible behavior, attempts to imagine themselves as an international force similar to the Soviet Union, look absurd from the point of view of Stephen Blanca, a former professor of the US Army Military College, now an employee of the American foreign policy in Washington:

“I don’t think that we can draw a reasonable conclusion whether the current army of Russia is more effective than the Soviet Army, not to mention the fact that the Soviet Army of the late eighties was noticeably different in combat effectiveness from the army of the late seventies,” says Stephen Blank . - Attempts of comparison, in my opinion, are meaningless and incorrect. We can say that today's Russian army is much better than the army that Russia had in the nineties, it is not so susceptible to decay and is better equipped.

- It is believed that, sending its planes to the borders of Western countries, Moscow is trying to give them a signal: do not touch me. And, according to Richard Wightz, this tactic works. But, on the other hand, can, roughly speaking, a demonstration of aggressiveness to contribute to the security of the country?

- I think that these are attempts to show that Russia is strong, that they have the opportunity to leave us and our allies a military challenge. This is obvious. But there is no need to be mistaken, Putin will not achieve the desired result. As can be seen from the reaction of several European countries, they consider the flights of Russian military aircraft as reckless dangerous actions to which it is necessary to respond with adequate measures from the West. In the long term, such actions of Russia are counterproductive because they only add incentives for strengthening NATO, to strengthen military cooperation between European countries and increase their defense budgets, and increase the procurement of weapons.

- Nevertheless, if the wisdom of such a strategy of the Kremlin remains a big question, the statement of the American admiral, paradoxically, can be read as a compliment to Vladimir Putin: during his reign, the Russian army was significantly strengthened. Is it a compliment, Dmitry Gorenburg?

The Russian army is one of the five strongest in the world now

- The Russian army is one of the five strongest in the world. The American is clearly the strongest in the world, then China, Russia, Germany, some European countries can be considered, ”says Dmitry Gorenburg . - So, of course, there is a threat, but, I think, there is no need to exaggerate it too much. Because if you compare with the past, then the Russian army did not restore the opportunities that the Soviet Union had.

-Yuri Yarym-Agaev, what feelings can Vladimir Putin meet this statement? Perhaps, after all, with anxiety, because still the actions of the Russian army provoke distrust and fears about Russia?

- Putin is probably happy, ”says Yuri Yarym-Agaev . -I think that if Putin rejoices something, then there is nothing good in this, because he is clearly already operating outside of normal behavior. If some comments help his some illusions, then I don’t see anything good about it. And, probably, such an effect can be such a comment.

-Dmitry Gorenburg, the admiral still makes a sensational statement that the Russian army is more effective than the Soviet army. You said that the Russian army is in the five best armies of the world - this also sounds a big compliment. What good can be said about today's Russian army? Or try to determine what it means that it is more effective than the Soviet Army?

- What is the Russian army now better? It becomes more mobile, more united. What was in the Georgian war, when air forces and ground forces interacted very poorly, is now much better established.

“ But still you brought her to the five best armies.” Is it better to the Soviet Army of the late 1970s, for example?

- The Russian army compared to the Soviet army is much smaller in terms of the number of military, in the number of equipment. In this sense, it is weaker. But if you look at the weapon, especially in recent years, it has become more modern, its effectiveness increases. But at the same time, it must be remembered that the Western armed forces, the Chinese, too, have not been sitting for the past 20 years just like that, they also improved their weapons and their protection.

- You mentioned modern Russian weapons, but, as I understand it, in many ways its quality remains by and large a mystery. Take at least even types of weapons with which the Kremlin is proud-intercontinental missiles, invisible aircraft or a new tank. This is what Richard Wightz from the Gudzon Institute says about this.

-With regard to aviation, the situation with the fifth generation T-50 is unclear. Su-34, Su-35-good cars. Perhaps they are the best of what countries produce are not members of NATO. The naval forces are clearly inferior to what NATO countries have. The submarines of the “ash” project have good indicators, they are modern. But while Russia was able to build only two such submarines. It is difficult to judge the level of weapons of the ground forces. They should get new T-14 tanks, the effectiveness of which is impossible to say anything, since we have not seen them in action. But most of the arms of the Russian army was created in the Soviet era, it is outdated and falls into decay.

- In general, the epic with the Bulava rocket, which could not fly, where was it supposed to be? The Indian press has reports that India is unhappy with the quality and cost of the T-50 aircraft developed together with Russia. The same story with the armaments that you are talking about will not happen again?

- The results of the Bulava tests were simply terrible. It is possible that its creators managed to overcome numerous problems. We do not know this. The fate of the attack aircraft T-50 looks uncertain. The Ministry of Defense delayed the purchases of aircraft. The reasons for this are unknown. Armata tanks were not affordable for the Russian army. It is known that the Ministry of Defense announced that it will not buy them if the manufacturer does not reduce the price.

- Dmitry Gorenburg, is this, in general, not the most flattering assessment of the last Russian weapons systems?

In the current economic condition of Russia, they may not be a lot to order them - there may already be such a problem

- If we talk about prices, this is another matter, we talked about effectiveness. There may be a problem in the fact that in the current economic condition of Russia, they may not be ordered a lot by force - there may already be such a problem. New submarines "Severodvinsk" with cruise missiles are quite effective weapons, again very expensive. Of course, they will compose a rather serious threat to American aircraft carriers.

-If Russia really has a combat-ready, in your opinion, potentially well-armed army, why is this army prepared, Yuri Yarim-Agaev?

No matter however the Russian army has improved over the past five years, it is simply pointless to compare it with the American army

- Firstly, I believe that all this should be considered in a certain more general political context. Let's decide that no matter how much the Russian army has improved over the past five years, it is simply pointless to compare it with the American army, in my opinion. This is a completely different level of the army. The Soviet Union began to lag behind America already in the 1980s, and after that there were still 20 years of a large gap. The fact that they managed to create several types of new weapons is wonderful, but this is completely comparable either in development, or by the accuracy of weapons, or by electronics, or by computers, and most importantly, in scale with the American army. Therefore, this comparison is illusory, it does not need, in my opinion, even to take into account. If Russia has at least some illusions that its army is comparable to the American one, then these illusions are extremely dangerous and erroneous.

- Yuri, I will interrupt you. You say that the Russian army is not an opponent in the sense of the US Army, but after all, the American admiral, responsible for protecting the shores of North America, suggests that Russia with such a pace of development of its cruise missiles can create problems for effective US protection?

- Is there a threat? There is a threat, but this is not a strategic threat. Can Russia, by madness and madness, launch some nuclear missiles and kill a certain number of people in America? Yes, unfortunately, maybe, judging by the completely crazy behavior of its leaders, I can not exclude this option absolutely. After that, Russia will not remain, people can die, and even many people, but America will survive, Russia will not be. If this is not realized in the Kremlin, I can say that this is a difficult case, something needs to be done immediately.

- Dmitry Gorenburg, your assumptions: why is the Kremlin preparing this army? Richard Witz, for example, believes, as he expresses, to solve problems on the periphery of Russia.

- The first task, if you look from Putin and the company, are still defense.

- Defend from whom?

- From imaginary enemies, primarily NATO and the USA.

“ Do they believe in it?”

“It seems to me, yes,” says Dmitry Gorenburg. -Less in the attack is open, and more-in a revolution of some type of "color revolution". But still you have to be prepared. The second: the best defense is to some extent an attack, that is, that we see in Ukraine, not an open attack on other countries, but some foci of instability to prevent the ring of enemies, it seems to me, is understood in the Kremlin.

-Yuri Yarym-Agaev, what do you see in these, strictly speaking, crazy, from the point of view of Western man, revelations that Moscow could use nuclear weapons if it could not have been the capture of Crimea?

The problem is that all their attempts to create anything constructive in the economy, in high technologies, in all other things, they completely fail

- We are trying to understand this from a rational point of view and from the point of view of the goal. In fact, there are purely ideological and other reasons. Russia is trying to somehow determine itself, to find its national idea. She is rushing about, she can’t find what she is in. And one of the ideas that they have, we are the country of warriors, we are not a country of creators, but a country of warriors. It sounds quite often. One of their ideas is that we can destroy everyone, incinerate nuclear bombs. This is a completely crazy idea, but it is an attempt to find a national idea. In addition, they can do a limited number of things. The problem is that all their attempts to create something constructive in the economy, in high technologies, in all other things, they completely fail. All that they know how to do are those people who are in power, I am not talking about the people and the country as a whole is the KGB and the military-industrial complex. They do what they can do. They do not even ask themselves the question of why they do it, because they can do what they can do. Therefore, there is no need to look for an absolutely rational explanation in everything, the target explanation for what exactly this is done. They could swing oil, oil has fallen in price, they can create an army, now they will be. This is the North Korean version to use the threat of war as a way of survival.

- Dmitry Gorenburg, if it is really so - and if not so, then other motives are completely unimportant - we have a situation where an aggressively Russia -looking aggressively pose some threat to its neighbors. How to resist this?

- Here again it is necessary to divide that it is not often enough, as it seems to me, many commentators do. It is necessary to share the threat of the United States, the European Union and so on - and threats to Ukraine, Caucasian countries, perhaps even the Baltic states. Russia of a real military threat to the first countries, the United States and the allies, does not represent, with the exception of, of course, nuclear weapons. В принципе у них нет сейчас возможности нападать на страны, отдаленные от границ России. Угроза именно бывшим советским республикам может быть. Что мы теперь знаем, что НАТО сказало, что мы защищать Украину не будем, это означает, что мы так же не будем защищать и Грузию тоже. То есть остается Прибалтика, балтийские страны. Тут вопрос: они часть НАТО, их надо защищать, но, с другой стороны, есть какие-то претензии российской стороны на какое-то влияние в балтийских странах.

– Все-таки как этому противостоять?

- Мне кажется, что то, что НАТО делает последний год, –​ это правильно. То есть наращивать мощь, ничего такого не делать экстренного, но наращивать контингент в какой-то степени в Прибалтике и в Польше, в своих выступлениях и всяких документах официальных показать, что мы принимаем наши обязательства по НАТО серьезно и будем защищать балтийские страны. В случае каких-то внутренних столкновений мы им будем помогать. Я думаю, этого достаточно.

А Стивен Бланк из Американского совета по внешней политике считает, что это далеко недостаточно. Он считает, что необходимо помочь Украине, чтобы среди прочего заставить Владимира Путина и его окружение избавиться от опасных для всех иллюзий.

Владимир Путин пытается самоутвердиться, демонстративно угрожает, заявляет: "Мы сильны, это наше и никто у нас этого не отберет"

–​ Частично, на мой взгляд, поведение Путина и России объясняется психологическими причинами, – говорит Стивен Бланк. – Владимир Путин пытается самоутвердиться, демонстративно угрожает, заявляет: "Мы сильны, это наше и никто у нас этого не отберет". Но я не думаю, что если мы поможем Украине, то они начнут ядерную войну. Они могут пойти в наступление на Украине, но я подозреваю, что это произойдет вне зависимости от нашего поведения. Наоборот, я считаю, что мы должны в данной ситуации помочь Украине, чтобы преподать необходимый урок Кремлю, потому что у Путина и его окружения может утвердиться превратное представление о том, что им сойдет с рук все что угодно. И это крайне опасная для всех система взглядов, в рамках которых может действовать российское руководство.

– Предлагая такую рекомендацию, вы уверены, что Путин блефует, жонглируя ядерной угрозой?

–​ Кто проиграет в результате ядерной войны? Russia. И Путин это осознает. Он контролирует ядерную кнопку, и он не начнет ядерную войну. С другой стороны, всегда остается вероятность непредсказуемых событий, которые могут привести к непредсказуемым последствиям, как, например, кризис, последовавший за уничтожением Советским Союзом корейского "Боинга" над Сахалином в 1983 году. Путин, по-видимому, считает, что он может пользоваться в своих целях угрозой ядерного конфликта, поскольку он его не начнет, а кроме него его начинать некому. Но он может стать жертвой обстоятельств, и в этом кроется опасность.

– Вот, Дмитрий Горенбург, есть и такая позиция ?

– Если кто-то очень хочет сражаться по условиям, данным противником, в данном случае Путиным, то Украина хорошее место для этого. Я считаю, что национальные интересы Америки в Украине по сравнению с национальными интересами России в Украине несопоставимы. Украина для России гораздо важнее.

– Значит, Украина не будет западным Бородино .

Все эти угрозы Америке, все эти вылазки с бомбардировщиками, с подводными лодками и прочее, на самом деле это не шутки –​ это совершенно безответственное поведение

- Я не согласен с этим, – говорит Юрий Ярым-Агаев. - Я считаю, что Украина является ровно тем местом, где проявляется это противостояние, где Путина можно и нужно остановить. Это не вопрос, насколько кому нужна Украина, на самом деле Украина в равной степени не нужна ни России, ни Америке. Но Россия объявила, что она рассматривает эту войну, не прямо Путиным, но всеми его прихвостнями, что она рассматривает на самом деле эту войну не как войну против Украины, а как войну против Америки на украинской территории, то есть это классическая прокси-война типа вьетнамской или корейской войны, война чужими руками. Этот вызов России Америке был сделан. Речь не идет о том, чтобы Америка прямо послала туда войска и воевала с Россией, но военная и стратегическая помощь Украине, я считаю, принципиальная вещь, и Америка это должна сделать. Это необходимо сделать, чтобы удержать Путина от дальнейших действий. Дело в том, что Путин играет с огнем. Все эти угрозы уже ядерные и прочие Америке, все эти вылазки с бомбардировщиками, с подводными лодками и прочее, на самом деле это не шутки –​ это совершенно безответственное поведение. Если Путин в конце концов убедит Америку и Запад, что он может запустить на них ракеты с ядерными боеголовками, то в конечном итоге что гарантирует, что Америка не вынуждена сделать какой-то превентивный удар? Я не знаю, понимает ли и думает ли об этом Кремль и Путин. Но если они действительно будут так планомерно в этом убеждать Запад, то они могут нарваться очень серьезно. Играть в русскую рулетку такую Путин мог бы сам с собой, взяв револьвер, но когда вся страна играет в такую русскую рулетку, то я считаю это безумным поведением. Мне непонятно, есть ли еще у русских людей какие-то инстинкты самосохранения. Никто на них не собирается нападать, никто их не собирается трогать, но если они убедят в конечном итоге весь мир, что они на него будут бросать атомные бомбы и запускать ракеты, наверное, в какой-то момент этот мир может принять какие-то ответные меры, которые не только закончат всю русскую армию, но какую-то часть русского населения. Ужасный сценарий, но не мы его с вами разыгрываем, а люди в Кремле. Я считаю, что чем раньше это пресечь и остановить, тем важнее. И Украина, может быть, является той точкой, где это можно сделать.

– Дмитрий Горенбург, ваш коллега Павел Баев из норвежского института исследования мира выражает сходную мысль в несколько иной форме. В публикации для Брукингского института в Вашингтоне он пишет о том, что Путин и его подручные – мастера дворцовых интриг, не прошедшие даже начальных классов школы ядерного сдерживания. Он предупреждает, что ради доказательства лояльности они могут переступить границы здравого смысла.

– Я согласен с Павлом. Я скажу, что в данной ситуации и у американской стороны тоже еще есть какие-то навыки противостояния со времен холодной войны, но по сравнению с навыками, которые были 20 лет назад, их довольно мало. Президент, его окружающие тоже отвыкли от этого всего. И сейчас надо вспоминать, как действовали раньше. Потому что это все не новое. Все эти полеты бомбардировщиков, субмарины и так далее –​ это все было когда-то в 1960–70-е годы, но тогда уже все знали, как действовать. Надо сохранять спокойствие и не реагировать чересчур, потому что дальше это поощряет следующий этап потенциальных столкновений.