Vladimir P. Kozin – Head of Advisers’ Group, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies,...

Vladimir P. Kozin – Head of Advisers’ Group, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, Corresponding Member at the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Professor, Russian Academy of Military Sciences

Stockholm (March 29, 2015)

© Vladimir Kozin. 2015 1

EUROPE: NATO MILITARY BUILD-UP,WITH NO ARMS CONTROL

2

THREE ELEMENTS OF CONCERN RELATED TO EUROPE

TNW BMDS

CW© Vladimir Kozin. 2015

3

Mk-41

© Vladimir Kozin. 2015

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:VLS_MK41_Missile_Launch.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_030303-N-3235P-503_A_topside_view_of_the_forward_MK-41_Vertical_Launching_System_(VLS)_aboard_the_guided_missile_cruiser_USS_San_Jacinto_(CG_56).jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_100304-N-6006S-046_The_Ticonderoga-class_guided-missile_cruiser_USS_Bunker_Hill_(CG_52)_transits_in_the_Atlantic_Ocean.jpg

EWR Vardø

EWR Fylingdales

EWR Thule

US BM44DS IN EUROPE (EPAA): THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

17 September 2009ПРО США в Европе:

План администрации Обамы (ЕПАП)17 сентября 2009 г.

US BM44DS IN EUROPE (EPAA): THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

17 September 2009ПРО США в Европе:

План администрации Обамы (ЕПАП)17 сентября 2009 г.

24 SM-3 in Poland (+possibly,GBI)

+ BMDS THAAD

+SM-3 (sea-based Aegis)

+ Aegis Ashore (SM-3)

+ NATO’s ALTBMD

+ PAC-2 +PAC-3

+ tactical nuclear wpns

AN/TPY-2

X-Band EWR

24 SM-3 in Romania

4 US Aegis ships (in Spain)

+ 6 US Aegis ships

4 Aegis ships (the Netherland4444s)


http://anti-nato.com/media/news/opasnost-militarizacii-arktiki-priarkticheskie-manevry-nato-i-soyuznikov-2.jpg

Version2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

3.6.1. 23 24 23 19 17 16 13 11 ? ?

4.0.1 2 4 6 9 9 9 9 9 ? ?5.0 0 1 3 4 6 8 13 15 ? ?5.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 ? ?

TOTAL 25 29 29 32 32 33 35 36 ? 43

Production of SM-3 per year

Block I/1A 107 113 113 136 136 136 136 136 136 136

Block IB 1 16 25 61 100 169 251 328 400 472

Block IIA 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 19 31 70

Block IIB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 108 129 138 197 236 305 394 483 567678

Aegis capable US ships with SM-3 interceptors

© Vladimir Kozin. 2015 (Source: US Congress Research Service.2014) 5

THE CORE OF THE US BMDS IS SEA-BASED “AEGIS” BMD WITH SM-3 INTERCEPTORS

2009: 3 КР/CG + 15 ЭМ/DDG = 18 2010: 5 КР/CG + 16 ЭМ/DDG = 21 2015: 5 КР/CG + 25 ЭМ/DDG = 30 (incl. 14 in the Atlantic & 16 in the Pacific) 2041: 84 КР +ЭМ/CG+DDG (or 27% of the entire US Navy)

EACH SHIP MAY HAVE 30+ SM-3 INTERCEPTORS

RUSSIA FACES MINIMUM 6 US NAVY COMBAT VESSELS WITH AEGIS BMDS

THAT IS WITH 180 SM-2 & SM-3 INTERCEPTORS IN EUROPE AND 8 SUCH SHIPS IN ASIA-PACIFIC WITH 240 SM-3

Each 24 hours several BMDS ships are sailing in the Black Sea, Baltic Sea,

Barents Sea


THE US TNW IN EUROPE:high precision free-fall

bombs

B61-3:170 Kt B61-4: 50 Kt B61-7: 360 Kt (SOA) B61-10: 80 Kt B61-11: 400 Kt (SOA) В61-12: 50 Kt (SOA)

Deployment of the US NTW in Europe is a violation of the NPT

CURRENT THREAT: THE US TNW IN EUROPE IS A LEGASSY OF THE COLD WAR

DEPLOYED AT 13 BASES IN SIX NATO COUNTRIES


СИСТЕМА ПРО США/НАТО В ЕВРОПЕ УСИЛИВАЕТСЯ ПУТЕМ СОВЕРШЕНСТВОВАНИЯ И МОДЕРНИЗАЦИИ ТЯО США И НАТО ПЕРЕДОВОГО БАЗИРОВАНИЯ.С ДРУГОЙ СТОРОНЫ,

СИСТЕМЫ ПРО США И НАТО ЗАЩИЩАЕТ ТЯО В ЕВРОПЕUS/NATO BMDS IN EUROPE IS BEING STRENGTHENED BY THE UPGRADING AND

MODERNIZATION OF THE US/NATO FORWARD-BASED TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EUROPE

ON THE OTHER HAND, THE US BMD IS PROTECTING THEIR TNW IN EUROPE

ПРОГРАММА ПРОДЛЕНИЯ СРОКА СЛУЖБЫ ЯДЕРНЫХ АВИАБОМБ В-61 К 2038

ГОДУ ПОТРЕБУЕТ ДО 65 МЛРД.ДОЛЛ.THE SLEP PROGRAM OF THE FREE-FALL NUCLEAR-TIPPED US B-61 AIR BOMBS

BY 2038 WILL REQUIRE US $ 65 BILLIONS

Авиабомбы В-61-7, В-61-11 и В-61-12 рассматриваются американскими военными как тактические, так и стратегические, так как они могут

быть доставлены самолетами тактической и стратегической авиации, то есть самолетами F-35 (две бомбы) и B-52H и B-2 (по 16 бомб)

Вombs B-61-7, B-61-11 and В-61-12 are considered by the US military both as strategic and tactical, because they can be delivered by both strategic

and tactical aircraft, namely В-52Н и В-2А (16 bombs each), as well as by a new Joint Strike Fighter F-

35 (2 bombs each)

ОЖИДАЕТСЯ ПРИНЯТИЕ НА ВООРУЖЕНИЕ НОВОЙ АВИАБОМБЫ В-61-12 (400-930 ЕДИНИЦ)A NEW MODIFICATION OF THIS BOMB WILL BE COMISSIONED: B-61-12 (400-930 PIECES)

8© Vladimir Kozin. 2015

NO SINGLE NATO STATE-PARTY TO THE CFE TREATY HAS EVER RATIFIED IT

There is a need to draft a principally new CFE Treaty, a legally binding one, without flank limitations of TLE and radical disparities in favor of NATO,

without artificial linkages with conflict resolution,

and without the US TNW and BMDS

There is a need to draft a principally new CFE Treaty, a legally binding one, without flank limitations of TLE and radical disparities in favor of NATO,

without artificial linkages with conflict resolution,

and without the US TNW and BMDS

9 © Vladimir Kozin. 2015

NATO SUMMIT IN CHICAGO (2012) & IN NEWPORT (2014)

Традиционная триада СНВTraditional SOA nuclear triad

ICBM

New combined triadinvolving strategic and tactical nuclear,

conventional weapons and ballistic missile defense

“Старая” диада

“Old” diadSince 1989

Heavy bombers

NW

CW

NW

CW

BMD

PREVIOUS SUMMITS

NATO SUMMITS IN CHICAGO & NEWPORT:

A QUALITATIVELY NEW TRIAD

SLBM


SERIOUSTHREAT

NATO decided to demonstrate hostile intentions to Russia and to resort to

provocative power projection

11

Wales Summit : approved NATO Readiness Action Plan

sanctioned the NATO Spearhead Force -VHDJTF (composition in February 2015)

established 2 new NATO C3I centers in Poland and Lithuania + 4 more (Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Romania)

urged more NATO member-states to join the US BMDS NATO military activity near Russia’s land increased by 5 times

In 2015 there will be 200 military drillsWales Summit is the most anti-Russian meeting after the Cold

War 1.0

NATO FORWARD-DEPLOYED POTENTIAL IS ENHANCED RADICALLY & IS MOVING

EASTWARDS TORUSSIA


NATO DCA NEAR RUSSIA’S TERRITORY

NATO AF Operation «Baltic Air Policing»

Began in March 2004 over Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia

+ AWACS are patrolling the airspace

The USA has acquired 8 military bases in Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania

and Estonia


DCA FROM 15 NATO MEMBER-SATES ARE INVOLVED IN THIS OPERATION

AIRCRAFT ARE IN THE AIR 24h/365-366 days per annum

12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Baltic_Air_Policing_map_(LT).png

13

RUSSIAN AND NATO MILITARY DRILLS IN EUROPE IN 2015


14

Chuck Hagel: “Russia is on NATO’s doorstep”

US President Directive № NSPD-66/HSPD-25 signed January 9, 2009

«B. National Security and Homeland Security Interests in the Arctic

1. The United States has broad and fundamental national security interests in the Arctic region and is prepared to operate either independently or in conjunction with other states to safeguard these interests. These interests include such matters as missile defense and early warning; deployment of sea and air systems for strategic sealift, strategic deterrence, maritime presence and maritime security operations; and ensuring freedom of navigation and overflight».

«Б. Интересы национальной безопасности и внутренней безопасности в Арктике

1.США имеют широкие и фундаментальные интересы безопасности в Арктическом регионе и готовы действовать там либо индивидуально, либо во взаимодействии с другими государствами с целью защиты указанных интересов. Эти интересы включают такие направления как: противоракетная оборона и средства раннего предупреждения; развертывание средств ВМС и ВВС для обеспечения стратегических морских перевозок, стратегическое ядерное сдерживание, военно-морское присутствие и операции по обеспечению военно-морской безопасности, а также обеспечение свободы навигации и пролетов в воздушном пространстве».

© Владимир Козин. 2015 15

16

What are the major differences between Russian and NATO military exercises?

Russia has never been the first nation that started a large-scale of military drills. Russia has resorted to the responsive actions.

Russian troops are in their state. American troops are

thousands kilometers away from their country.

Russia agreed to invite foreign observers to its exercises, including observers to “unexpected” or to previously

unannounced drills.

Russian western military district has the smallest number of combat units stationed there. NATO forces massively outnumber Russian troops there and they are heavily

reinforcing their presence there.


THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY KIND OF TALKS ON TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS

SINCE 1945 TILL 2015


BETWEEN 1972 AND 2010 SEVEN BILATERAL NUCLEAR ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN SIGNED:

SALT-1 (1972) SALT -2 (1979)

INF (1987)START-1 (1991) START-2 (1993)

SORT (2002)

AND START-3 (new START in 2010)

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COLD WARS 1 & 2IN TERMS OF ARMS CONTROL

THE COLD WAR IN 1946-2014/2015

NEW PHASE OF THE COLD WAR IN 2014/2015

18

2 х SALT + 4 х START

INF

CWC + BWC

Land-based + Naval CBMs

CFE

ZERO


15 MAJOR DIFFERENCES IN GLOBAL ARMS CONTROL BETWEEN RUSSIA & THE USA

1. US regional and global missile defense deployment.2. Conversion of the US SSBN into SSGN.3. No desire of the USA to count SOA stored in active reserve.4. US disagreement to control long-range nuclear-tipped SLCM. 5. The US has no intention to proliferate INCSEA accord on strategic nuclear-powered submarines.6. US still has tactical nuclear weapons in Europe – outside its territory.7. US still has offensive nuclear doctrine (general nuclear deterrence and extended nuclear deterrence) – first nuclear strike.8. No US intention to draft a new CFE (CFE-2).9. No US desire to reach accord on PAROS.10.US has no wish to sign ASAT accord.11. Violation of the INF Treaty by the USA: testing BMD interceptors by using medium-range and “intermediate-range” ballistic missiles.12. Operation “Baltic Air Policing” conducted by NATO during 24h/365 days13. Still no ratification of the CTBT by the USA14. No limitations on combat armed UAVs15. No limitations on hypersonic conventional weapons with pin-point accuracy


CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGE: A DEEP-SEATED MISTRUST BETWEEN THE USA & RUSSIA IN THE MILITARY DOMAIN

19

CONTINUATION OF THE COLD WAR 1.0 OR THE BEGINNING OF A COLD WAR 2.0?

17 MAJOR THREATS ARE

LISTED IN THE UPDATED RUSSIAN MILITARY DOCTRINE

(DECEMBER 26, 2014)

THERE HAVE BEEN 13 IN THE PREVIOUS ONE

(2010)


СОПОСТАВЛЕНИЕ ЯДЕРНЫХ ДОКТРИН МЕЖДУ США И РОССИЕЙASSESSMENTS BETWEEN THE US AND RUSSIA’S NUCLEAR DOCTRINES

1. Оборонительное сдерживание: неприменение ядерного оружия, нет упреждающего и превентивного удара/ Defensive deterrence: no first-use, no pre-emptive, no preventive strikes

2. Условное сдерживание: ответный удар «если на нас нападут»; нет удара по участникам ДНЯО и безъядерных зон/ Conditional deterrence: responsive attack: “if we are attacked”; no attack of any NPT member-state and NFZ member-state

3. Отсутствие «расширенного сдерживания»; не развертывает ТЯО за пределами своей территории/ No extended deterrence: no permanent land-based TNW deployment outside Russia

ПОДДЕРЖИВАЕТСЯ ГЛОБАЛЬНОЙ, РАСШИРЕННОЙ ПРО/ BACKED BY GLOBAL,

EXTENDED BMD

ПОДДЕРЖИВАЕТСЯ ПРО ВНУТРИ ГРАНИЦ/BACKED BY BMD WITHIN ITS BORDERS

RUSSIAUSA

1. Наступательное сдерживание: нанесение первого ядерного удара (упреждающего и превентивного удара)/Offensive deterrence: first-use of NW (pre-emptive & preventive strikes) 2. Безусловное ядерное сдерживание: «мы нанесем удар по любой стране», даже по безъядерной зоне; небольшое исключение (не будет ядерного удара по государствам-участникам ДНЯО, но с исключением: если они соблюдают ДНЯО/ Unconditional deterrence: ”we will attack any nation, even inside the NFZ”; very limited exception (”no” vs NPT member-states, if they are faithful to the NPT) 3. «Расширенное сдерживание»: ТЯО в Европе в качестве оружия передового базирования, за пределами США/«Extended deterrence»: forward-based land TNW, outside the continental US


22

NATO SHOULD STOP ITS CONVENTIONAL MILITARY BUILD-UP NEAR RUSSIA. A NEW CFE TREATY (CFE-2) SHOULD BE DRAFTED. THE BALTIC AIR POLICING

OPN HAS TO BE CANCELLED

THE USA MUST PULL BACK ALL ITS TNW FROM EUROPE ANDCANCEL ITS THE FISRT-USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY


HOW TO FIND THE WAY OUT FROM THE COLD WAR 2.0?TO ERADICATE ALL LISTED CHALLENGES AND THREATS

AN INTERNATIONAL ABM TREATY SHOULD BE ELABORATED SPECIFYING THE MAX CEILINGS ON THE BMD INTERCEPTORS AND SETTING LIMITS ON THEIR

DEPLOYMENT OUTSIDE THE OWNER STATES

HENRY A. KISSINGER

23

“The new Cold War really exists and it represents a danger

that can be transformed into“a tragedy” if ignored.

Such tragedy can be gradually modified

into “a Hot War”.


24

Instead of imposing the Cold War 2.0

the entire Europe and the world at large really need a global detente

that was developing quite successfullyduring last century


Conclusion

RUSSIA CANNOT LET A NEW PHASE OF THE COLD WAR OR A “HOT WAR” TO BE UNLEASHED - EITHER FOR ITSELF OR FOR THE ENTIRE

WORLD

25

A special US-Russia’s summit is needed

to tackle all these issues with a new US President after his inauguration

An All-European Security Summit

should be also convened to debate all security-related issues that have direct bearing on Europe


REAL AIMS OF UNLEASHING THE NEW PHASE OF THE COLD WAR

26

The Cold War 2.0 was intentionally initiated by President Barack Obama for several obvious reasons:

1. To undermine Russia’s military and economic potential

2. To create more pro-Western states along the perimeter with the Russian territory

3.To ruin the prestige of the Russian President & to topple him

4. To increase NATO military expenditures 5. To undermine European economy & trade

6. To make Europe more submissive to the USA


THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COLD WAR 2.0 and THE COLD WAR 1.0

27

INTENSIFIED NATO MILITARY ACTIVITY NEAR RUSSIAN

TERRITORY BY 5 TIMES

IT SLOWED DOWN THE OVERALL ARMS CONTROL PROCESS

TRIGGERED ON A TOUGH WAR-FLAGGING RHETORIC VS RUSSIA

MUCH TOUGHER ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED SANCTIONS HAVE BEEN IMPOSED

ATTEMPTS TO OVERTHROW THE LEGAL AUTHORITIES IN POST-SOVIET TIME STATES HAVE INTENSIFIED

©Vladimir Kozin. 2015

10 ACTIONS THAT HAVE GRADUALLY LEAD TO A COLD WAR 2.0

28

• US GLOBAL BMD: 1999, 2002 and 2009 • NATO ENLARGEMENT IN 1999-2009 (+ 12 states or + 43%)

• THE END OF THE ABM TREATY IN 2002• THE END OF THE CFE TREATY IN 2007

• GEORGIA’S ATTACKED OF SOUTH OSSETIA IN 2008• THE US DECISION TO MORDERNIZE THE TNW IN 2010

• THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EPAA 1st PHASE IN 2011• THE ‘CHICAGO TRIAD’ SET UP IN 2012 AND ITS CONTINUATION IN

2014• THE USA AND NATO DIRECT INTERFERENCE INTO

UKRAINIAN AFFAIRS AND OPEN VERBAL & MATERIAL THREATS TO RUSSIA IN 2014

Even illegal arrests of businessman Viktor Boot in Thailand & pilot Alexander Yaroshenko in Liberia and later sentenced in the USA


NEW COLD WAR WILL BE A LONG ONE & MORE DANGEROUS

29

IT WILL LEAD TO FURTHER MILITARIZATION OF THE USA AND NATO

IT WILL STALL THE ARMS CONTROL PROCESS, ESPECIALLY IN NUCLEAR FIELED AND THE BMDS, HINDER THE PROCESS OF

CREATION OF A NUCLEAR-FREE WORLD

IT WILL INCREASE THE GLOBAL MILITARY EXPENDITURES

IT WILL BREAK DOWN ESSENTIAL PERSONAL CONTACTS BETWEEN MANY WORLD LEADERS

NEW COLD WAR MAY BE TRANSFORMED INTO A “HOT WAR”


30

The principle of multipolar world and “mutually assured security” should prevail.

The Cold War 2.0 should be stopped and not proliferated into other areas of the globe becoming the Hot War

There is the urgent need to carry out a rational reconstruction of the present-day situation and adapt it

to the new realities in the system of international relations


A special US-Russia’s summit is needed to tackle all these issues with a new US President after his inauguration.

An All-European Security Summit should be also convened to tackle all security-related issues that have direct bearing on

Europe.

EXTRA CHALLENGE: STRONG ANTI-RUSSIAN

WAR-FLAGGING RHETORIC

31

“RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN UKRAINE”

“RUSSIA’S ANNEXATION OF CRIMEA”

“RUSSIA VIOLATED ALL INTERNATIONAL ACCORDS”

“Russia ranks second place between Ebola fever & terrorism (ISIS)”: President Obama

at the UNO, Democratic Party meeting and in Brisbane

“RUSSIA WILL PAY HIGH PRICE” – WHAT FOR?


A potential confrontation between Washington and Moscow could be stronger and deeper than during the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962 and after NATO “dual-track decision”

stamped in December 1979

The difference between the looming military standoff and these two cases is that during a new one the U.S. will have

more interceptors than during 1962 and 1979-1987 confrontation

* * *THE TEMPTATION TO DELIVER THE FIRST NUCLEAR STRIKE AND

PROTECT THE USA & NATO BY MISSILE “DEFENSE SHIELD” IS GREATER THAN IN THESE TWO HISTORIC CASES,

ESPECIALLY WHEN THE NUMBER OF INTERCEPTORS WILL OUTNUMBER THE SOA WARHEADS

“WRITING ON THE WALL”


NEW PHASE OF THE COLD WARIN 2014-2015


The Cold War has not ended by adopting of “The Paris Charter for a New Europe” on

November 21, 1990

A motto on “strategic partnership” between Russia and the USA/NATO announced in

November 2010 in Lisbon is no longer valid

RUSSIAN DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER

SERGEY RYABKOV

34

“Nuclear zero is possible. Even those who at the end of 60s were drafting the fundamental Treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons have been talking about it. … Russia is fully committed to its obligations under Article 6 of the NPT. Russia never

abstained and will never abstain from talking about the nuclear zero”. (Interview with “The Voice of Russia” broadcasting corporation. 28 th May 2013)

«Ядерный ноль» возможен, и об этом говорили даже те, кто в конце 1960-х годов разрабатывал фундаментальный Договор о нераспространении ядерного

оружия… Россия полностью привержена своим обязательствам по статье 6 ДНЯО, никогда не уходила и не будет уходить от разговора о «ядерном ноле».

(Интервью радиовещательной корпорации «Голос России», 28 мая 2013 года)

«



Vladimir P. Kozin – Head of Advisers’ Group, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies,...

Documents

Transcript of Vladimir P. Kozin – Head of Advisers’ Group, Russian Institute for Strategic Studies,...