Download - Russia’s defence RefoRmMinister Serdyukov. However, at the same time, Serdyukov “did not encourage transparency and independent scrutiny, but instead concentrated power and control

Russia’s defence RefoRm

Katri Pynnöniemi fiia BRiefinG PaPeR 126 • march 2013

U L KO P O L I I T T I N EN INS T I T U U T T I

U T R I K E S P O L I T I S K A INS T I T U T E T

THE F I N N I S H I N S T I T U T E OF I N T E R N AT I O N A L AFFA IR S

126

assessinG the Real ‘seRdyuKov heRitaGe’

• TheRussianArmedForcesareundergoingalongandexpensivereform,whichaimsatpreparingthecountrytonewsecurity threats.Thereformswere initiatedduringthe termof the formerministerofdefence,AnatolySerdyukov.HisdismissalinNovember2012initiatedadebateonthefutureofthereforms.

• Asofyet,thechangesmadebythenewministerofdefenceSergeiShoiguarecorrectionstotheexistingplan,andnotanoverallrevisionofitscontours.Themostpronounceddifferenceisashiftinfavourofdomesticmilitaryindustry.

• In its current condition,Russia’s defence industry isnot able to absorb themajor increase inmilitaryspending inanefficientmanner.Fromthe technologicalandmanagerialperspectives,mostofthemilitary-industrialenterprisesfunctionfarbelowtheinternationalaverage.

Russia’s defence RefoRm

fiia Briefing Paper 126

march 2013

assessinG the Real ‘seRdyuKov heRitaGe’

the eu’s eastern neighbourhood and Russia research programme

the finnish institute of international affairs

U L KO P O L I I T T I N EN INS T I T U U T T I

U T R I K E S P O L I T I S K A INS T I T U T E T

THE F I N N I S H I N S T I T U T E OF I N T E R N AT I O N A L AFFA IR S

Katri Pynnöniemi

Researcher


the finnish institute of inteRnational affaiRs 3

Introduction

ThereformofRussia’sArmedForceshasbeenpor-trayedasoneofthesuccessstoriesrealizedbythecountry’s current leadership in the last ten-yearperiod.Thereformwasalsothoughttobeirrevers-ible. The dismissal of Defence Minister AnatolySerdyukovonNovember6,2012,andhisreplace-mentwitharmygeneralSergeiShoigu,theformerMinister of Emergency Situations and governorof theMoscow region,hasunderminedpreviouscertainty.Forbetterorworse,ithasalsosparkedadebateonthefutureofthedefencereform.

Indeed,thedebateinRussiaoverthereal‘Serdyukovheritage’hasbroughttotheforetheinherentweak-nessesofthecurrentpoliticalsystemanditslimitedcapacitytosteersuchamajortransformation.Butmore than anything, the ‘Serdyukov heritage’ isareminderofthefactthatanyreform–howeveressential itmaybe– issubjectto incompletenessandtherecurrenceofallthingsoldinanewform.

Thepurposeofthispaperistoilluminatetherealcontoursofthedefencereform,andthustopointout the key factors that aid in understanding itsincompleteness.ThepaperwillalsoparticipateinthedebateonRussia’smilitaryprocurement,insofarasitpaysattentiontosomerecentchangesinthepoliticalsignificanceofthiscolossaltask.QuestionsrelatingtoRussia’sevolvingsecuritylandscapeandstrategic thinking remain, however, outside thescopeofthispaper.

The defence reform will be polished not reversed

Theimplementationofthe‘NewLook’(Novyi Oblik)reformhasbeenregardedasanessentialstepthatneedstobetakeninordertoprepareRussiafor21stcenturywarfare.ThechangewasoutlinedbyPresi-dentVladimirPutinbackin2006,butthereformprocesswas not activated until after the August2008war with Georgia. Although Russia gainedwhatitwasfightingforinthatconflict,theopera-tionofRussia’sArmedForcesduringthewarwasfarfromsatisfactory.ThereformplanwasformallylaunchedinOctober2008underPresidentDmitryMedvedev’s supervision, andwas set to prepareRussia’sArmedForces for theneedsof local andregionalconflicts,asopposedtolarge-scalemobi-lizationàlaColdWar.

Themaincomponentsofthereform,summarizedintheSwedishDefenceAgencyreport,include:down-sizing of the officer corps, dismantling of emptycadreunits,andtheintroductionofanewcommandsystemaswellasanewarmsbranch.Inaddition,70percentoftheweaponryandequipmentsoftheArmedForces shouldqualify asmodernby 2020.Whatmadethedifferencetopreviousattemptsatreformwasanideato“simultaneouslychangetheorganization, introduce modern command andcontrol technology,and improveproceduresandthecompetenceofofficers”.1

According to an announcementmade byMinis-terSerdyukovinNovember2011,the‘NewLook’reform of the Armed Forces had been fulfilled.Indeed, far-reaching changes have taken place.Yet, for external analysts this conclusion seemspremature as far as the implementation of the‘permanent readiness’ objective and the transi-tiontoa‘non-mobilization’armyareconcerned.Thecritics,amongthemmilitaryanalystRogerN.McDermott,saythatthenewelementsintroducedin the course of the reformprocess are blendedwith “the old army and itsmanifold problems”,and the outcome of the reform is incomplete atbest.2Itisthisincompletenesscharacterizingthereformthatmakesitvulnerabletocallstoreversethewholeprocess.

However,PresidentPutin’smessagetonewDefenceMinister Shoigu has been unambiguous in thisregard.“Thefutureleaderofthisvitallyimportantministry,”Putindeclaredtohimattheirfirstmeet-ingonNovember6,2012,“mustbeabletocontinueall the positive initiatives that have been carriedout in recent years and guarantee the dynamic

1 CVendilPallin,Russian Military Capability in a Ten-Year

Perspective,FOI,2012,p.15;SeealsoAArbatov&VDvorkin,

Novaja Voennaja Reforma Rossii,WorkingPaper2,Carnegie

MoscowCenter,2011.URL:http://carnegieendowment.org/

files/WP2-2011_military_rus.pdf,retrievedonApril5,2012.

2 MCarlssonandJNorberg,‘TheArmedForces’,inCVendil

Palin,opuscited,p.100.RNMcDermott,The Reform of

Russia’s Conventional Armed Forces. Problems, Challenges

and Policy Implications,TheJamestownFoundation,Wash-

ington,2011,p.400.Asimilarargumentwasalsomadeby

Russianmilitaryanalystsinareportpublishedinearly2011.

AArbatovetal.,Novaya Voennaya Reforma Rossii,Carnegie

MoscowCenter.


development of the nation’s Armed Forces”. Heemphasized“mattersthathadnotbeenaddressedforyears”,suchasapay increase forservicemenand solving the housing problem. Later, at theexpandedmeetingoftheMoDBoardon27February2013,Putinacknowledgedthemajorchangesmadetocommandsystemsatthetacticalandoperationallevels, and underlined that the reform processingeneralwasontherighttrack.Thesubsequentchangeswouldnotimplythereversaloftheearlierdecisionbutwouldbeabout“polishingandfine-tuning”,Putinstated.

Butwherewillthis‘fine-tuning’leadthereform?Can the steps taken so farbyShoigubringaboutmorecomprehensiveadjustments toPutin’splanthanwereperhapsoriginallyintended?Andfinally,howdeeplywillthereal‘Serdyukovheritage’–theset of arrangements used in implementing thereform–bere-adjusted?Notallofthesequestionscanbeanswereddirectlyatthemoment.Thispaperfocusesonthelastquestionsinceitcertainlyshedslightonsomeofthemainproblemsofthereformprocess,aswellastheoverallpoliticalconstraintsofthereform.

Thethreespheresthatarecriticalforunderstandingwhatthe‘Serdyukovheritage’isallaboutincludeoutsourcing,themanagementofMoDproperty,andthe implementation of themilitary procurementprogramme.Thefirsttwospheresareatthecoreofthedefencereformasfarasthereorganizationofthearmyunitsandreductioninpersonnelarecon-cerned.However,thethirdspheretouchesontheconflictbetweentheMoDandthedomesticmilitaryindustryovermilitaryprocurement.

ThechangesintroducedbySerdyukovwereaimedat‘optimization’oftheexistingresources,includ-ing minimizing corruption and maximizing theuseofscarcehumanresourceswithintheArmedForces.Interestinglyenough,bothoutsourcingandpropertymanagementwerehandledthroughthestate-rundefenceministrycompany,Oboronservis.ItisthiscompanythatiscurrentlyattheheartofthecorruptionscandalthatledtothedismissalofMinisterSerdyukov.

However, at the same time, Serdyukov “did notencouragetransparencyandindependentscrutiny,but instead concentrated power and control inhimself”, as a recent report on theRussianMoD

concludes.3This latter factormay imply, at leastin theory, that the newminister has significantadministrative leverage over the reform process.However,withhindsight,itissafetosaythatthemethods chosen to implement the objectives ofthe ‘NewLook’reformhavecreatedanewsetofproblems.Itisthispartofthe‘Serdyukovheritage’thatismostdifficult,ifnotimpossible,toaddressunderthecurrentpoliticalsystem.Inthefollowing,thethreemaincomponentsofthisheritagewillbescrutinized.

The ‘Serdyukov heritage’ under review

Outsourcing as a partial fix for a fundamental challenge

For theRussianArmedForces, themaindefencereformissuehasbeentheplannedcutsinthenum-berofofficersandtheshiftfromalargemobiliza-tionarmy toamorecompactbutallegedlymoremobilestructure.Accordingtotheinitialscheme,over90percentofarmyunitsandalmosthalfoftheairforceandnavyunitsweretobeabolished.Inearly2011theoriginalplantoreducethenumberofofficersfrom320,000to150,000wasreversedandthecurrentobjectiveistohave220,000officersintheArmedForces.4Thestepsawayfromthemass-mobilization army towards the ‘NewLook’weredeemednecessarygivenRussia’schangingsecuritylandscapeand the actual scarcityof resources tomaintainthemilitaryinitspreviousform.

Consequently,themostsignificantstructural fac-torbehindthedefencereformisthedemographiccrisisandthepoorstateofpublichealth,whichbothunderminethepurportedgoalofhavingamillionstrongarmy.Between2011and2020, theannualnumberofmenreachingtheageof18willbeonly600,000to700,000.This isatapproximately thesamelevelastheannualrecruitmentraterequiredtoreachthenumericalstrengthofonemillionmen.

3 MCarlsson,The Structure of Power – an Insight into the

Russian Ministry of Defence,FOI,November2012,p.40.

4 MinisterShoiguhaspubliclywelcomedtheideatolookinto

caseswhereanofficerhasbeendischargedunfairlyand

offertheseindividualsachancetoreturntoservice.How

far-reachingthisreversemovementwillbe,isdifficultto

estimateatthemoment.


AnalystshavesuggestedthatthesizeoftheArmedForces is likely to diminish to between 500,000and700,000menby2020.ThisevidentlyalsohasimplicationsforRussia’sabilitytoachievethegoalofcreatingfullymanned,combat-readyunits.5

Giventhissituation,twoissuesshouldbetackledsimultaneously:armyserviceshouldbemademoreattractivetoyoungRussianmen,andtheeffective-nessofthemilitarytrainingshouldbeconsiderablyimproved.Outsourcingwasofferedaspartofthesolution.SinceJanuary1,2012catering,cleaning,electricity,centralheatingandthemaintenanceofhousingandtrainingfacilitieshavebeentransferredto independent commercial companies,many ofwhichweresubsidiariesofthestate-ledcompany,Oboronservis.The ideawas thatby relieving theunitsofnon-corefunctions,suchascleaningandcatering,theeffectivenessofconscripttraining(thedurationofwhichwasreducedtotwelvemonths)could be enhanced. Other changes were alsointroducedinthehopeofattractingmuch-neededspecialists capable of conducting modern, high-technologycombatoperations.6

Thosewhochoosetorejectthispartofthe‘Serdyu-kovheritage’haveemphasizedthattheoutsourcingmodelwas, in itself, detrimental to themilitarycapabilityandonlyfacilitatedtheembezzlementofstatefunds.Inhisfirstinterview,MinisterShoigureferredtoinformationaccordingtowhich35-37percentofthe120,000personnelworkinginclean-ingandcateringare“notcitizensofRussia”,thusimplyingthat theoutsourcingcontributedto theinfluxoflow-paidimmigrantworkers.Accordingtotheminister,thepreferenceinthefuturewouldbetotransferjobsto“thoselivinginthemilitarytowns”. Reportedly, the responsibility for clean-ingthebarrackshasbeentransferredbacktothesoldiers,butinotherrespects,thechangesaimedat‘humanizing’armylifewillbemaintained.7Allinall,

5 MCarlssonandJNorberg,‘TheArmedForces’,inCVendil

Palin,opuscited,p.102-103;MBarabanov‘Kontraktnaya

armiyavazhneekontraktovnazakupkutehniki’,Vedomosti

,26.02.2013.

6 ANikolsky,‘Oboronservis–whatawaitsSerdyukov’slega-

cy’, Moscow Defence Brief 6,2012.

7 ´Reformearmiinuzhenzdravyismysl’,Komsomolskaya

Pravda,10February2013,retrieved13February2013,

http://www.kp.ru/print/26030/2947853.

therestructuringoftheOboronserviscompanywillresultinchangestothecurrentpractices,althoughinprinciple,outsourcingcertain functionstothecommercialsectorwillcontinue.

Property management under Serdyukov

Inessence,thedefencereformisaboutrearrangingtheproperty andpeople that theRussianArmedForceshaveaccumulatedovertheyears.Thispro-cess affects close to onemillion people and callsfortherelocationand‘optimization’ofenormousquantitiesofmilitaryhardware,thousandsofgar-risons,andotherinfrastructure.

Thestate-ledcompanyOboronserviswascreatedin 2008 tomanage the ‘optimization’ ofmilitaryproperty.Ithasover200subsidiariesthatmanagepropertyandrealestate,construction,maintenance,aswellasthegrowthanddeliveryofagriculturalproducts. In November 2008 the company wasgrantedexclusiverightstosellministryrealestate.Thisthecompanydid,focusingespeciallyonprop-erty located in Moscow and St. Petersburg.Theinvestigation intocorruptionatthecompanyhasrevealedthatithasbeeninvolvedinauctioningoffmilitarypropertybelowmarketprices,andinotherschemeswhich,accordingtopreliminaryestimates,haveresultedinaround4billionroublesinlossesforthestate.8

Accordingtomediareports,oneofthebiggestcon-structioncompaniesinRussia,theSU-155,hasbeennamedasoneof thebeneficiariesofdealsunder-taken by Oboronservis. Between 2009 and 2010,theMoDorderednewapartmentsfromSU-155tothetuneof21billionroubles,andinearly2012thesamecompanysecuredanewhousingcontractfor13billionroubles.During2012,thecompanybuiltfouroutoffifteenassignedresidentialbuildingsinMolzhaninovonearMoscow.TheareawaspreviouslyearmarkedfortheIntekocompany(ownedbythewifeoftheformerMayorofMoscow,YuriLuzhko),

8 ISafronovetal.,‘Voentorgokonchen’,Kommersant,7

November2012,retrieved7November2012,http://kommer-

sant.ru/doc/2061535/print;‘Serdyukovapprovedtermsof

Oboronservissales,reportsays’,Moscow Times,February

252013,retrievedMarch18,2013,http://www.themoscow-

times.com/news/article/serdyukov-approved-terms-of-

oboronservis-sales-report-says/476021.html.


andwouldserveasanalternativethoroughfarefortheMoscow-St.Petersburgmotorway.Shouldtheroadbebuilt,thevalueofpropertyinMolzhaninovoislikelytoincrease.9

From theviewpointof themilitary, theproblemwiththis(andother)projectsisthattheresidentialbuildingsbuiltfortheministryareoflowquality,sometimes lack hot water or electricity, or arelocatedininconvenientplaces.Therearealsocaseswhere thebuildingshavebeenconstructedwith-outpermissionaltogetherorcosttwiceasmuchasapartmentsinadjacentareas.Apartfromthepos-sibleembezzlementofgovernmentfunds,thesitu-ationposesseriousobstaclestosolvingthe‘housingproblem’,contrarytoPresidentPutin’sstatementabove.

Duetooftencontradictoryorsimplyunavailablefigures, it is difficult to grasp the dimensions ofthehousingproblemwithanydegreeofaccuracy.Officersdischargedfromservicemayhavewaitedinlineforadecadeforhousingwhich,accordingtothelaw,thestatemustprovideforthemwithinthreemonths.InNovember2007,PresidentPutinorderedthethennewministerofdefencetosolvethematterby2012.Over330billionroubles(9bil-lioneuros)wereallocatedforthistaskin2008,andtheplanwastobuildover300,000newapartmentsfortheministry inthethree-yeartimeframe, inaddition to thealreadyexistingpoolof 226,000apartments.

Accordingtooneestimate,intheperiod2008-2012,130,000 apartmentswere built. Nevertheless, inearly2012almost80,000officerswerestillinlineforhousing.By theendof theyear, thisnumberhad dropped to 33,000, only to climb again by24,000duetopeopleneedinganapartmentin2013.Inhisfirstinterview,MinisterShoiguarguedthatinsteadofmanagingtheconstructionprocessitself,theministry shouldprovide those in linewith amonetarytransferthatwouldallowthemtobuyanapartmentonthepropertymarket.Adecisionhas

9 EMaetnaya&GPetelin‘Vdele“Oboronservisapoyavilis’

stroiteli’,Izvestiya,9January2013.

alreadybeenmadetoallowlump-sumpaymentsforofficers,startingonJanuary1,2014.10

Signals aremixed on the future direction of theMoD’spropertymanagement.ShoiguhasindicatedthatOboronserviswillbereorganized,andrelatedtothis,theministry’spropertymanagementwillbe‘de-commercialized’.Ontheotherhand,thepre-viouspolicylineregardingthemilitarytownshasbeenmaintained.Theirnumberwilldecreasefrom23,000(in2008)tobetween400and500(not200asoriginallyplanned).11

Theresponsibilityforpublicinfrastructures,includ-ingthehousingofofficersandservicemen,heatingsystems,electricityprovidersandother facilitiesin these townswill be transferred from themili-tarytoregionalandmunicipalgovernments.Thisprocess got underway a few years ago and willcontinueunderShoigu’ssupervision.Yet,giventhedire economic straits thatmanyRussian regionsandmunicipalitiesareinatthemoment,coupledwiththelowgrowthprospectsforthefuture,thistransformationmayleadtothefurtherdegenerationofpublicinfrastructuresontheRussianperipher-ies.This,inturn,willcontributetoincreasing,notdecreasing disparity between the rich and poorregionsinthecountry,andgrowingsocialtensions.

The Russian military industry: from oblivion to the centre of politics

Thelastpieceofthe‘Serdyukovheritage’isperhapsthe fundamental one. It concerns the conflict ofinterests between the MoD and Russia’s domes-tic military industry over the implementationof the arms procurement programme.The latter

10 VSolovev‘Voennayareforma2009-2012godov’,Nezavi-

simaya Gazeta,12December2008;EKozichev,‘Chemza-

pomnilsyaAnatolySerdyukovnapostuministraoborony’,

Kommersant,7November2012,retrieved7November2012,

http://kommersant.ru/doc/2061562/print;‘Reformearmii

nuzhenzdravyismysl’,Komsomolskaya Pravda,10Febru-

ary2013,retrieved13February2013,http://www.kp.ru/

print/26030/2947853.

11 TheMinistryofEmergencySituationsisplanningtoturn

someofthepreviousmilitarytownsintooperationalcent-

ers.Emercom,20March,2013,http://www.mchs.gov.ru/

articles/interview/Pressa/item/390302/,retrieved25March

2013.


(GPV-2020)wasacceptedin2010andisworth22.5trillionroubles,about550billioneuros.Thisisasig-nificantincreasecomparedwiththepreviouspro-gramme(until2015),whichwasallocatedaround5trillionroubles(approx.113billioneuros).

Theargumentputforwardbyex-chiefoftheGeneralStaff,GeneralNikolaiMakarov,andDeputyDefenceMinister Vladimir Popovkin, was that the MoDwouldoptforforeignsystemsaslongasthemilitaryindustrywasunabletoprovidesatisfactoryprod-uctsatareasonableprice.Insteadofplacingorderswithdomesticindustry,theMoDsoughtpartnersabroad. It both purchased ready-made westerntechnologiesand initiated jointprojectsbetweenRussianandwesterncompanies,theFrench-builthelicopter carrierMistral being themost famouscase.TheconflictbetweentheMoDandthemilitaryindustryhascontinuouslyledtoasituationwheretheannualprocurementplanhadtoberesolvedatthehighestpoliticallevel.

AfterSerdyukov’sdismissal,speculationsurfacedintheRussianpressthattheMoDhadwantedtobypass the very fundament of Russia’s militaryexport structure: the state-owned arms importand export intermediary Rosoboronexport anditsde factohead,SergeiChemezov.Chemezov isPresidentPutin’sformercolleaguefromDresdenandhehasbeeninstrumentalintheconsolidationof themilitary industry under vertically ownedstatecorporationsthroughoutthe2000s.Currently,he is thehead of theRussianTechnologies StateCorporation(Rostec),whichwascreated in2007andcomprisesover600companies,oneofwhichisRosoboronexport.Rumourhasitthattheunoffi-cialfunctionofOboronserviswastoestablishlinksabroadindependentlyofRosoboronexport.MinisterSerdyukov’sdismissalledtotheabruptdemiseofthisscheme.12

As alreadynoted, corrections and changes intro-ducedbythenewminister,Shoigu,havenotbeenintendedasacomprehensiverevisionofthedefencereform,althoughitmaywellbethatinthecourseof implementation, the ‘Serdyukovheritage’willbe reformed. This is at least the main hypoth-esisvoicedbymanyRussianmilitaryanalysts.But

12 ANikolsky,‘Oboronservis–whatawaitsSerdyukov’s

legacy’,Moscow Defence Brief6,2012.

whenitcomestotheimplementationofthearmsprocurementprogramme and themodernizationofthemilitaryindustry,thesituationseemstobedevelopingtheotherwayaround.

TheDeputyPrimeMinister,DmitryRogozin,whois responsible in theRussiangovernment for thedevelopment of themilitary industry, hasmadeitknownhowdissatisfiedhewaswith theprevi-ousministerandtheexistingpracticesregardingthe implementation of the arms procurementprogramme. Inhisannualreportonthedevelop-ments in themilitary industry,Rogozindeclared2012astheyearoftransitionfrom‘manualcontrol’to‘automaticregime’.Withthis,hewasimplyingthatthetenserelationsbetweentheMoDandthemilitaryindustryneededtonormalize,andthatthetaskofimplementingthemilitaryprocurementplanwouldbecomea‘normalroutine’.Recently,Minis-terShoiguwentsofarastodeclarethattheMinistryofDefencewouldliketoseeotherministriestakingitsplaceinnegotiationswiththemilitaryindustryoverpricesofweaponry.13

Inthesamespeech,Rogozinalsoannouncedthatthemilitaryprocurementorderhadbeenfulfilledby99percentin2012,andby100percentwhenitcametothenuclear industry. Inanotherconnec-tion,Rogozinhas,however,confirmedthatatotalof7,200correctionswererequiredtotheoriginalplanbeforeitwasactuallyfulfilled.

Accordingtoinformationleakedaboutthediscus-sionthat tookplacearoundthesametime intheRussian Duma, only 20 per cent of the existingmilitary-industrialenterprisesevencomeclosetointernationalstandardstechnologically.Overhalfoftheindustryhasalreadygonebeyondthestagewhereitsrevivalwouldmakeanysense,auditoroftheAccountsChamberoftheRFAleksandrPiskunovisreportedtohavesaid.Theformulationofanewprocurementprogrammefortheyears2016-2025,aprocessthatwasinitiatedrecently,couldthereforebereadasanindicatorofproblemsinimplementingthecurrentone.14

13 VKuzminandOPrasolov‘OPKvkadre:Oboronkepoobesh-

chalinovyevozmozhnosti’,March20,2013,retrievedMarch

212013,http://www.rg.ru/2013/03/20/opk-site.html.

14 AGolts,‘Otechestvapoluzashchitniki’,Ezhednevny

Zhurnal ,22February2013.


Russianmilitaryanalystshavepointedoutthatthegapbetweenpublicannouncementsconcerningthemilitaryindustry,anditsactualcapacitytoperform,aredivergingratherthanconverging.Theexcessivesecrecyunderwhichthedefencebudgetisprepareddoesnotallowforindependentscrutinyofthesitu-ationorpublicdiscussionofthesematterstoevolve.ThechairmanofthepresidiumoftheCouncilofFor-eignandDefencePolicy,SergeiKaraganov,recentlyreferredtothealarming“absenceofanacademicand public discussion of military priorities” inRussia. The few ‘liberally-minded’ analysts areoverwhelmedbythoserepresentingtheviewsofthemilitaryindustry,Karaganovwrites.Theabsenceofpublicdiscussionmayleadto“manymistakestobepaidfortoodearly”,heconcludes.15Therhetoricusedtolegitimizetheincreaseindefencespendingisanothercauseforconcern.

Wordssuchas‘saboteur’,‘foreignagent’and‘Gos-plan’16 have special connotations in the Russianpoliticallexicon.Allofthesewordshavereturnedtothepublicsphere,includingdebatesoverdefencereformandthefulfillmentofthearmsprocurementprogramme.ThechoiceofRogozin isnoaccidentinthiscontext.Russia’sformerenvoytoNATOandformerleaderofthenationalistpartyRodina,Rogo-zinisexpectedtoplayoffthenationalistic-patrioticsentimentsandtraditionalthreatperceptionsthatprevailamongthegeneralpublicagainsttheimageofRussiaportrayedbythosewhodonotwanttoseetheRussianmilitaryindustrycapitalizingonitspastsuccess.

TherearetwopossibleandplausibleexplanationsforRogozin’snewrole.First,his task is to speakin favourof themilitary industryand toprovidecoverfortherealrestructuringofthealmost1,400existingdefenceenterprises.Ontheeveofhisthirdpresidential term,Putinblessedtheplantomod-ernize500strategicallyimportantcompaniesinthedefence industryby 2015.Only those companiesinvolvedintheimplementationofthemilitarypro-curementplanmaybeadmittedtothemoderniza-tionprogramme.Implicitinthisdiscussionistheideathattheremainingcompanieswillbeclosed

15 SKaraganov,‘SecurityStrategy:WhyArms?’,Russia in

Global Politics,26October2012.

16 Gosplanwasthecommitteeresponsibleforeconomic

planningintheSovietUnion.

down,althoughanydirectreferencetothispossi-bilityisusuallyavoidedinthepublicdebate.17Somerestructuringisevidentlyongoing,butwhetheritwill leadtoanactualimprovementinproductionperformanceisdifficulttojudge.

TheotherplausibleexplanationisfarsimplerandislinkedtogeneraldevelopmentsinRussianpolitics.StartingwiththeparliamentaryelectionsinDecem-ber2011,thepoliticallandscapeinRussiahasbeendivided into Kremlin supporters and anti-Putinactivists.Rogozinis‘atthefront’toplacatethesitu-ationinthemonotownsontheRussianperiphery,aswell as in the vicinity ofMoscow, by offeringthema‘rayofhope’intheformofdividendsfromthedefencebudget.Eitherway,theKremlintacticmaywork.ButasmanywhohavefollowedRogo-zin’scareersay,hemaybeaskillfuldemagogue,butheisalsounpredictableandthereforeadangerouspoliticianforRussiatohaveatthepresenttime.

In conclusion: greater attention required, not alarmism

ManyRussian liberal politicians or analysts havedrawntheconclusion that the incompletenessofthedefencereformand,morespecifically,thecir-cumstancessurroundingthedismissalofDefenceMinisterSerdyukov,provethatthecurrentpoliticalregimehasexhausteditsresourcesforchange.Thefamous‘FourI’s’slogan–institutions,infrastruc-tures,innovationandinvestments,hailedasessen-tialdriversofchangeatthebeginningofMedvedev’spresidency, is activelyomitted frompresent-daydebates.Thepossibilityoftheevolutionarychangesimagined by Medvedev has been replaced withuncertainty.AnalystsinRussiaareaskingwhetherPutinhasembarkedupona‘revolutionarystrategy’,and is about to undo the ‘corruption for loyalty’scheme, a development that would effectively“underminethepositionofRussia’scurrentruling

17 ‘V.V.Putinprovelsoveshtshanieporealizatsiizadatsh

postavlennyhvjegopredvybornyhstatjahvkatshestvekan-

didatanapostPresidentaRF’,22March2012,http://archive.

premier.gov.ru/events/news/18490/,retrieved18March

2013;‘PrimeministerV.PutinchairsmeetinginKomsomol-

sk-on-Amurongovernmentpolicyonthedefenceindustry’s

developmentto2020andbeyond’,20February2012,http://

archive.premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/18194/,retrieved

18March2013.


class”.18Thus,theweakeningofthestatecapacitytoactuallycarryoutandgovernitsimplementationisthemaincauseforconcernintheRussiandomesticdebate, whether it concerns outsourcing or theintroductionofanewtypeofcontrolmechanism,suchasthe“verticallyintegratedmulti-levelsys-temofautomatedcontrol”.19

Expectations in theWest about Russia’smilitarybuild-up seem to be at odds with the Russiandomesticdebates.TheRussianhabitofannouncingfar-reachinggoalsforreform,anddeclaringthemcomplete before long, has clearly contributed tothe discussion on the heightenedmilitary threatfromRussia.However, thealarmismwithwhichtheincreaseinRussianmilitaryspendinghasbeenmetintheWestseemsmisplaced.Aseriesoffactsderived from the ongoing investigation into thecorruptionscandalattheMoDattestthatRussia’sdefencereformisgoingtobealongandexpensiveprocess.

Inturn,commencingtheserialproductionofnewmodern weapon systems as required under thecurrentarmsprocurementprogrammeremainsanopenquestion.Thisisparticularlypertinentif,assomeanalystshavesuggested,therivalrybetween‘foreign imports’ versus ‘domestic production’ isactuallyabouttheredirectionandmanagementofillicit flows accumulated in this sector.The rela-tivebackwardnessoftheRussianmilitaryindustryclearlydoesnothelp in achieving thepurportedgoalseither.

AsSergeiKaraganovputsitintheabove-mentionedarticle,“themilitarybuildup isexpectedtocom-pensatefortherelativeweaknessinotherrespects– economic, technological, ideological and psy-chological”.Trappedbythis‘theweakgetbeaten’mentalityandsurvivalist strategies,Russia’scur-rentleadershipwillmostlikelycontinuetoconfuseWesternpoliticiansinthefutureaswell.Thereisno

18 KEggert‘Putin’srevolutionarymessagetoRussia’sruling

elite’,RIANovosti,18.01.2013,retrieved15March2013,

http://en.rian.ru/columnists/20130118/178864441/Due-

West-Putins-Revolutionary-Message-to-Russias-Ruling-

Elite.html.

19 SeealsoVLitovkin,‘Armiiprikazanonesharahatsya’,Neza-

visimaya gazeta,28February2013,retrieved8March2013,

http://ng.ru/printed/279538.

foreseeableeasywayoutinthissituation.Therefore,attention to the evolving Russian security land-scapeanddomesticdriversofthereformprocessisrequired,aswellasprofoundknowledgeofthedetails.Butalarmismwouldbeprematuretosaytheleast,ifnotentirelymisplaced.


tel. +358 9 432 7000

fax. +358 9 432 7799

www.fiia.fi

isBn 978-951-769-377-6

issn 1795-8059

cover photo: didier descouens / Wikimedia commons

language editing: lynn nikkanen

the finnish institute of international affairs is an independent

research institute that produces high-level research to support

political decision-making and public debate both nationally

and internationally. the institute undertakes quality control

in editing publications but the responsibility for the views

expressed ultimately rests with the authors.