Category Eastern Europe

Gas Wars

By the way, there is still a very complex conflict in Ukraine. This article does a nice job of summarizing the problem: Russia is Hoping to Freeze Ukraine into Submission

Some major points:

  1. Ukraine has avoided using Russian natural gas for the last two years
  2. It is now a particularly cold winter there and it appears that they will run out of their own gas by the end of February or mid-March.
  3. Therefore, they will probably have to buy from Russia…but….
  4. They owe Russia $3 Billion that Russia loaned to the ousted Yanukovich regime.
  5. Also Gazprom is claiming from Ukraine:
    1. $32 billion for breach of contract lawsuit.
    2. $5.3 billion owed for a take-or-pay clause in their contract.
    3. Bills for sending gas to the separatist regions of Lugansk and Donetsk.
  6. Ukraine is paid $2 billion a year for the transit of Russian natural gas to the EU.

Russia is trying to bill Ukraine for gas delivered to a separatist movement that Russia supported. I am surprised they are not charging them for building the bridge across the Kerch Strait to Crimea (expected to be operational in 2019).

U.S. Relations with Russia

Suspect the basic nature of U.S. relations with Russia is going to be a issue for while. Note that in early December 27 Senators (12 Republicans and 15 Democrats) sent a letter to Trump: “The senators urged Trump to maintain sanctions against Russia “until key provisions of the Minsk Agreement are met,” and, notably, urges providing “defensive lethal assistance” to Ukraine.”

Link: 27-senators-12-republicans-statement-trump-ukraine-russia

Republican Senator John McCain spent this New Years in Kiev: us-ukraine-crisis-McCain

Earlier this week he was in the Baltic States (which are members of NATO).

The Senate is split 52-48 (Republican/Democrat). It takes only a handful of Republican senators working with the Democrats to influence, modify or overturn something they disagree with that the incoming administration would do. Trump, has indicated a more favorable position relative to Russia, as have several of his advisors like Flynn (nominated National Security Advisor) and Tillerson (nominated Secretary of State). This could end up generating an interesting (perhaps behind the scenes) tug-of-war between the President and Congress over our Russian policy. And then there is also the Russian hacking allegations.

…

P.S. A few more quotes from the early December letter written by 27 Senators:

Almost three years after Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and military aggression in eastern Ukraine, daily ceasefire violations along the line of contact make a mockery of the Minsk Agreement and demonstrate that this conflict in the heart of Europe is far from over. 

Quite simply, Russia has launched a military land-grab in Ukraine that is unprecedented in modern European history. These actions in Crimea and other areas of eastern Ukraine dangerously upend well-established diplomatic, legal, and security norms that the United States and its NATO allies painstakingly built over decades.

Tillerson is the one

More rhyming headlines…sorry. Anyhow, looks like  Rex Tillerson, President of Exxon Mobil Corporation has been selected to be our next Secretary of State. Here is his Wikipedia bio: Rex Tillerson

Not much in the bio….he has been with Exxon for 41 years. It appears that this will be his first job since college that is not with Exxon. The most telling things are:

  1. Close ties to Russia and Putin.
  2. Doesn’t like sanctions (not surprising)
  3. Likes free trade (and the TPP)
  4. Suspicious of global warning (not surprising…considering his company)
  5. According to Wikipedia was recommended to Trump by Condoleezza Rice.

Anyhow, nothing really surprising or earthshaking here considering his business. The ties to Russia pose a problem and the hearings should be interesting. This is worth noting: John McCain: Rex Tillerson and Putin

To quote a couple of lines from McCain:

“But Vladimir Putin is a thug, a bully and a murderer, and anybody else who describes him an anything else is lying.”

and

“What about all the other things–right now, the targeting of hospitals by Russian aircraft with precision weapons in Syria, in Aleppo? Those are the kind of questions that we need to ask [Tillerson] about the relationship with Vladimir Putin.”

Senators McCain and Graham have been supportive of Ukraine and hostile to Russia. The Democrats have 48 seats in the Senate. If McCain and Graham were willing to break with the party and break with Trump, and could bring one more Republican senator with them, then they could actually reject Trump’s Secretary of State appointment. I don’t recall that ever happening for a Secretary of State appointment so suspect it is not very likely.

Questions

Well, the election is done. Oddly enough there was a certain degree of continuity in U.S foreign and defense policy from Bush Junior to Obama and it probably would have continued to Clinton. Are we now looking at any fundamental changes? What will be our defense policies?

  1. In Afghanistan
    1. Significantly increase effort?
    2. Slightly increase U.S. effort?
    3. Keep the same?
    4. Decrease U.S. effort?
    5. Disengage?
  2. In Iraq
    1. Maintain current effort after Mosul falls?
    2. Decrease U.S. effort?
    3. Disengage?
  3. With Syria
    1. No fly zones?
    2. Significantly increase effort?
    3. Slightly increase U.S. effort?
    4. Keep the same?
    5. Decrease U.S. effort?
    6. Disengage?
    7. Negotiate settlement with Russia and Assad?
  4. With Ukraine
    1. Significantly increase effort (probably not)?
    2. Slightly increase U.S. effort?
    3. Keep the same?
    4. Decrease U.S. effort?
    5. Disengage?
    6. Negotiate settlement with Russia?
    7. What about Crimea?
    8. What about Lugansk and Donetsk Peoples Republics?
    9. What about sanctions?
    10. What about EU sanctions?
  5. With Russia
    1. Confront more aggressively?
    2. Keep the same?
    3. Try to tone it down?
    4. Reset?
  6. With NATO
    1. Increase commitment (probably not)?
    2. Keep the same?
    3. Decrease U.S. effort?
    4. Force our NATO allies to contribute more?
    5. Disengage because NATO is obsolete?
    6. Negotiate some arrangement with Russia?
  7. What about Georgia?
    1. Encourage NATO to take them as a member (I am guessing not)?
    2. Continue working with them (Partnership for Peace)?
    3. Decrease commitment to them?
    4. Disengage?
    5. What about Abkhazia and Ossetia?
  8. With Iran
    1. Cancel current deal and try to renegotiate?
    2. Keep the same?
    3. Try to work out some overarching deal concerning nukes, Iraq support, and Assad support?
  9. With Yemen
    1. Keep the same (remain disengaged)?
    2. Re-engage to some level?
  10. War on Terror
    1. What additional actions are they going to take against ISIL?
    2. What about Al-Qaeda?
    3. Any other long-term initiatives to forestall the development of groups in the future or stop their attacks?
  11. With the Defense Budget
    1. Increase defense budget? (He has stated that he will increase the army from 480,000 to 540,000).
    2. Keep the same?
    3. I gather we will end sequestration (which is already on hold)?
    4. Who is going to be the Secretary of Defense?
  12. And then there is East Asia (China, the two Koreas, Taiwan, Japan, Philippines, etc.).
  13. With trade
    1. Will TPP be cancelled?
    2. Will TPP be re-negotiated?
  14. Oil and Climate Change
    1. This is an international issue.
    2. Are we going to pump more oil?
    3. Are we going to use more coal (I gather this is the case)?
    4. Will interest and funding for clean energy decline (I gather this is the case)?

I am not sure what President-elect Trump intends to do on any of subjects, although he is probably going to do something on trade.

There are a few articles detailing his plans, like this one: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/trump-defense-plan-detailed

And this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/11/09/four-questions-about-how-trump-would-affect-the-military-industrial-complex/

But at this juncture, we really do not know what our future defense policy will be.

Yet Another Tank Comparison

The National Interest just posted up another tank comparison article comparing the Russian T-14 to the Japanese Type 10 to the U.S. M-1: Russia’s T-14 Armata tank vs Japan’s Type 10 and America’s M1

I have a few comments:

  1. First, they actually don’t really compare their potential combat performance relative to each other, it is just a discussion of the three tanks in one article. This could have easily have been three separate articles.
  2. Not sure these tanks will face each other in the near future:
    1. The Amata could face an M-1 if we supply them to Ukraine or Georgia and they clash with Russia. Right now, they do not have M-1’s.
      1. Ukraine is using T-64s, T-72s, T-80s and T-84s, all Soviet designs or Ukrainian updates to Soviet designs. Ukraine is exporting T-84s.
      2. Georgia is using T-72s modified with the help of Israel.
    2.  The Amata could face an M-1 if Russia intervenes somewhere else in the world (Russian intervention away from its border areas is fairly rare…..Syria not withstanding).
    3. There is armed conflict between NATO and Russia (not very likely).
    4. I do not think there are any plans to export Moscow’s latest high-tech tank.
    5. Amata could face a Type 10 if Russia conflicts with Japan (again, not very likely).
    6. If Japan sell its tanks to other nations (has never happened before) than then they could later conflict with Russia.
    7. The Type 10 and M-1 facing each other is very unlikely.
  3. The T-14 is going to be around for a while. There are only 100 Amata’s slated for production right now. In light of the economy, we shall see if they get around to manufacturing the other 2,200.
  4. It is interesting that both Russia and Japan went with lighter tanks. This trend is noted but not analyzed.
  5. Otherwise it is a decent article.
  6. Perhaps The National Interest should do an article comparing the T-14 to the T-72 and T-84. This is a more likely scenario (not sure if they follow this blog).

 

 

What does A2/AD look like?

r2d2

A2/AD stands for anti-access/aerial denial. There is a recently published article from The National Interest that laid out a potential scenario concerning such an effort in the Baltic Sea. It is only 4-pages and makes for a good read: Entering the Bear’s Lair: Russia’s A2/D2 Bubble in the Baltic Sea

There are a number of NATO members on the Baltic Sea: Denmark, Germany, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Non-NATO members are Sweden, Finland and Russia.

Kaliningrad is part of Russia. It is the old German city of Konigsberg and surrounding former Prussian territory. It was given to the Soviet Union at the end of World War II and they attached it to Russian SFSR (which became the independent country of Russia in 1991). The Kaliningrad Oblast had a population of 941,873 in 2010. It is named after the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Mikhail Kalinin (1975-1946), one of the original Bolsheviks.

baltic

This keys off of the previous post by Shawn about the “Third Offset Strategy,” of which A2/AD is a part of.

Count of Russian Combat Troops in Ukraine

An interesting article from Forbes: Russian Combat Medals

Forbes articles tend to be pretty negative on Russia, but it is no secret that Russia had moved into Ukraine its troops, or its contractors, or Russian volunteers (a word that has had interesting connotations in Soviet history).

A few points:

  1. According to one source, 167 regular troops killed, 187 MIA (missing in action), with 305 mercenaries killed and 796 MIA. Most MIA are likely KIA. So maybe 1,455 Russians killed in fighting in Ukraine. I gather this is a pretty reliable listing of people.
  2. Society of Russian Mothers (this organization has been around for a while) says up to 3,500 KIA.
  3. Malaysian airlines flight MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile system operated by a Russian crew (is there really any other reasonable interpretation of this event?).
  4. 4,300 medals awarded “For Distinction in Combat” between 11 July 2014 and February 2016, over 10,000 medals for bravery awarded.
  5. If there are five troops per every one that receives a medal, then one could guesstimate 50,000 Russian troops having served in Ukraine between July 2014 and February 2016.

Anyhow, I have not checked all the various estimates on Russian intervention in Ukraine, and compared and contrasted them, so no sense of how accurate this is. I do note that this is 1,455 killed out of 50,000 involved or almost 3%. This is pretty high. When you add in wounded then you are looking an overall casualty figure that may be as high as 10,000. Of course, the “tooth-to-tail” ratio is very skewed, as most of the support troops would be just across the border in Russia. Anyone have better estimates?

Scandinavia and the Baltics

During the Cold War Sweden and Finland were two nations that were democratic and independent but were neutral and not part of NATO. Norway and Denmark were a part of NATO since 1949 and the three Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) were part of the Soviet Union since 1940. Now the three Baltic states are part of NATO as of 2004 and Sweden and Finland are establishing ties to NATO.

An article on Finland from Michael Peck:   Finland: America’s Next Top Ally?

Article on Lithuania: Ground Zero in the new Cold War

Entirely irrelevant article on Norway: More than 300 reindeer killed lightning in Norway

Just a little demographics: the population of Scandinavia is around 27 million people, that is 5 million in Norway (which has a per capita income higher than the U.S.), 10 million in Sweden, 5.5 million in Finland, over 5.5 million in Denmark, plus Iceland and the Faroe Islands. The population of the three Baltic states is around 6 million people (and includes four major languages, including Russian). The population of Russia is 144 million (with 5 million in St. Petersburg and less than a million in the Kaliningrad Oblast).

We have sold the rights to use our combat model, the TNDM (Tactical Numerical Deterministic Model) to Sweden and Finland. We have never the rights to use the combat model to a NATO member.

Lawyers at War

There is a new dimension in warfare: legal. For example: Ukraine taking Russia to Court

Ukraine is taking Russia to court in multiple venues. This includes the multiple cases in the International Court of Justice in the Hague and the European Court of Human Rights. Not sure how this all plays out, but in the end, there has to be some additional cost to Russia if the judgments go against it. It is not like the bad old days when one could march into the Rhineland, annex Austria and take the Sudetenland facing only international condemnation. Now one has to deal with law suits!!! I gather these things are going to drag on for years.

Putin Step Backs

This article had appeared on numerous sites as “Putin Steps Back from Brink of War with Ukraine.” The original article is here: After Crimea incursions Russia and Ukraine step back from all out war

A couple of interesting points here:

 1. He actually has a section called “Metrics.” This is so nice to see. It should be required in all articles about military affairs.

2. “Ukraine has about 100,000 troops deployed in its eastern territories.”

3. “This is roughly on par with the 45,000 pro-Russian separatists and regular Russian troops deployed inside eastern Ukraine and the approximately 45,000 Russian troops staged across the border in western Russia.”

4. “Ukraine has about 10,000 troops deployed in southern territories near the Crimean border; Ukrainian officials estimate Russia has about 45,000 military personnel inside occupied Crimea.” (I would note that a significant of these are naval personnel)

Decent article from Mr. Nolan Peterson.