Category Russia

Flynn is inn

Sorry…..could not resist the cheesy rhyming headline. It looks like Lt. General Michael T. Flynn is going to be nominated as the head of the National Security Council. I don’t know what to make of all the stories positive and negative about him by the various left and right talking heads…..but he did recently publish a book. His “Conclusions” is mostly readable on-line at Amazon.com. Would recommend reading it before reaching any conclusions:

https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250106222/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

It starts on page 157 and goes to page 180, with several pages missing in between. Chapter 4: “How to Win” is not available on-line.

Now, the National Security Advisor is just that: an advisor. They actually don’t run much. Foreign Policy is handled by the State Department, Defense Policy is handled by the Secretary of Defense (neither which are appointed right now). As the National Security Advisor is the person who regularly (daily?) briefs the president on what is going on the world, they often are very influential. Some, like Henry Kissinger, eclipsed the Secretary of State. Some were not near as visible. It really depends on the person and his relationship with the president. This can also change over time.

Lt. General Michael T. Flynn

Lt. General Michael Flynn was the head of DIA for two years before he was fired (2012-2014). I gather he is close to Trump on foreign and defense policy and is in line to be the next National Security Advisor (the next Kissinger…or next Scowcroft, or next Brzezinski, or next Powell or next Rice).

His Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_T._Flynn

He does have a book that was just released. A significant amount of it is actually readable on the Amazon.com site: https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250106222/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Click on the “look inside” section and flip through pages 157 to 180  (“Conclusion”). Most of that chapter is there.

His co-author’s bio is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Ledeen

Multiple other articles on him are here:

  1. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/donald-trump-general-michael-flynn-vp-225253
  2. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/michael-flynn-donald-trump.html?_r=0
  3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/09/15/michael-flynn-trumps-military-adviser-says-colin-powells-emails-include-really-mean-things/
  4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/08/15/trump-adviser-michael-t-flynn-on-his-dinner-with-putin-and-why-russia-today-is-just-like-cnn/

I am sure there is a lot more.

 

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.

Russian Fleet Strength

The Carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and the Battle Cruiser Peter the Great are the only two ships of that size in the Russian fleet (keying off the previous post). One source places their active strength at:

1 Carrier (58,660 tons displacement) – commissioned 1990

1 Battle Cruiser (28,000 tons) – commissioned 1998

3 Cruisers (12,500 tons) – commissioned 1982-1989

14 destroyers (7,570 – 7,940 tons) – commissioned 1982-1999

1 Kashin class destroyer (4,390 tons) — commissioned 1969

6 Frigates (3,575 – 4,400 tons) – commissioned 1980-2016

5 Large corvettes (2,2000 tons) — commissioned 2008-2014

Lots of landing ships, smaller corvettes (less than 1,000 tons), auxiliary ships, intelligence ships, patrol boats, minesweepers, landing craft, and of course, submarines: 7 Cruise missile submarines (19,400 tons), 18 attack submarines (7,250 – 13,800 tons), 2 special-purpose submarines and 13 “boomers” (ballistic missile submarines).

The Admiral Kuznetsov Adventure

The super-stealthy Admiral Kuznetzov passes stealthily through the English Channel near Kent Credit: Jim Bennett for The Telegraph
The super-stealthy Admiral Kuznetsov passes stealthily through the English Channel near Kent (Jim Bennett for The Telegraph)

A Russian naval flotilla of seven ships, including the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and battle cruiser Peter the Great, steamed through the English Channel today under the watchful eyes of the British Royal Navy. The squadron is on a voyage from Severomorsk, the home of the Russian Northern Fleet, to the coast of Syria to help provide air support for the regime of Bashar Assad against the forces of Syrian rebels and Daesh fighters.

The deployment is viewed as more of a politically symbolic show of force than a meaningful military contribution. The Kuznetsov carries just 15 Su-33 and MiG-29 fighter/bombers and is capable of only limited flight operations. This will provide meager augmentation for Russian aircraft already operating from Syrian airbases.

The Kuznetsov's projected course from Russia to Syria. {BBC)

This will mark the carrier’s first combat mission, although it has been deployed to the Mediterranean Sea four times previously, in 1995, 2007, 2012, and 2014. The U.S. Sixth Fleet monitored the Kuznetsov‘s 2012 voyage closely, out of concerns that the aged and problematic vessel might suffer mechanical troubles sufficient to cause it to sink, requiring a complex rescue operation. Such concerns were validated when the Kuznetsov‘s boilers “blew out” off the coast of France on it’s return voyage, and the ship had to be taken under tow by an accompanying Russian ocean-going tug.

The present squadron also includes a tug, a practice that appears to have become standard Russian Navy procedure in recent years.

Russia Plans for $40 Oil

Part of the drama of the Russia budget shortfalls is that they kept making budgets based upon an unrealistically optimistic predictions of oil prices. This forces them to revise their budgets rather drastically during the year. It appears they have finally accepted that oil prices are going to be around $40 a barrel for a while and have planned their budget accordingly: Russia budget oil price

A few points:

  1. This is for the next three years and even though oil is currently at $50 a barrel.
  2. There current budget deficit is 3.7% of GDP and is expected to remain above 3% for next year. To put this in perspective the U.S. has had a budget deficit greater than 3% a year from 2008 through 2013.
  3. Cash reserves were $91.7 billion in September 2014…now expected to be $15 billion at the end of this year.
  4. Energy now only accounts for 37% of all government revenues, vice the 50% it used to be. I gather that this is because energy revenues have precipitously declined, not because they have developed other significant sources of revenue.

 As the article notes at the end: “Eurasia Group analysts say the government is still opting for more austerity rather than genuine economic reform.”

 

M-1 versus Russia’s T-90 and China’s Type 99 Tank

Another interesting comparative article from The National Interest: China’s Deadly Type 99 Tank vs Russia’s T-90 and America’s M-1 Abrams: Who Wins?

A few points they make:

  1. The U.S. has the better gun.
  2. The U.S. has the better armor.
  3. The U.S. tank has more crew (this is a good thing).
  4. The U.S. tank is heavier (this is not a good thing).
  5. They do claim the Chinese Type 99 may be better protected due to its multi-layered defensive systems.
  6. The U.S. tank does not have a Laser Warning Receiver.
  7. The U.S. tank does not have Active Protection Systems.
  8. The U.S. tank does not have Explosive Reactive Armor.
  9. The U.S. tank does not have a “dazzler” laser to blind other gunners.

A few points for further comment:

  1. They state: “Moscow currently maintains good relations with Beijing, with which it shares a border, but the two powers are not close allies, having nearly come to war during the late 1960s.”
    1. They did have multiple engagements in 1969, including two actions that were at least company sized. We were not able to find anything of more significance. See our report SS-1: An Analysis of the 1969 Sino-Soviet Conflict. Link to our report listing: TDI Reports 1992-present
    2. I am not sure they had “nearly come to war” during that time.
  2. They state: “The Abrams, of course, is the classic American design which devastated Soviet-made Iraqi armor in the 1991 Gulf War without losing a single tank to enemy fire.”
    1. We were facing Soviet-built T-72s
    2. Not sure what has been publically released on this, but according to the rumors I have heard, it was truly one-sided. The M-1 was notably superior in firepower and sensors and T-72’s armor protection was deficient.
    3. The T-90 is a descendent of the T-72.

Russian Duma Elections

state_duma_election_2016_svg

As the vote counts are being finalized for this election held 18 September, we have the following results for the Russia legislative elections (the Duma):

  1. United Russia (Putin’s party) = 54% of popular vote
    • 343 seats, up from 238 in 2011.
  2. Communist Party (yes, those dinosaurs) = 13%
    • 42 seats, down from 92 in 2011.
  3. Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (mad Vladimir Zhirinovskii’s party) = 13%
    • 39 seats, down from 56 in 2011.
  4. A Just Russia (a moderate, well-behaved reformist party) = 6%
    • 23 seats, down from 64 seats in 2011.

Two other seats are held by two other parties. Fourteen parties participated in the election. Duma members serve for 5 years (next Duma election is in 2021).

A significant part of the story though is voter turn-out. In the bad old days of the Soviet Union, voter turn-out used to be very high. Even in 1990 (under Gorbachev) it was 77%. It was 60.1% in 2011. It was 47.88% in this election (and there is some question about this figure). It is the lowest turn-out figure to date. In the two major cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg turn-out was low. For Moscow it was less than 35%, down from 66% in 2011. This is worth noting. There were no major post-election protests, unlike in 2011. Crimea did vote in the Russian election.

Several opinion polls from September shows United Russia with 39.3 to 43% of the vote and two exit polls show it with 44.5 and 48.4% of the votes. There were some voting irregularities reported. United Russia won 54.2% of the popular vote in an election of with a turn-out of 47.88%.

United Russia now has 343 out of 450 seats in the Duma. This is 76% of the seats. Half the seats were elected based upon proportional voting based upon party lists and half were elected based upon single-member constituencies. This was a change from the 2011 elections. United Russia does have a “supermajority” which now allows them to unilaterally change the constitution. This is probably a very important point. For all practical purposes, Russia is now a “single-party democracy.”

From 1999 to 2013 the Russian economy boomed at unprecedented levels. From 2014 to the present, it has been in decline. Next election is the presidential election of March 2018.