"Mr. Ivashov, your forecasts of what is going on with Russia's defensive ability, and generally your views of Russia's current position in the world are very pessimistic and critical. You said that Russia has lost all allies during the recent years. Who we our allies, except for our army and navy?"
"You know, when we talk about allies, we do not necessarily have only the military component in mind. When it goes about allies, it goes about, above all, the geopolitical level ....Allies support our foreign and domestic policies. Previously, there was not only the Warsaw Pact, but also the so-called Non-Aligned Movement - more than 100 countries in the world with the vast majority of the world's population. They were, in fact, supporters of our foreign policy. Wasn't the Islamic world our ally before December 1979? China as a socialist state was our ideological ally.
"The situation with China is difficult, because, on the one hand, you say that China is our ally..."
"A geopolitical ally."
"Yes. On the other hand, China is very interested in our territory. Why does China sometimes with America make decisions behind Russia's back?"
" ... You know, China has its own geopolitical project, America and Europe have their own projects too. Everyone has their own geopolitical doctrines. What does Russia have? Does it have its own project, its own vision of the world? In general, what role does Russia want to play? There is no project. We rush between North America, Europe and China. They are three leading centers, they form global historical processes. And in essence, they struggle with each other."
"What do they struggle for?"
"The Americans in their national security strategy identified three main objects, for which they struggle. They are key regions of the world, usually at the crossroads of civilizations, marketing communications and global resources, especially energy resources. And if Russia takes the position of a seller of raw materials and does not aspire to anything else, then it is only Russia that drove itself into this corner."
"Well, Russia had to take this position. At first we destroyed everything, let Americans in everywhere."
"By the mid-90s, we rolled down to the status of a raw power, but now we are a raw colony. Here is the degradation of our geopolitical status. And, therefore, we do not enjoy anyone's respect because there is nothing to respect us for, except for past achievements. Because we ape: We buy arms in the West, then in Israel and so on. We play the ape."
"Mr. Ivashov, everything turns out to be so fine when you say it. There used to be a fair socialist society and a brutal capitalist one. They used to scare us with stories of homeless sleeping in the streets. When there was the Iron Curtain, we were more or less ok, we lived the way we lived. And then it turned out that in that violent society there was delicious food, all kinds of music, clothes and other great things that we never had. When the curtain fell, there was so much visual appeal that we just cried, we wanted to be like them. But we are talking about geopolitics and military matters right now. Do we have a military doctrine today? Have our potential adversaries been defined?"
"The last doctrine, signed by Mr. Medvedev, - God forbid ... Yes, there is a doctrine, but it does not have such words as "strategy", "operation", "offensive". Therefore, we have no offensive or defensive operations. There is only terrorism left there. It is all very uncertain ...
"Uncertainty about what? About a terrorist threat, a nuclear threat, a climate threat?"
"No. There is no certainty at all. What is going to happen, for example, by the middle of the 21st century - what the world will be like, what the economy will be like, what the international security system will be like? It does not say whether anyone can guarantee safe development to the country. Nothing."
"What has recently changed in the American military doctrine?"
"In America, it is all vice versa. On October 18, 2003, Bush signed a directive on the concept of Prompt Global Strike. A priority was not a first massive nuclear strike, but a strike with the use of high precision technologies. Glide bombs then finish it off and a country is presented with an ultimatum. If this country does not agree, it will repeat all over again. It is clear that the first target for this potential attack is Russia. But Russia - accidentally or not - may launch its strategic nuclear arsenal. To avoid this, nuclear facilities need to be destroyed first. In 2011-2012, the concept was amended."
"But is it justified? Americans, their policies are based on the fact that they are very far to reach."
"To attack China or Russia, cruise missiles will be used. A third of them come with nuclear warheads. Nowadays, four-class "Ohio" submarines, the largest American subs, that had 24 intercontinental ballistic missiles on board, are being reequipped. They remove the ICBMs and replace them with 158 cruise missiles on each sub. The same thing happens to "Virginia" subs. They develop a strategic cruise missile, the range of which will be not less than 5,000 kilometers. Its speed will be equal to two sonic speeds. It will be the type of arms that no one will be able to destroy - neither Russia, nor China or anyone else."
"Let's go back to our military doctrines. In the past, during the Soviet era, there was a military doctrine, our potential adversaries were identified. Do we now have a general understanding of our place?"
"I'll offer the new defense minister to abandon the nuclear deterrence factor. Relying on strategic nuclear forces no longer meets reality. Yes, strategic nuclear forces played the role of a deterrent factor when we had equal potentials of conventional arms with Americans. Today we lag behind them, therefore, to deter large-scale aggression, tactical nuclear weapons will have to play the role of the deterrent. These weapons should constantly be aimed at the United States, because it is the most vulnerable territory in the world. Keeping this territory at gunpoint - this will be a deterrent."
"But is it real to do it now?"
"It's quite possible."
"Do we have to rebuild it all in Cuba or anywhere else?"
"There are places, yes. Above all, we need our own geopolitical doctrine. Whatever we may think of ourselves today, we are a potential victim for both the West and the East if we act alone. We need to reformat the world so that we once again have our place in this world. Nowadays, the West, the East, Latin America and Africa realize that one can not live like this. No one will offer another way to live and develop. We, Russian thinkers, our Academy of Geopolitical Problems, are ready to offer a project like that, and I believe, it will be supported. Today, the planetary forecast is catastrophic, and we can offer a way out of this disastrous scenario."
"Whom do you offer these solutions?"
"For the General Assembly of the United Nations, we propose to change the structure of the Security Council. The time, when the victors in World War II were playing the first fiddle, has passed. In the renewed council, representatives of the world's ethnic and cultural civilizations should act as permanent members. They are ambassadors from North America, Europe, Latin America, China, India, the Islamic world, the African Union and, of course, Russia. This is how we see it. We need to have powerful allies today in the face of world civilizations. And the next step is to develop the Euro-Asian continental union, which includes Russia, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Mongolia within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization."
Inna Novikova
by Russia Today
In an interview in Russia Today, retired General Leonid Ivashov stated that the European Union's decision to lift the arms embargo to the Syrian rebels is only formal, since armaments were sent to Syria before from many countries, despite all the restrictions. Ivashov also said that Russia is being subjected to international pressure, to prevent the victory of the Assad government, and he called such tendencies fascist.
What follows is a paraphrase of Ivashov's comments as translated from Russian:
Ivashov says that the supply of arms to the rebels is a geopolitical operation. The first lie upon which this is based is that what is going on in Syria is a spontaneous process. It's a pre-planned operation, lavishly financed, lavishly supplied with weapons, and with an uninterrupted flow of soldiers. Every day more than 500 of them are coming from camps in Turkey, from the Persian Gulf, etc. This is a war. It is a war in which all the EU countries are participating — the UK, France are fully participating in this war. They are criminals. They are putting on the appearance of lifting the arms embargo, at the same time that they are putting pressure on Russia. The UN Secretary General, U.S. Secretary of State, Prime Minister of Great Britain, Prime Minister of Israel, all are putting pressure on Russia.
What bothers us the most is that this policy is beginning to take on an outright fascist character. They are hypocritically saying that they are lifting the embargo, but in fact all they have done is to legalize the secret flow of munitions to the opposition. This is drawing all of Europe into this aggressive war.
What is the opposition? There is no single leader. They tried to create a nucleus of the opposition in Turkey, inviting ministers who had fled from Syria, but they refused to be the leader, seeing that it is not a political opposition, but just soldiers, and many of them not even Syrian citizens.
If Geneva II occurs, the Syrian opposition, as of now, will be represented by at least three delegations. They have no single leader to represent them.
Ivashov was also asked: How do you account for the differing views of the U.S. and Russia after the meeting with Kerry in Moscow?
He replies that the U.S. has a double standard. Kerry is a new Secretary of State; he came to Russia, discussed a Geneva conference. Russia asserted its principles: 1) stop the fighting, 2) come to the negotiating table.
But now, Kerry, or some others in the United States, are doing everything they can to prevent the conference from occurring.
Assad is willing to have elections with international monitoring. He has said that since the start of the conflict. He would be willing to give up his post. But the opposition would have absolutely no chance of winning the election. Either Assad would win, or one of his close associates. The opposition has destroyed homes, families, universities, and worst of all, tens of thousands of people [sic]. They would be smashed. Assad knows this very well.
They want to install a fascist regime in the interests of the West. We need to have a principle of balance here. If the West officially provides massive armament to the opposition, we would have to increase our armaments to the Syrian government, along with China and other countries that want to see peace and independent development of countries. We have to stand firmly for peace, otherwise tomorrow the war will come to Russia. Fascists are now coming to power in the West. And they are beginning to dominate.
Feb. 11 (LPAC)—In an interview published Feb. 10 by km.ru, Gen. Leonid Ivashov, the former foreign relations head of the Russian Ministry of Defense and current president of the Academy of Geopolitical Studies, issued a sharp warning about the nature of the strategic crisis unfolding in Ukraine:
"Apparently they [officials of the European Union and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry] have dedicated themselves, and continue to do so, to deeply and thoroughly studying the doctrine of Dr. Goebbels. . . They present everything backwards from reality. It is one of the formulas which Nazi propaganda employed most successfully: ... They accuse the party that is defending itself, of aggression. What we are seeing in Ukraine and in Syria is a western project, a new kind of war: in both places you see a clear anti-Russian approach, and as is well known, wars today begin with psychological and information warfare operations. . .
"I assume that the Foreign Ministry understands that we are at war, and that wars have their laws. . . After the information war, they are preparing a land and sea in Ukraine. Kerry and Obama are encouraging in Kiev what they harshly repress in their country. European leaders break up unauthorized demonstrations with hoses, throwing demonstrators in jail, while in the Ukrainian case they do the exact opposite, and on top of that they threaten Russia. Logically, this is part of information warfare.
"Keep in mind that, under the cover of information commotion, U.S. ships are entering the Black Sea, that is, near Ukraine. They are sending marines, and they have also begun to deploy more tanks in Europe. . . After the information war, they are preparing for an operation by land and sea. Possibly also by air.
"The scenario could be the following: drive Ukraine to the breaking point, blame Yanukovich and Russia for everything, to then say that NATO can't simply sit by as a mere spectator, and then send its troops into to return order. Then a transitional government would be formed, as happened in Iraq and Kosovo, and NATO would take control of everything. Historical experience shows we have lived through similar situations. But before that they will need to justify the aggression with information warfare. . .
"They haven't even taught [opposition leaders] Klitchko, Yatsenyuk and Tyahnybok to run a government efficiently. The main thing is for them to take power, and destroy the Ukrainian state."
“Apparently they [officials of the European Union and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry] have dedicated themselves, and continue to do so, to deeply and thoroughly studying the doctrine of Dr. Goebbels. . . They present everything backwards from reality. It is one of the formulas which Nazi propaganda employed most successfully: . . . They accuse the party that is defending itself, of aggression. What is happening in Ukraine and Syria is is a project of the West, a new type of war: in both places you see a clear anti-Russian approach, and as is well known, wars today begin with psychological and information warfare operations. . . Kerry and Obama are encouraging in Kiev what they harshly repress in their country. European leaders break up unauthorized demonstrations with hoses, throwing demonstrators in jail, while in the Ukrainian case they do the exact opposite, and on top of that they threaten Russia. Logically, this is part of information warfare.
“Keep in mind that, under the cover of information commotion, U.S. ships are entering the Black Sea, that is, near Ukraine. They are sending marines, and they have also begun to deploy more tanks in Europe. . . We see that on the heels of the disinformation operation a land-sea, and possibly air operation is being prepared.
“They haven’t even taught [opposition leaders] Klitchko, Yatsenyuk and Tyahnybok to run a government efficiently. The main thing is for them to take power, and destroy the Ukrainian state.”
Currently in the Ukraine, there is a parliament in Kiev and a parliament in Kharkov. The parliament stripped Yanukovych of his powers and impeached him but he says they dont have the powers to do that and refuses to step down. The latest reports have the President in Donetsk. There is actually no single person in charge over there. It’s chaos. Everything about the ‘rebellion’ reeks of western puppetry and fascism. Everything about the Yanukovych supporters of course reeks of Russia. The Crimea is having massive protests right now in the streets because they want to join in union with Russia. And Russia has stated it is prepared tosend in troops to protect ethnic Russiansof which there is 7-8 million of in Ukraine. Things are very fluid and changing hourly. Stay tuned.
Leonid Ivashov
Ivashov on the Army and Putin
Leonid Ivashov recently talked to Narodnyy politolog on a variety of army topics including reforms, the possibility of a big war, rearmament, president-elect Vladimir Putin, and his military program. Segodnia.ru also printed the interview.Once Russia’s top military diplomat, now avowed geopolitician, the former three-star thinks Putin fears externally-driven regime change and is improving the army to forestall such an eventuality. Ivashov sees a U.S.-led West depriving Russia of allies before focusing on Russia itself.
Asked about army reforms, Ivashov says they have succeeded in cutting forces, but not in rearming them or improving their social conditions. Reforms have degraded and weakened the army. Military men mock the New Profile reforms saying, “There’s a profile, but not armed forces.” Ivashov calls reforms craziness, and says it’s like servicemen have lived in a house under continuous repair for 25 years.
Following up his comment on mobilization reserves cut to the bare minimum, NPasked the retired general-colonel if a big war is possible today.
Ivashov says yes. Citing how “they” are beating up Russia’s strategic allies (Syria and Iran), he says “What is this if not war?”
Ivashov foresees a large conflict between the U.S. and China and possible spinoff regional and local wars. He cites a Chinese specialist who calls for a Russian-Chinese alliance to deter a big war and curb the appetite of the West and international oligarchs.
Is Russia ready for such an eventuality? Ivashov answers:
“I think Putin understands perfectly how military weakness and the absence of strategic allies can be the end for Russia. Clearly, the Libyan situation ‘helped’ him understand this, just like what is happening now in Syria, and what they are preparing for Iran. If you can’t defend the country, you are subjecting yourself to a great risk personally.”
“Now Putin is making a sharp turn to the side of strengthening defense capability. One can only welcome this. Because today they don’t simply beat the weak, they destroy them.”
Ivashov calls Putin’s military program ambitious, if not systematic. The regime’s been in a “light panic” since Libya.
He intimates that more than 20 percent of the state armaments program will be stolen since the amount of theft cited by the military prosecutor covers only cases under investigation, not all corruption.
Ivashov suggests lobbying has replaced forecasts of future military actions as the driver of arms procurement.
The case of Mistral, which one wonders where it will be built and how it will be used, Ivashov says well-connected lobbyist structures ensure what gets produced is exactly what their enterprises make. He was somewhat encouraged that Putin, at Sarov, entertained turning to specialists and experts to examine the army’s requirements.
On GPV 2020, Ivashov concludes it’ll be a serious step forward if only half of what’s planned gets produced, but it can’t be equipment designed in the 1970s and 1980s. He sees OPK production capacity problems too. He questions whether Votkinsk can produce 400 solid-fueled ballistic missiles by 2020.
Returning to the big war, he questions a focus on defensive operations for Russian conventional forces, saying offensive capabilities are needed to deter potential enemies. He claims reduced force structure and mobilization capability have become a joke in the General Staff:
“The main problem for the Chinese in a conflict with us is not defeating our brigade, but finding it.”
Ivashov’s just a little up in arms over the armor situation. He all but accuses the General Staff Chief of being a paid (or bribed) lobbyist for foreign tank and armored vehicle makers. He suggests that Army General Makarov should be placed in cuffs if he says the Leopard-2 is better than the T-90 [what about Postnikov then?], and the Main Military Prosecutor should investigate him.
So what is to be done first and foremost to strengthen the country’s defense capability today?
Ivashov replies get rid of Serdyukov and Makarov who have done great damage, and strengthen cadres in the OPK and military by replacing “managers” with those who can apply military science (as Ivashov was taught) to the problem of developing new weapons.
The always provocative Ivashov doesn’t venture whether he thinks the current emphasis on defense capability will continue or have the intended results. He seems sincerely to believe in a possible Western intervention in Russia’s internal affairs. But it’d be more interesting to hear him talk about whether the army would fight for Putin’s regime in something less than that maximal contingency. Ivashov, unlike some critics of Russia’s defense policy, shies away from blaming the once-and-future Supreme CINC for at least some of the current military state of affairs.
Leonid Ivashov
Ex-GU MVS Chief, retired General-Colonel Leonid Ivashov was apparently either asked or inspired to comment recently on the revolutions in North Africa. And his comments got some press play beyond the blog where they originally appeared. Ivashov is an inveterate conservative who always has sharp jabs for the U.S., NATO, and globalization. But he’s an interesting guy whose anti-Western commentaries usually end up criticizing the Kremlin and Russian policies as well.
They apparently asked Ivashov whether Russia needs to fear a repetition of Tunisian, Egyptian, or Libyan events. He goes on for a couple paragraphs with his view that the Arab world’s lagging behind in economic and social development explains what happened in North Africa. Then he turns to its relevance for Russia:
“The situation is much more complex in Russia. A revolution here is unavoidable. It will become an attempt to find its own future and course of development that preserves Russia as a unitary state, both Russian and remaining native peoples – as a national-social formation. Under the current course and regime, Russia has no future. Catastrophe looms ahead – the country’s division and collapse, the departure of the Russian world from the historical arena. These are objective data – when you look at government statistics even, your hairs stand on end. There are approximately one hundred million Russians, 23 million alcoholics, 6 million drug addicts, 6 million sick with AIDS, 4 million prostitutes. We have the very highest percentage of disadvantaged families, for every thousand marriages, 640 divorces. Revolutionary transformations are simply necessary. Let’s hope to God they come in a peaceful way.”
“What is happening now in the Middle East gives us reason to talk also about our degradation. Yes, Mubarak, Qaddafi and the rest stole, hoarded riches for themselves, however there has never been in the history of a single state such complete plunder as is occurring now in Russia. Two oligarchic clans, privatizers of resources and bureaucrats have sucked everything out of the people and the country. Real incomes of the population in January compared with January of last year have decreased by 47%. Oil gets more expensive — our gas gets more expensive. Oil gets cheaper — our gas still gets more expensive. Prices for food and other things constantly increase.”
“A handful of powerful bureaucrats and oligarchs close to them understand perfectly that there’s no avoiding a revolution. Therefore they’re hurrying to suck everything up and tie their business to foreign structures. So that when they start taking their assets away, they can call on NATO to defend them.”
“Russia doesn’t have its own Middle East geopolitical project. We are extremely inconsistent — we sign military agreements with Israel, we institute sanctions against Iran, irritating the Islamic world. Medvedev calls Qaddafi a criminal for firing on his own people. At the same time, they put up monuments to Yeltsin who fired on his own people and his own parliament. Such a contradiction shows the complete cynicism of our current vlasti.”
“The fighting in Russia will undoubtedly begin, and it will be, unfortunately, much more severe — since the country is multinational. In the Middle East, they call their own Arab presidents occupiers, but we also have other peoples. And if anti-Semitism in the Arab East is aimed beyond the borders of their own countries, at Israel or the U.S., then Russian anti-Semitism is directed inward.”
No comments:
Post a Comment