RUSSIAN DENVER / HORIZON 4 N08/<strong>837</strong> от 02.26.2016 e-mail: info@gorizont.com Simply the best Dave Majumdar While a recent RAND Corporation study concluded that Russia could overrun NATO’s member states Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the Baltics within sixty hours, the war games did not simulate the use of nuclear weapons. If, however, a war were to breakout between NATO and Russia, nuclear weapons would certainly come into play–especially if the conflict were going poorly for Moscow. Unlike the Soviet Union, which had a stated «no first use» policy, modern Russia explicitly rejected that pledge in 1993. In fact, as Moscow’s conventional forces continued to atrophy during the economic and social BY EVELYN FARKAS Russia poses a geostrategic threat to the United States and our interests. Indeed, earlier this month Defense Secretary Ash Carter listed it first among the threats faced by our nation. It is unfortunate that, in the 21st century, Russia and the United States remain opposed to each another on most foreign policy issues. The reality is that the Russian government is pursuing policies that run counter to U.S. national security interests and values. The Kremlin’s objectives are clear: 1) Retain Vladimir Putin’s position as the leader of the Russian Federation, preserving the autocratic political system and mafia-style crony economy that together make up «Putinism»; 2) restore Russia’s status as a great power; 3) rewrite the international rules and norms to prevent intervention in states to protect citizens; 4) maintain political control of Russia’s geographical periphery; and, if possible, 5) break NATO, the European Union and trans-Atlantic unity. We’ve seen what Russia can do even with its unfinished military modernization in advancement of these objectives. And since we can expect Putin will be re-elected in 2018 for another six-year term, we can’t wish this problem away. We must use all elements of U.S. national power– diplomatic, economic, informational and military–to pressure Russia to reverse course. The United States must counter and resist Russia’s actions through a combination of deterrence, strengthening our allies and partners, and communicating the truth about the Kremlin’s HOW WE CAN DEFEAT PUTIN actions to the world. We must deter Russia from further military action. I enthusiastically applaud President Barack Obama and Secretary Carter’s decision to more than quadruple-down on the European Reassurance Initiative to establish a true deterrent to Russian military action against NATO. Congress should also urge the Pentagon to provide an aviation brigade to support the armored brigade combat team. On the non-NATO periphery, Congress should continue to support beefing up security assistance to Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova. These nations need more training, help with defense transparency and accountability, and we should provide all three with anti-tank weapons so they can potentially deter the larger, more ready Russian forces. In Syria, we must get our allies engaged on the battlefield and provide equipment and other support to the Syrian opposition. If we also succeed in finding economic and other leverage, this could mitigate the need for more fighting, but it is unavoidable now. The Defense Department should no longer do any business with Russia. This means that no rockets used by the U.S. defense industry should be Russian, and we should establish a new foreign military assistance fund to help allies and partners throughout Europe and Afghanistan transition from Russian to U.S. military equipment. We must be united with our allies and partners worldwide and resolute toward Russian bad behavior. We need not enter a new Cold War or an acrossthe-board standoff with Russia. Where the Kremlin is open to cooperation and there are mutual interests, we should work with Moscow. But we should know that Russia will not work with us unless the Kremlin sees it in its national interest, or we have sufficient leverage to force a change in Putin’s approach. We need leverage On the Brink: When Russia Would Use Tactical Nukes on NATO meltdown of the 1990s, Russia developed a doctrine called de-escalation in 2000. Simply put, if Russia were faced with a large-scale attack that could defeat its conventional forces, Moscow might resort to nuclear weapons. In 2010, Russia revised the doctrine somewhat as its conventional forces started to recover from the aftermath of the Soviet collapse–the current version states Moscow would use nuclear weapons in situations «that would put in danger the very existence of the state.» While the RAND study shows that Russia would be able to take the Baltics fairly easily, the war game didn’t explore what would happen in the event to succeed in negotiations. If we take the actions described in my testimony [to the House Armed Services Committee, at a February 10 hearing on «Understanding and Deterring Russia: U.S. Policies and Strategies»], we will raise the price for Putin in achieving his international objectives. Russia will be forced to reconsider its approach. Then, perhaps, the pent-up and misguided human resources of the Russian people can be directed toward a future. And we will have successfully managed what is currently the greatest geostrategic threat to U.S. national security interests. Evelyn Farkas is a nonresident senior fellow in the Atlantic Council’s Future Europe Initiative. This is an abridged version of testimony she delivered to the House Armed Services Committee at the February 10 hearing on «Understanding and Deterring Russia: U.S. Policies and Strategies.» THE BUZZ of a NATO counter offensive. The RAND study simply states: «Such a rapid defeat would leave NATO with a limited number of options, all bad: a bloody counteroffensive, fraught with escalatory risk, to liberate the Baltics; to escalate itself, as it threatened to do to avert defeat during the Cold War; or to concede at least temporary defeat, with uncertain but predictably disastrous consequences for the Alliance and, not incidentally, the people of the Baltics.» A NATO counter-offensive would be bloody and fraught with escalatory risk–but it’s one of the probable outcomes of a Russian invasion. In that eventuality, Russian conventional forces–of which only a portion are well trained and well equipped–would likely be severely damaged or even destroyed. Moreover, if NATO forces hit targets inside Russia or crossed over into Russian territory, Moscow might conclude that there is a danger to the existence of the state. After all, Moscow has expressed concerns in the past that regime change by the West is an all too real danger. In that situation, Russia might counter advancing NATO forces with its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. The Russian tactical nuclear arsenal is not nearly as large as the Soviet arsenal had once been, but concrete numbers are hard to come by. The Soviet Union was thought to have possessed between 15,000 and 25,000 tactical nuclear weapons of all types ranging from suitcase-sized containers, nuclear mines, short-range aircraft delivered missile, nuclear gravity bombs and artillery shells, as well as short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missile warheads. While Moscow has been slowly eliminating its nonstrategic arsenal since the end of the Cold War, Russia many still have as many as 4,000 tactical nuclear weapons, according to the Congressional Research Service. However, other analyses suggest that Russia has as few as 2,000 operational tactical nuclear weapons. WHY ARE RUSSIAN BANKS IN UKRAINE BEING VANDALIZED AND TORCHED? BY DAMIEN SHARKOV Over the weekend no fewer than six Russian banks across Ukraine were torched or vandalized by mystery attackers, on the eve of the two-year anniversary of Kiev’s Maidan protests. Molotov cocktails were hurled at three different banks in the western city of Lviv during the early hours of Monday morning, according to a report by the city’s police. All of the banks were branches of Russian state-owned banks Sberbank or VTB, according to reports by news agency Ukrainsky Novini based on the addresses given by the police. One of the three Molotov cocktails failed to light, but in the other two incidents fires either partially or entirely destroyed the interiors of the banks. No people were harmed, according to Ukraine’s emergency response units on the scene, as the incidents took place at around 1 a.m. The attacks did take place after similar incidents in daylight in the capital of Kiev on Saturday. Protesters waving Ukrainian flags and symbols alluding to several far-right Ukrainian organizations, hurled rocks at a Sberbank branch in Kiev and Russian Alfa-bank. Sberbank’s branch in the eastern town of Mariupol also got hit by debris and rocks during the early hours of Sunday morning, according to local news site 0629. The police have not been able to identify who the attackers were, however the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists denied its involvement as soon as the first Kiev attacks occurred on Saturday. According to Daragh Mc- Dowell, Russia and Central Asia analyst at Verisk Maplecroft, it is unclear if the attacks were coordinated, but the frustration of Ukrainians with the government and the lack of progress in the conflict with pro-Russian rebels has fueled cynicism. «It was the anniversary of the Maidan protests over the weekend and the various chicanery that resulted in the failure of the no confidence motion against Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk has fueled political turmoil,» he says. «There is widespread dissatisfaction with the government and a growing belief that despite getting rid of Viktor Yanukovych there’s a new elite that has taken his place.» According to McDowell, it is possible the attacks were covertly organized by Russia, to add to the volatility of the situation. However, it may also be a result of far-right groups growing in conviction. «It is impossible to know one way or another, however either way the fact that it is not clear shows the level of dissatisfaction in Ukraine with the government,» he says. «The Crimea issue is far from being resolved. There has not been a serious push against corruption. Most of the reform has been completely unfinished. «Even if this notion of Russian provocateur element is correct the conditions under which that can happen have been around for a while and the social sentiment surrounding them is Ukrainian in origin.» During the attacks on banks, the offices of finance firm System Capital Management, owned by Ukrainian oligarch Rinat Akhmetov, were also vandalized. Akhmetov was an ally to ousted President Yanukovych, however some Ukrainian MPs pointed to his influence on lawmakers as the reason a vote to oust Yatsenyuk failed. «Rinat Akhmetov is very well known in Ukraine and it would not take a lot of research or thought for a Ukraine rightwing activist to turn on one of his offices, in the heat of the moment,» McDowell says. «He was very closely associated with the Yanukovych regime and was seen as straddling both sides on the separatist issue, seen not only as one of the the oligarchs but on the Russian leaning side of the oligarchy.» «If these acts are locally generated, we can certainly expect more frustration and protests in the future,» McDowell adds.
RUSSIAN DENVER Colorado Russian Newspaper published in English 720-436-7613 www.gorizont.com/rd 5