Russian military regains its clout

Refitting Soviet-era warships, fielding new aircraft and tanks and seeking new overseas bases, the Russian military — which now has troops on alert amidst a crisis in Ukraine — is more potent than the force that briefly fought Georgia six years ago.

 

Moscow is seriously investing in building its clout. Since 2008, it has raised military spending by almost a third and drastically reformed both the armed forces and defense industry to tackle post-Cold War decay.

 

But Russian forces remain much weaker than at their Soviet peak and face huge problems ranging from corruption to a long-term shortage of recruits, not to mention the risk of insurgency if they set foot in Ukraine.

 

Moscow denies any direct link between the surprise military drills announced Wednesday and Ukraine, where largely pro-Western demonstrators ousted President Viktor Yanukovych, an ally of Russian leader Vladimir Putin, last weekend.

 

Nevertheless, the decision to put 150,000 troops on high alert along with jet fighters on Russia’s Western borders — where Ukraine lies — raised memories of Putin’s invasion of Georgia. Moscow’s expressions of concern for the safety of Russian citizens in Ukraine have also used similar language to statements that preceded the Georgian campaign.

 

In that five-day war, Russian troops evicted their Georgian counterparts from the disputed regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But the outdated forces suffered losses at the hands of the sometimes more technically advanced, Western-equipped Georgians, prompting soul-searching and criticism in Moscow.

 

According to some accounts, three of the four Russian aircraft lost were downed by their own side.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London estimates defense spending rose 31 percent between 2008 and 2013 to $68.2 billion. Russia is now firmly established as the world’s third-largest military spender, behind the U.S. and China, and the chaos under former President Boris Yeltsin, who stood down in 1999 to make way for Putin, is a thing of the past.

 

“There is a sense in the broader U.S. political discussion that Russia is still the basket case military of the Yeltsin era, but that is wrong,” said Elbridge Colby, a former Pentagon official and now fellow at the Center for a New American Security. “(It) is not the Red Army of the 1970s, but it has made considerable strides.”

 

While Russian officials say Moscow will not intervene in Ukraine, many Western analysts are skeptical about their assertions that the exercises are not linked to the crisis in the former Soviet republic. Russia’s saber-rattling, they say, is another sign of its military confidence.

 

“There is certainly an element of intimidation to it,” said Dmitry Gorenburg, Russia specialist at the U.S. government-funded Center for Naval Analyses. “They have put a great deal of effort into military reforms since Georgia, and some of it has worked. They probably do have a greater ability to intervene in Ukraine than they did then — it’s not that big a step up.”

 

While any actual invasion could initially succeed, he said Moscow might struggle in the face of a resultant insurgency. A more limited operation in majority Russian-speaking Crimea — already home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet — could prove more achievable but is also seen as unlikely for now.

 

Russia says it is ready to work with the West on resolving the crisis but the interests of all Ukrainians must be taken into account. It accuses the new leaders in Kiev of violating a Western-backed peace deal and ignoring the interests of Russian-speakers.

 

The war games, scheduled to last from Friday until next week, are not the first of their kind. In September, the Zapad-13 exercise in Belarus saw 10,000 Russian troops deployed along the border with the Baltic states, former Soviet republics that now belong to the European Union. Another surprise exercise last July in Russia’s east involved 160,000 troops and was seen as a reminder that Moscow also remains nervous about its border with China.

 

Both exercises involved a level of activity that Russian forces would have been incapable of even five years ago, analysts say.

 

Russia is also asserting itself on the world stage. While its ability to send the army much beyond former Soviet borders seems limited, its warships have increased operations in the Arctic, Pacific, Baltic and Atlantic while returning to a near-permanent presence in the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean for the first time in years. Russian long-range bombers are again periodically probing NATO airspace.

 

On Wednesday, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Moscow is planning to expand its presence outside its borders with new military bases in a number of countries.

How viable these plans might be is unclear.

 

Since Georgia, Russia has abolished its cumbersome structure of undermanned divisions designed to fight on massive European fronts, replacing them with much more flexible smaller brigades and reducing the size of its officer corps by a third.

 

Its armaments industry was reorganized into a small number of largely state-owned firms, while Moscow promised that by 2020, 70 percent of its military equipment will be modernized. It has also partnered French manufacturers in building helicopter carriers, other European firms on ground vehicles and Israeli specialists on unmanned drones.

 

According to IISS, Russia now operates one aircraft carrier, five cruisers, 18 destroyers, nine frigates and 82 coastal warships as well as 64 submarines — 11 carrying ballistic missiles. Its air force is believed to have about 1,400 combat-capable aircraft.

 

IISS estimates Russia has 845,000 military personnel, with a largely theoretical reserve of 2 million with recent military service.

 

How much further the military will grow is also unclear. Corruption remains a serious problem. Demographics are also not going Russia’s way.

 

Still, “Moscow’s armed forces have already accomplished the organizational transition from mass mobilization army to modern combat force,” the German Institute for International and Security Affairs said in a January report. “Greater military muscle flexing must be expected.”

Murphy's Law - The Best Military Bribes Can Buy

The large U.S. corporations that make most of the high-end weapons for American and foreign militaries are again flexing their political muscle to force the U.S. Army to spend $436 million on new M1 tanks that the army doesn’t want or need. This sort of thing nothing new and has been going on for a long time. Warplane and ship manufacturers use their political clout to force the air force and navy to buy aircraft they don’t want. The navy has been forced to use a few increasingly inefficient and overpriced shipyard to build vessels that are poorly built, behind schedule and over budget.

How did this happen? There have been warnings. President Dwight Eisenhower, the former commander of U.S. forces in Europe during World War II made it clear, in one of his last speeches as president (in 1961) that in the future a “military-industrial complex” would warp American military and foreign policy. While that did happen to a certain extent, the more damaging development was the appearance of the political-industrial complex. This is all about the pork barrel politics played with military spending. It is not just an American problem as most of the $1.4 trillion spent each year on defense worldwide comes with political strings attached. For obvious reasons, politicians like to keep quiet about the political horse-trading that goes on when the defense budget is carved up. That’s because "defense" generally takes second place to "how can this help me get reelected, rich, or both." The battles over military pork largely take place in the shadows. But the outcomes of these conflicts eventually have an impact, usually catastrophic, on the battlefield.

 

In the United States the post-World War II military worked Congress (which had to approve the defense budget) to get more money, but before long the large defense firms were using influence (via campaign contributions and deciding where weapons would be built) to exercise their own control over the much larger post World War II peacetime defense budget. By the 1970s the defense firms had Congress buying expensive weapons the military did not want. One of the earliest examples of this was the purchase of 13 A-7E bombers in late 1970 just to keep production going at a Texas plant.

 The air force and navy had plenty of A-7s and didn’t want any more. But the generals could not say no to Congress and the defense firms cooked up offers members of Congress could rarely refuse. Ever since then Congress has been persuaded to order aircraft, ships, tanks and other gear the military did not want or need. The M1 tanks are but the latest example. 

 

The latest situation involving the M1 tanks was not a pushover. The U.S. Army put up quite a fight with the politicians to avoid having to buy more M1 tanks, or upgrade some older ones that do not need upgrades. What it comes down to is that the politicians want to keep the only American tank manufacturing plant open. It's all about political posturing, votes, and getting reelected. But the army wants to spend its shrinking budgets on things that will save lives in the next battle. At stake is several billion dollars. The generals cannot openly say that this is about buying votes versus buying lives but that's what it comes down to.

 

So far, over 9,000 American M1 tanks have been produced and most of them subsequently updated at least once. But the army, seeking to save a billion dollars, wants to close the plant that builds and modifies the M1. The closure would be for three years, and when it was reopened there would be a backlog of upgrades and parts orders to fill to keep the plant open until, perhaps, an M1 replacement comes along. At the moment the generals do not have any firm plans for an M1 replacement.

 

Politicians and the operators of the plant want to keep the plant open in order to save jobs, votes, and operating profits. This is basically a largely political decision that involves getting the money (from the taxpayers) to stay open by pretending that the army wants this. But the army leadership has not cooperated and has openly opposed this plan. How long the plant will remain in business is uncertain, as is the future of the M1 tank.

 

For the immediate future the M1 plant will be needed because the army is planning to maintain its M1 tank fleet (some 7,000 of them) for another twenty years. There is no replacement in sight and the chances of getting money for a replacement design are, for the near term, slight. The M1 has already been in service for over two decades and may become the first MBT (main battle tank) design to stay in service for half a century. Technically, some World War II tanks achieved that dubious goal but not in the service of a major power.

 

The electronics on the M1 have undergone several upgrades so far, in addition to the larger main gun. More equipment has been added for urban warfare (an outside phone, cameras, reactive armor side panels, thermal sights, and shields for the external machine-guns) and new ammo types for the main gun have been developed. A major enhancement was depleted uranium armor, which made the M1 virtually invulnerable from the front.

 

The one remaining item in need of improvement is the 1,500 horsepower gas turbine engine. Improvements here included electronic monitors on many engine components, an electronic logbook (to record all pertinent engine activity), and a maintenance program that makes the most of all this data. If the engine is monitored closely and constantly, it's possible to carry out maintenance in a more timely (before something fails) manner. The army would also like to develop an improved (more efficient and less expensive to maintain) engine, but that is also a costly item they can't afford at the moment.

 

New anti-tank weapons are always being developed and the army wants to at least be able to afford new gear to deal with new threats. One threat that is currently ignored is top attack warheads (that put a shape charge type attack against the thin top armor). There are also new types of mines and electronic threats. If the M1 is to survive for half a century it will have to evolve, as well as endure.

 

The M1 Abrams tank is considered the best combat proven tank in the world. But there are many different models of M1s, which vary considerably in their combat capability. The earliest model is only about half as capable as the most recent SEP model. The first of 3,273 M1 Abrams tanks was produced in 1978. This version had a 105mm gun. The first of 4,796 M1A1s (with a 120mm gun and depleted uranium armor) was produced in 1985 (plus 221 for the U.S. Marines, 555 co-produced with Egypt and another 200 M1A1s for Egypt). Production of the M1A2 (with improved fire control systems) began in 1986, with 77 for the US Army, 315 for Saudi Arabia, and 218 for Kuwait. 

Another 600 M1s were upgraded to M1A2 standards. Deliveries of these upgrades began in 1998. In 2001 the army began to upgrade 240 M1A2 tanks with better thermal imaging and fire control equipment as well as communications and computer equipment that would allow tanks to operate a full color "battlefield internet" with each other as well as headquarters and warplanes with similar equipment. The army upgraded 700 tanks to the M1A2SEP (System Enhancement Package) standard and built another 240 new M1A2SEP vehicles.

 

There were other upgrades, after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for urban warfare. Hundreds more M1s had battle damage repaired and upgrades installed at the same time.

Nato chief: EU must spend more on military

Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen has urged EU countries to spend more on defence despite the economic crisis or risk losing US solidarity.

He said "If current defence spending trends were to continue, that would limit the practical ability of Nato's European nations to work together with their North American allies. But it would also risk weakening the political support for our alliance in the United States."

He added Nato is still "the most important military power in the world."

But he warned: "The security challenges of the 21st century - terrorism, proliferation, piracy, cyber warfare, unstable states - will not go away as we focus on fixing our economies."

He also said "the rise of emerging powers could create a growing gap between their capacity to act and exert influence on the international stage and our ability to do so."

The Nato report says the US accounted for 72 percent of Nato countries' defence spending in 2012 compared to 68 percent in 2007. France, Germany, Italy and the UK made up the bulk of the rest, but the French contribution fell steeply.

"This has the potential to undermine alliance solidarity and puts at risk the ability of the European allies to act without the involvement of the United States," the report notes.

It adds that Nato spending as a proportion of world military expenditure fell to 60 percent in 2011 from 69 percent in 2003 and is to hit 56 percent in 2014.

'EU like Vatican'

The angst over EU defence capabilities is not new.

Former US defence chief Robert Gates in a speech in Brussels in 2011 also voiced alarm. 

"The blunt reality is that there will be dwindling appetite and patience in the US Congress - and in the American body politic writ large - to expend increasingly precious funds on behalf of nations that are apparently unwilling to devote the necessary resources or make the necessary changes to be serious and capable partners in their own defence," he said at the time.

Gates and Fogh Rasmussen's anxiety is not confined to Nato.

Speaking in Brussels also on Thursday on the margins of an EU foreign ministers' meeting, Poland's Radek Sikorski said the Union needs a real defence force of its own.

"I think the Mali crisis shows this is necessary because the next crisis could unfold even more quickly and we need to be able to react instantly," he told press.

"Let's recall that events in Mali unfolded very fast. The terrorists crossed the line of contact and France reacted from one day to the next. But we know that in the EU, as in the Vatican, the wheels of state turn very slowly," he added.

EU arms licences

The latest EU figures appear to show that some of the worst crisis-hit EU countries are still ploughing money into new weapons despite Nato's concerns. 

The report says that fellow EU countries in 2011 granted significant amounts of export licences to Greece (€783mn), Portugal (€397mn) and Spain (€1.6bn).

The numbers do not tell the whole story, however. 

France, which makes up most of the Greek figure, granted licences to negotiate future arms sales rather than export licences as such. 

A large chunk of the Spanish number relates to cross-border movements of spare parts in defence projects, such as Eurofighter or Typhoon, managed by the European defence consortium Eads. 

Most of the Portuguese figure relates to deliveries from a 2005 deal to buy armoured vehicles from Austrian firm Steyr. 

Lisbon cancelled the contract last November because Steyr delivered just 166 out of 260 units, invoking a €55 million penalty against the supplier. 

"Portugal, in the last two years, reduced its budget for the purchase of military equipment by over 60 percent ... Also for budgetary reasons, though not only for that, Portugal, in 2011, decided to withdraw from several military programs, such as NH90 helicopters," its ministry of defence told EUobserver.

Syrian kills Russian wife for supporting President Assad

A Syrian businessman in Aleppo has shot his wife for supporting President Bashar al Assad, AFP reported quoting the deceased woman’s cousin.

­Mohammad O., around 40 years old, who runs a clothes shop in the al Maissar district of Aleppo, reportedly shot his spouse three times using a pistol, 30-year-old office employee Ahmad said.

“The dispute started when he criticized Bashar al Assad, while she defended the President. The quarrel escalated, and he shot her,” Ahmad told AFP.

The husband then went outside and explained to onlookers that his wife, whom he met in Russia during a business trip and has been married to for 4 years, “didn’t stop showcasing her support for Bashar [al Assad],” and that he simply “couldn’t take her attitude anymore.”

The neighbourhood in which the couple lived has been wracked by unrest and is under the partial rule of the rebels, the police are virtually powerless and the husband was not detained after the killing.

Insurgents seized the town in July,  since then the town has been divided into sectors, with approximately half of it controlled by the government, and the other half by rebel forces.

Russians in Syria are ‘legitimate targets’ - key opposition group member

Russians are legitimate targets for military attacks in Syria, a member of the Syria’s National Opposition Coalition said. The Coalition is recognized by the US and a number of its allies as the only legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

­"Russia, like Iran, supports the Assad regime with weapons and ammunition, as well as in the political arena, so the citizens of these countries are legitimate targets for militants in Syria," Haitham al-Maleh, a member of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces told SW.

He claimed that the Geneva Convention allows attacks on civilians cooperating with enemy armed forces. However, he called on militants not to kidnap citizens of countries that “do not support the Assad regime.”

Three people were kidnapped in the coastal city of Latakia on Monday: An Italian engineer and two Russian citizens, all employees of the Syrian-owned Hmisho steel plant. The Russian Foreign Ministry has identified the two kidnapped Russian nationals as V. V. Gorelov and Abdessattar Hassoun – the latter has dual Syrian-Russian citizenship.

The kidnappers demanded a ransom payment as a condition of the workers’ release, the Russian Foreign Ministry said. Russian diplomats are reportedly taking measures to clarify the circumstances of the abduction, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said.

“We are now actively engaged and all the necessary steps are being taken in Syria, and in other countries that may have an impact on the situation,” Lavrov said on Tuesday.

Earlier, a group of gunmen who kidnapped Ukrainian journalist Ankhar Kochneva near the city of Homs in early October said they would target all Russians, Ukrainians and Iranians in Syrian territory. The kidnappers threatened to kill Kochneva if a $50 million ransom was not paid.

Syria has witnessed similar attacks before. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) kidnapped 48 Iranians in early August under the pretext that they were members of the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The Iranian government denied the accusation, saying they were pilgrims on their way to visit a shrine in southeast Damascus. Tehran appealed to Qatar and Turkey to help free the hostages.  

The FSA brigade known as ‘Bar’a’ released a video in which it threatened to execute the hostages if the Assad government does not free rebel prisoners. The Free Syrian Army has previously taken hostages, but this was the first occasion where they threatened to execute their prisoners if their demands were not met.

Another group of hostages from Lebanon have been in captivity since May 2012. The kidnappers put forward a ransom demand, claiming that the hostages are members of the Lebanese political party Hezbolla. Family members of those kidnapped said they were pilgrims returning to Beirut from the city of Mashhad, Iran.

The newly established National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces was founded in Qatar in November. The US – in line with allies like Britain, France and several Arab states – recognized the National Coalition as Syria’s legitimate government, in opposition to the Assad regime.

The conflict in Syria began with protests, and escalated into large-scale fighting between the government and the armed opposition, which has continued for more than 21 months.

Parts for Patriot missile batteries arrive in Turkey

Parts for the Patriot surface-to-air missile batteries Istanbul requested from NATO have started to arrive in Turkey. They were accompanied by 39 German technicians, who will maintain the system

­“Some parts have started coming as of this morning,” the Bloomberg quotes the Turkish Ambassador to the US Namik Tan.

However, he could not confirm which pieces have been received or when the batteries would become operational.

Diplomat Namik Tan also restated Turkey’s official position that the Patriot batteries would only be used for self-defence and with NATO oversight.

"These will be used in a situation where Turkey is attacked," the diplomat was quoted by the US News & World Report.

Tan did not mention if the batteries would fire across the Syrian border.

The diplomat added that the Turkey is currently consulting with NATO allies about where the missile installations should be located.

German advanced military personnel have also arrived in Turkey to help set up the batteries. Colonel Manfred Stange reported Tuesday that 39 staff members were heading to the south-eastern city of Kahramanmaras, about 120 kilometers (75 miles) from the Syrian border.

The full Patriot missile complex is to be installed at the beginning of 2013. The batteries will be brought to Turkey from Germany by sea.

Germany’s Bundestag gave its approval to the deployment on December 14, but it remains unknown when all 400 soldiers, involved in maintaining the Patriot system will arrive. The mission is time-limited to January 2014.

The US military will also be involved, on Friday Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta signed an order to deploy two Patriot air-defense missile batteries to Turkey along with 400 troops.

"We will start to move personnel and equipment soon. We're anticipating the US systems and personnel being in place by mid-January, if all goes as planned," a  Defense Department spokesperson explained to News and World Report.

At the beginning of December, NATO foreign ministers agreed to the deployment of six Patriot missile batteries from Germany, Netherlands and the US on the Turkish-Syrian border.

This was in response to a request for assistance from Ankara, which fears more violence could spread across the border from its war-torn neighbour, including possible use of chemical weapons.

Turkey to Iran: Stop criticizing Patriot, put pressure on the Syrian regime

The deployment of Patriot missiles has heightened tensions between Turkey and Iran, which has been supportive of the Syrian regime since the beginning of the civil unrest.

The Islamic republic lashed out at Ankara arguing the move would only further aggravate the Syrian conflict.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu replied to Tehran Tuesday that “instead of criticizing the (Patriot) system’, it should “send a clear message” to Syria’s regime.

“Iran should say ‘stop’ to the Syrian regime that has been continuously oppressing its own people and provoking Turkey through border violations,” AFP cited the official.

Over the weekend Iran’s President Ahmadinejad cancelled his visit to Turkey’s Anatolian province in protest at the NATO reinforcement of the Turkish-Syrian border.

Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, who was in Moscow on Tuesday discuss the Syrian conflict, reiterated his country’s support for Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Amir-Abdollahian said he did not believe Assad and his government were about to fall.

The Islamic Republic of Iran believes that the Syrian issue can be resolved by political means, he said.

Iran sees the solution in a transitional government that must be formed with the inclusion of Bashar al-Assad as the legitimate President of Syria.

Moscow fires warning shot across bow of US naval-based ABM

The guided missile cruiser USS Lake Champlain

A top Russian official says a US missile defense system near Russia’s border is strategically destabilizing and may prompt an arms race.

Speaking to SW on the threat of mobile naval-based elements of the US missile defense system  “suddenly appearing” on Russia’s coastline, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said such an event would trigger “the harshest reaction from Russia."

"We must consider the effective protection of our strategic nuclear forces," Rogozin said in an interview with the magazine Voyenny Parade (‘Military Parade’).

Rogozin, while not elaborating on what Russia’s response would be, noted that Russia is taking definite steps to counter American ships “equipped with the Aegis integrated naval weapons system.”

Russia has warned its US and NATO partners on numerous occasions that unless the two sides can reach an acceptable agreement over NATO plans to unilaterally build a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, another arms race is inevitable.

Ironically, it was US President Barack Obama – the same American leader who pushed for a “reset” with Moscow – who introduced the current missile defense plans that may include stationing Aegis missiles aboard US warships in the Black Sea.

Washington says the missile defense system, which is capable of intercepting short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles, is vital for protecting Eastern Europe from “rogue states,” like Iran and North Korea. At the same time, however, the western military alliance ignores Moscow’s concern the strategic balance may be upset. In fact, NATO even refuses to provide Moscow with written, legal guarantees that the system will not in the future target Russian territory.

Judging by Rogozin’s strong words, it seems that another arms race has already begun.

"U.S. missile defense in its current form is obviously destabilizing and prompting an arms race between Russia and the U.S. and NATO," Rogozin noted.

Russia is considering ways of “suppressing and penetrating” the missile defense system in ways that will guarantee “unacceptable damage to any aggressor, and force it to resist the temptation to test Russia's strength,” the Deputy Prime Minister added.

Rogozin, who served in a previous capacity as Russia’s NATO envoy, explained his use of blunt language.

"We must be frank about this. I was the Russian envoy to NATO for four years and I know what language they understand best of all," he said.

US seeks ‘world supremacy’ through advanced weapons - Security Chief

 A RIM-7P NATO Sea Sparrow Missile being launched from the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) during a stream raid shoot exercise.

The Secretary of the Security Council of Russia has provided his views on a number of national security issues, including the importance of preserving Russia’s nuclear arsenal against potential adversaries.

­Nikolay Patrushev, commenting on how atomic weapons play more of a political role than a military one, said the consequences of even a “limited nuclear intervention” are so catastrophic that it makes the usage of such weapons absolutely impossible. 

Nuclear arsenals therefore continue to serve as an effective deterrent against any possible large-scale war, Patrushev told Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper in an interview.

Patrushev spoke candidly on the nature and source of threats to Russian security, and what those challenges mean for the country.

“We…understand that the atomic weapons of leading western counties are aimed mainly against Russia,” he said. “In these conditions – and given the insufficient strength of Russia’s conventional armed forces – the preservation of the nuclear potential is a priority task.”

While ruling out the possibility of total nuclear disarmament, Patrushev nevertheless explained that a new generation of weapon systems – including anti-ballistic missiles – is changing the nuclear calculus.

Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin spoke on the threat mobile, naval-based elements of the US missile defense system “suddenly appearing” on Russia’s coastline. Such an event would trigger “the harshest reaction from Russia," he warned.

Rogozin said that Russia is now taking definite steps to counter US warships “equipped with the Aegis integrated naval weapons system.”

Moscow has frequently warned of “another arms race” unless a bilateral agreement is reached on NATO’s plans for missile defense near the Russian border.

Patrushev continued that theme in his interview, underlining the technological advances that have changed the face of war.

Not long ago, any state that possessed nuclear weapons was undoubtedly a “dominating force” in the international arena, he noted. However, in a clear reference to US plans for a naval-based missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, Patrushev mentioned that a new generation of weapons is being developed, and that “the United States has proven successful in this field of research.”

Patrushev explained that Russia, which has seen success in developing state-of-the-art technology, had not given enough attention to that field of research. As new weaponry appears, the US appears to be reconsidering the role of strategic nuclear arms in the fulfillment of a “geopolitical idea of world supremacy,” the security official added.

US Navy pulls two aircraft carriers from Syria shores

Two aircraft carriers stationed off the Syrian coast were sent back to the US this week in a move that the Obama administration thought would ease tensions, but angered Turkish officials who hoped for significant US military presence in the region. 

The USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier and the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group and its 2,500 marines were recalled after being stationed on the Syrian coast, allegedly in preparation of potential military invasion. 

The USS Eisenhower, which has the capacity to hold thousands of men, joined the other warship during the first week of December, ready to launch an American-led military intervention “within days” if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were to use chemical weapons against the opposition, Time reported. But as the violence escalated in the past few days, the warships took off and headed back to the US.

The US usually has two aircraft carriers stationed in the Persian Gulf at all times, but will only have one deployed this month –  the USS John C. Stennis, which is stationed nowhere near Syria. By recalling the USS Eisenhower and the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, the US simply outraged its key ally in the region – Turkey. 

An unnamed senior Turkish officer told Israel's DEBKAfile that America’s removal of the aircraft carriers is “hard to understand and unacceptable to Ankara.” Turkey became one of the main opponents of the Assad regime on the international stage and fears that the Syrian missiles with chemical weapons might be used against it. Syria never recognized that it has a chemical stockpile. Nevertheless Syrian officials repeatedly said that their country would never use such weapons "even if they had them." 

None of Syria’s neighbors, which include Turkey, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Israel, have officially criticized the Obama administration for its recall of its naval forces, but unnamed officials told DEBKAfile that Turkish officials are very upset about the move. 

According to the Israeli news outlet, Washington hoped to “to appease the Turks” by sending to the region US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to sign a deployment order for the Patriot Air and Missile Defense System, which would be stationed at the Syrian border. While Panetta visited Turkey on Friday, the defense secretary allegedly visited an air base where US strike aircraft are stationed alongside Turkish warplanes. 

But the US attempt to ease tensions and calm Turkey had little effect: Turkish officials remain outraged at the US abandonment at a time when violence with its neighbor has escalated and relations with Iran and Syria are at its worst. 

Meanwhile  the deployment of the Patriot missile interceptors has escalated tensions between Turkey and Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad canceled a trip to Turkey for an annual ceremony this week, claiming the missile interceptors might lead to a “world war.”

Patriot missiles in Turkey: Targeting Syria or Iran?

Soldiers of the Air Defence Missile Squadron 2 stand guard with Patriot missile launchers in the background in Bad Suelze, northern Germany on December 4, 20 

Turkey, a longtime geopolitical hotspot, has recently played a key role in the struggle for influence between regional and Western powers over NATO missile deployments – Ankara is once again at the center of a global crisis.

What prompted this new crisis (and evoked a distinct feeling of Cold War déjà vu) was Ankara’s appeal to NATO to deploy its Patriot missiles in the southern Turkish provinces, along the 900-km-long border with Syria. While described as a purely defensive move, aimed at enhancing Turkish security in the wake of the escalating Syrian war and alleged possibility of a chemical weapons attack by the cornered President Assad, the initiative was denounced straight away by Ankara’s neighbors and other regional powers – Moscow, Tehran and Damascus.

“Moscow was wary of the NATO anti-aircraft system’s deployment in Turkey,” Russian Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov said last week during talks with the Chair of the NATO Military Committee, Knud Bartles.

Remarks were echoed by Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Aleksandr Lukashevich, who warned last Friday that “the stockpile of extra weapons” in the border area would “bring about an additional element of tension."

However, there is little chance the Patriot deployment process on Turkish soil will be reversed. At its ministerial meeting in Brussels, held on December 5th and 6th, NATO unequivocally gave the Turkish request its stamp of approval, standing by the commitments under the organization's collective security pact. A team of NATO officials and experts has already landed in Turkey to finalize the terms and conditions of the deal, which will allow Ankara to station six NATO Patriot systems on its soil – two American, two German and two Dutch.  The missiles are expected to reach Turkey soon, within weeks according to some estimates.

One could ask: What is wrong with Turkey’s genuine wish to effectively seal off its borders from hundreds of potential threats emanating from its troubled neighbor, and take advantage of being a NATO member? Independent military experts have found NATO's official explanation of Patriots being used for defensive purposes confusing.

The Patriot system is not used against shells and rocket-propelled grenades, which eventually could be fired at Turkey from Syrian territory. Patriot missiles are used to intercept and destroy missiles as well as to shoot down aircraft. But what missiles does Syria possess that the Patriots could be used against, and why would President Assad arm these alleged missiles with deadly sarin gas (if he even possesses such chemical weapons)?

The pretext for the deployment of NATO Patriot missiles in Turkey does not appear credible. But if the real motive is not to deter Syria, why is NATO hurrying to station its anti-missile systems in the region, a part of the world already overloaded with deadly weapons? What if this move has a hidden agenda?

“Turkey has explained its request to NATO as exclusively related to its need to defend itself from a possible attack from the Syrian army. But there could be a second motivation for this actions, which is a preparation for military strike against Iran,” a Russian diplomatic source told Kommersant daily. 

If one considers the distance between the region of Patriot deployment in Turkey and the Iranian border, Moscow's worry could seem a bit far-fetched. However, Patriot missiles can easily be moved to any region in Turkey, including its eastern border with Iran. “These are mobile units that can be moved to any point in Turkey. It’s only about 500 kilometers from where the units will be located to Tebriz in Iran, where some say there are secret nuclear facilities,” Dmitry Polikanov said. Polikanov is the vice president of the Moscow-based PIR Center, an independent thinktank.

“Considering that the US wants to use Turkey as an advance missile shield, the Patriots might be stationed there forever. Turkey wanted to modernize its weapons anyway and already started taking bids for similar weapons systems. Under these circumstances, the weapons are most likely directed against Iran," Polikanov said, adding that any kind of provocation could now become a pretext for war. And the installation of NATO anti-aircraft missiles in Turkey means that Iran will no longer be able to retaliate if attacked.

Iranian armed forces chief General Hassan Firouzabadi said last Saturday that the lessons of 1962 Cuban missile crisis may return to haunt the world.

"Each one of these Patriots is a black mark on the world map, and is meant to cause a world war. They are making plans for a world war, and this is very dangerous for the future of humanity and for the future of Europe itself," General Firouzabadi warned.

The already tense relations between Ankara and Tehran have been further strained by a last-minute announcement that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has skipped a much-awaited visit to Turkey and talks with Prime Minister Erdogan in a move largely seen as a sign of Iran's growing displeasure with the Patriot deployment.

Tunisia in turmoil: Stones thrown at president, unrest 2 years after Arab Spring

Inhabitants of Sidi Bouzid shout slogans before hurling rocks at Tunisia's President Moncef Marzouki and parliamentary speaker Mustapha Ben Jaafar on December 17, 2012, in the central town of Sidi Bouzid 

Tunisian protesters in Sidi Bouzid, the epicenter of the country's Arab Spring uprising, threw rocks at visiting President Moncef Marzouki and other top leaders in a show of protest. Two years after the revolution, Tunisia is still gripped by unrest.

In late 2010, a 26-year-old university graduate lit himself on fire in Sidi Bouzid. Protests broke out across Tunisia on December 17, 2010, and were then repeated across North Africa and the Middle East. Tunisian President Zine el Abidine Ben Ali was the first ruler to be ousted in the Arab Spring uprisings, following months of violent unrest. 

One week ago – nearly two years after Ben Ali was deposed by the popular uprising – tens of thousands of protesters turned out in a mass strike planned by the country’s most powerful labor union, aimed at the stagnant economy and police brutality.

Two weeks earlier, another protest saw over 200 people wounded in clashes between Tunisian security forces and thousands of protesters in the impoverished town of Siliana. Fighting there raged on for several days, according to local medics. 

The unrest comes during a period of record unemployment in Tunisia. In November, the World Bank approved a $500 million loan to alleviate the country’s economic woes; another $700 million came from other donors. It was the second loan approved by the World Bank since the Arab Spring swept Ben Ali from power.

Most activists say that the Arab Spring brought about the exact opposite of what the demonstrators intended.

“The situation is worse right now in comparison to years before the revolution. Personally, I don’t feel safe anymore. When you see all the violence of the police of the salafis. Even the police are attacked sometimes. And there’s less freedom. I received so many messages from girls who say they were harassed on the street, even by police, who didn’t tolerate the way they dress,” Tunis-based activist and blogger Lina Ben Mhenni told SW.

The turmoil in Tunisia mirrors similar structures across the region. Experts say that the policies the newly elected leaders enact are not far from those of their predecessors.

In Egypt, opposition groups are urging a mass protest on Tuesday over alleged vote rigging during the national referendum on a controversial draft of the constitution. On Sunday, the Muslim Brotherhood announced the first results, prompting anger and accusations of electoral fraud. The next vote in the referendum is scheduled for the coming weekend.

“Those who voted for the Muslim brotherhood in Egypt did so because they wanted economic changes, not just getting rid of Mubarak and letting Morsi in. And Morsi, even though he’s obviously a very different political figure to Mubarak in terms of his ideology, has carried on much the same policies in terms of economic policy,” journalist and broadcaster Neil Clark told SW.

“I think it has to be a different type of a democratic system. The democracy that the US would like to impose upon Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco and other countries throughout the region, even Libya, where war was waged last year to topple the Qaddafi government, is not suitable to the people inside of that region,” Detroit's Pan-African News Wire editor Abayomi Azikiwe said to SW.

Anyone stockpiling nuclear weapons is mentally retarded' – Ahmadinejad

During a meeting in Indonesia, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejiad said that the era of nuclear deterrence “is over,” and nations that stockpile nuclear weapons are “mentally retarded.”

­He also reiterated his long-running stance that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, nor does it seek to build one, as the nation does not need atomic weapons to defend itself.

"The period and era of using nuclear weapons is over. … Nuclear bombs are not anymore helpful and those who are stockpiling nuclear weapons, politically they are backward, and they are mentally retarded," Ahmadinejad said during a democracy forum in Bali, Indonesia.

The Iranian president added that any government or agency was free to inspect Iran’s nuclear sites. That statement contradicts Tehran’s recent policy of preventing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) observers from accessing some of its nuclear sites.

The US and its allies have long accused ing its nuclear facilities as a cover for developing atomic weapons, a claim which Tehran has repeatedly denied.

The subject has been an ongoing source of tension between Iran and countries that remain skeptical of its nuclear ambitions – the US and Israel being the most vocal critics.

Israel has hinted at taking military action against Iran’s program for some time. Last week, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that the country and its allies will have to make a decision on military action against Iran in “eight to ten months.”

In September, General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a senior commander in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, warned that Tehran would strike US bases in the region if Israel attacked Iran.

“We will enter a confrontation with both parties and will definitely be at war with American bases should a war break out," he told Al-Alam TV.

The US has publicly maintained its preference for a diplomatic solution to the tensions, and has imposed multiple rounds of economic sanctions against Iran in the hopes of forcing Tehran to end its nuclear program.

Russia - 2 arrested in Defense Ministry’s $100MN corruption case

Yekaterina Smetanova, the head of the Expert Center for Legal Support company and a suspect within the Oboronservis embezzlement case.

A court in Moscow has sanctioned the pre-trial detention of two suspects as part of a major embezzlement case involving the Oboronservis company which is affiliated to the Russian Defense Ministry.

Khamovniki District court ordered the arrest of Yekaterina Smetanova and her partner Maksim Zakutailowho reportedlyare close friends of another suspect – the former head of the Defense Ministry’s property department Yevgeniya Vasilyeva.

According to investigators, Smetanova, who works as a general director in a law firm, planned and managed the sales of the 31st State Design Institute of Special Construction – a major state company that built docks for nuclear submarines, missile silos and launch pads for space rockets. In 2011 the institute was sold off by the Defense Ministry.

Smetanova was also detained earlier this year as she took part in the alleged kickback scheme during the sale of a supermarket building in the South Russian city of Samara. However, this case was quickly closed due to the lack of evidence.

The court agreed for the defendants to be detained because they possess real estate abroad and could flee Russia in order to avoid justice. In court Zakutailo asked the judge to release him on 800,000 roubles bail ($25,000) as with both partners under arrest no one would look after their children, but the judge ruled otherwise.

The defense lawyers said they plan to appeal the decision within three days.

A week ago the Central Investigative Committee conducted a search in Yevgeniya Vasilyeva’s Moscow apartment as part of their investigation into the alleged embezzlement of about 3 billion roubles (US $100 million) from the Oboronservis company.

Law enforcers suspect Defense Ministry officials of investing heavily into real estate before selling it to affiliates at well below market prices, the Investigative Committee’s spokesman said in a statement.

According to press reports, investigators seized about $3 million worth of gems and jewelry in Vasilyeva’s apartment.

Comments from Russia’s Chief Military Prosecutor Sergey Friodinskiy suggested that the Oboronservis probe touched upon a much broader corruption scheme. “A malicious system squeezed money from state budgets by means of joint stock companies controlled by the Defense Ministry”, the official said.

Defense Minister Anatoliy Serdyukov said the ministry was closely monitoring the situation with Oboronservis and stressed that any public statements on the amount of damage and the complicity of particular officials in the alleged fraud were nothing more than allegations. The minister stressed that Oboronservis was a separate commercial structure with its own regulation and management and noted that the Defense Ministry, just like anyone else, is interested in a detailed investigation into all charges the company managers are facing.

Earlier this week, Business daily Vedomosti reported on investigators’ plans to question Serdyukov about the case, but the government’s daily Rossiiskaya Gazeta wrote that representatives of the Investigative Committee dismissed the report as unfounded.

On the day of the first search Serdyukov met with President Vladimir Putin, who instructed him to “ensure full cooperation with the investigation launched into Oboronservis,” presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov told journalists.

Israel ‘postpones’ nuclear Iran red line by ‘8 to 10 months’

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R) and Defence Minister Ehud Barak 

Iran’s decision to produce fuel rods from a third of its medium-enriched uranium stockpile delayed its alleged nuclear weapon program, says the Israeli defense minister. But Tel Aviv continues to advocate a military solution to halting it.

­The Iranian move, which clearly clashes with its alleged goal of obtaining a nuclear bomb as soon as possible, is just a temporary set-back in Israel’s eyes and apparently does not change its aggressive rhetoric.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak estimates that Israel and its allies will have to take decision over a military solution of the stand-off in “eight to ten months”, because sanctions and diplomacy will fail to curb Iran’s nuclear ambition, Britain's Daily Telegraph cites the minister as saying.

Tehran denies having any intention of weaponizing its nuclear program, but refuses to stop uranium enrichment, which it says is needed for civilian purposes. The US, the EU and their allies have slapped Iran with crippling economic sanctions to force it to shut down its centrifuges, but so far the Islamic Republic remains defiant.

In August, Iran converted some 38 per cent of its uranium enriched to 20 per cent into fuel rods for its civilian research reactor. Barak says the move somewhat postponed the critical moment after which Israel would evaluate that Iran has enough uranium to produce a nuclear weapon.

The hawkish Israeli minister says the decision probably came in response to the “public discourse about a possible Israeli or American operation” against Iran, as a “diplomatic gambit” to win some time and to appease the UN’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

“Maybe it’s a combination of all these three elements. I cannot tell you for sure,” he told SW.

Barak insists that the move is just a temporary distraction and that Iran still wants to create a nuclear weapon.

“They think of themselves as a major regional power from the dawn of history and they are determined not to fall into the trap that, in their mind, in their judgment, the late Gaddafi fell into,” he explained.

Israel is determined to prevent this from happening and will make a final decision on an attack before Iran has fortified its enrichment facilities enough to make Israel incapable to significantly damage it using its own forces only.

Barak said; “Basically, it’s about the question of when they come into this zone of immunity, where no Israeli surgical attack, probably somewhat later not even an American surgical attack, can delay them significantly. That’s the issue that bothers us.”

‘Arabs will be glad about strike on Iran’

Meanwhile Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued that an attack on Iran would defuse tensions in the Middle East rather then send them skyrocketing.

"Five minutes after, contrary to what the skeptics say, I think a feeling of relief would spread across the region," he told the French magazine Paris Match.

"Iran is not popular in the Arab world, far from it, and some governments in the region, as well as their citizens, have understood that a nuclear-armed Iran would be dangerous for them, not just for Israel," he added.

The reasoning seems counterintuitive, since Iran pledged to retaliate en force to any military operation against it, targeting both Israeli and American forces deployed in the region. This is likely to trigger a major regional war, military experts warn.

Both Netanyahu and Barak have voiced a number of veiled threats against Iran over its nuclear program over the past year. The Israeli PM spoke at the UN General Assembly last month, claiming that Tehran is on the brink of creating a nuclear device.

Intelligence communities in Israel and the US are more skeptical, saying the Iran has long abandoned any attempts at producing an atomic bomb. Experts say if Tehran chose to change its course on the issue, it would take years before it would have both the weapon and the means to deliver it.

The US and other Western countries refused to side with Netanyahu and set a time limit for Iran to halt uranium enrichment. While not ruling out a military solution, they say the prefer sanctions and diplomacy to take root.

Satellite images point to airstrike destruction of Sudanese arms factory

Sixteen-meter craters at the site of Wednesday’s Sudanese weapons factory explosion point to a surgical airstrike, a US-based monitoring group said. Earlier, Khartoum accused Tel Aviv of destroying the plant, reserving the right to retaliate.

­The shots released by the Satellite Sentinel Project (SSP) to the Associated Press support the Sudanese government accusation that Israel was behind the bombing of the Yarmouk military complex in which two people have been killed.

Experts consulted by the SSP have confirmed air bombardment of the site which destroyed the complex.

Military specialists found the site, “consistent with large impact craters created by air-delivered munitions,” Satellite Sentinel Project spokesman Jonathan Hutson told the SW.

The group also said that the images indicate that the explosion “destroyed two buildings and heavily damaged at least 21 others,” adding that there was no sign of fire damage at the fuel depot inside the military complex.

The observed craters were centred in the area of the complex where some 40 shipment containers had been stacked, the SSP further noted.

“If the explosions resulted from a rocket or missile attack against material stored in the shipping containers, then it was an effective surgical strike that totally destroyed any container” that was at the location, the project said.

SSP did not comment on the allegations of Israeli involvement in the destruction of the munitions plant. 

Initial official reports from the accident suggested an accidental explosion in a storage room, but Sudan later blamed Israel for launching the attack. “We believe that Israel is behind it,” said Information Minister Ahmed Belal Osman, adding that the planes had approached from the east.

Tel Aviv has so far neither confirmed nor denied striking the site, but has accused Sudan of being a key transit partner in supplying Hamas and Hezbollah with weapons.

Israeli officials suggest that arms smuggled to Gaza and Lebanon originate in the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas then get to Sudan before crossing Sinai desert into Gaza through underground.

The explosion on October 23 caused the ammunition to explode for hours, threatening homes in the neighborhood adjacent to the factory and causing chaos among residents. Besides the two killed many people suffered from smoke inhalation.