Russian Defense Radar, Missiles Worry U.S. Officials

 Russia deploying new missile defense radar while seeking curbs on U.S. defenses

Russia’s military has completed work on a new missile defense radar in southern Russia that has some U.S. military officials worried Moscow is building up offensive and defensive strategic forces in destabilizing combination.

The large radar station near Armavir, located near the Black Sea and designed to detect missiles launched from Europe and Iran, is nearly complete, said U.S. officials.

The radar deployment comes as Russia is seeking legal restrictions on U.S. and NATO missile defenses in Europe that are designed to protect the continent and the United States from long-range Iranian missiles.

“The [radar] station is in the final stage of preparations for entering combat duty,” Russian Aerospace Defense Forces commander Col. Gen. Oleg Ostapenko told RIA Novosti news agency June 19. “We are planning to almost wrap up the work on the station approximately by the end of the year.”

A U.S. military official said the Armavir radar station, along with a major buildup of missile defenses and new short- and medium-range missiles, poses a strategic threat to the United States and NATO allies.

“The Russians are upset with U.S. missile defenses in Europe and here they are building a network of missile tracking facilities,” the official said.

Disclosure of the new radar also comes as President Barack Obama is seeking further cuts in U.S. strategic offensive arsenals with Russia following his announcement last month in Berlin that he would cut nuclear warhead stockpiles by one-third, to around 1,000 warheads.

Obama said last year during an open-microphone exchange with then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” in talks on missile defenses with Russia after his reelection.

A U.S. official involved in strategic nuclear issues said the Obama administration wants to resolve all missile defense issues with the Russians, including legal restrictions, in order to begin a new round of strategic offensive arms talks.

When Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced in March the United States was canceling the fourth phase of its missile defenses in Europe to assuage Moscow’s fears, the Russian government did not back down. The fourth and last phase of the program would have included interceptors that could stop missiles from hitting U.S. territory. The three earlier phases are targeted on missiles aimed solely at Europe.

The Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement shortly after the March announcement criticizing the Pentagon for continuing “to maintain a course toward strengthening its system of global missile defense and raising its effectiveness.”

The statement said the Russians were continuing to demand “legally binding guarantees” that U.S. defense were targeted at Russian missiles.

By contrast, the Obama administration has made no mention of Russia’s missile defense and strategic nuclear arms buildup. It also has not sought limits on Russian missile defenses in talks with Russian officials.

Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested in a speech June 19 that Moscow’s current offensive and defensive strategic buildup is aimed at countering similar U.S. developments.

“There has been increasing talk among military analysts about the theoretical possibility of a first, disarming, disabling strike, even against nuclear powers,” Putin said. “This is something that we also need to take into account in our plans for developing the armed forces.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was quoted in March in the Russian media as saying “we are not experiencing any euphoria” over the cancelation of the fourth phase. Ryabkov also voiced opposition to the announced plans by the Pentagon to add 14 new long-range interceptors to bases in Alaska and California, which he called a substantial growth in U.S. missile defenses.

In a related strategic missile development, U.S. officials said Russia’s military restricted publication of photographs of the controversial Yars-M missile.

The Yars missile, also called the RS-24, was tested last month as an intermediate-range missile that U.S. intelligence officials believe violated Moscow’s commitment to the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty.

According to the officials, one site of the Yars was not allowed to be photographed by Russian news photographers.

However, one photo of the new missile’s prohibited view was published last year.

U.S. officials and private missile specialists said the excessive secrecy surrounding the Yars has contributed to concerns that the missile violates the INF treaty.

Russia has said the Yars does not violate INF because Russian officials claim its range is 3,400 miles—above the range for a missile to be considered intermediate-range.

However, during a flight test of the Yars on June 6 the missile traveled from a launch center at Kapustin Yar and landed at an impact range at Sary-Shagan, about 2,000 kilometers, or 1,242 miles away. The distance would make the missile an INF-covered weapon.

An intelligence official told the Washington Free Beacon that U.S. intelligence agencies believe the Yars is an intermediate-range missile disguised by the Russians as an ICBM to avoid being accused of violating the INF treaty.

A State Department annual report on arms compliance that was due to Congress on April 15 will address the issue, a department spokeswoman said.

Stefan Forss, a former missile specialist with the government of Finland’s Foreign Ministry, said he agrees the Russians appear to be breaking the INF treaty.

Forss said the June 6 test of the Yars to less than intercontinental ballistic missile range is a clear sign the system is an intermediate-range missile.

“If there are no further tests to intercontinental ranges—we should, however, prepare for some maskirovka [deception] tests in this regard—the matter is settled,” Forss, an adjunct professor at Finland’s National Defense University said in an email. “Yars M will take care of the upper end of the INF range spectrum and Iskander-M of the lower end.”

The Iskander is Russia’s new short-range, nuclear-capable missile.

Forss said a recent statement by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that any future strategic arms accords must include other states beyond the United States and Russia was significant.

“It effectively buries any hopes of further reductions,” he said.

For the Europeans, according to Forss, strategic nuclear arms cuts are less important than tactical nuclear cuts since Russia currently has an overwhelming advantage in tactical nuclear weapons.

“The reason why Russia now opposes bilateral talks with the USA is plain and clear,” Forss said. “Russia doesn’t want any lower START ceilings for the reason that it needs them for the new ‘ICBM’ that for all practical reasons is a non-strategic IRBM.”

Forss said Moscow’s strategy likely would be to first build up INF capabilities and then withdraw from the treaty.

The Armavir radar is one of four advanced missile defense radars being built by Russia in recent years that are being rushed into service by 2020. Each of the radar can track up to 500 objects simultaneously.

The radars are protected by Russian S-400 air defense and anti-missile interceptors.

Two of the stations, called Voronezh-M, already are deployed near St. Petersburg and in Siberia in the Irkutsk region.

The fourth radar is located in the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad, where Moscow in the past has said it would deploy advanced Iskander short-range nuclear-capable missiles in response to European missile defenses.

The Voronezh radars can track objects up to 3,700 miles away and are considered more technically advanced than earlier Soviet-era missile defense radar.

According to Novosti, the Armavir station can track missiles from France and Spain in the west as well as areas of North Africa and through Iran, Afghanistan, and parts of India and Pakistan.

Voronezh radars also are planned for Pechora in Russia’s Komi Republic and near the Siberian cities of Barnaul and Yeniseisk.

Russia announced late last year that the Baltic missile defense radar is being built by 2014 to counter what Russia said is “the perceived threat from a joint U.S.-NATO missile defense system in Europe,” Novosti stated.

The new missile defense radar are part of a major buildup of Russian defenses against missiles first disclosed by the Free Beacon on May 16.

Other elements of the strategic missile defense modernization program include new and modernized anti-missile interceptors, such as the advanced S-500 missile defense system and advanced S-400 and S-300 defenses.

Moscow also is upgrading SH-08 nuclear-tipped anti-missile interceptors around Moscow.

Additionally, other new missile defenses being fielded are Russian SA-20 and SA-21 surface-to-air missiles, and a new advanced system called the SA-X-23, an advanced version of the S-300.

Russia - S-500 air defense system to be ready in 2016 - General Staff

Mass delivery of new armaments and military hardware for the forces will start in 2016, Russian General Staff Chief Valery Gerasimov said.

"A new tank, an infantry combat vehicle and an armored personnel carrier will be ready in 2015; the Prospective Airborne Complex of Frontline Aviation, the S-500 air defense system and a corvette will become available in 2016, and a new-generation destroyer will be created in 2018," he said at a meeting of the Russian Defense Ministry Board in Moscow on Thursday.

The work on these armaments "has been steady and uninterrupted," he said.

 The rate of modern armaments and hardware in the Russian Armed Forces is supposed to reach 30 percent in 2015 and 70-100 percent in 2020, the General Staff chief said. 

"Annual deliveries of 70 to 100 jets, over 120 helicopters, eight to nine warships and submarines and up to 600 armor pieces have been planned for reaching the goal," Gerasimov said.

Available weapons will be modernized alongside the procurement of new hardware, he said. "Troops will receive over 2,500 pieces of modernized armaments and hardware before 2020, and their main parameters will not be inferior to those of contemporary products," he said.

More than 400 military units will be equipped with contemporary and prospective armaments, military and special-purpose hardware before 2020, Gerasimov said.

It is also planned to raise the serviceability status of weaponry. It will reach 85 percent in the Army, 80 percent in the Air Force and 78 percent in the Navy by 2016. The Navy indicator will grow to 85 percent by 2020, the General Staff chief said.

Contracts for the entire period of service life of mass products will be signed starting from this year, he said.

The strategic nuclear forces, the Aerospace Defense Forces, signal, reconnaissance, radio-electric warfare and command units and high-precision weapons are the re-arming priorities, the general said.

Russia Offers Iran New S-300 Replacement

Russia recently offered S-300VM or SA-23 Gladiator to Iran attempting to cover up its failed deal to supply S-300 missile systems to Tehran, according to reports.

This S-300VM missile defense system can simultaneously destroy up to 24 aircraft within the range a range of 200 kilometers or intercept up to 16 ballistic missiles.

The deal will be finalized next month, according to reports.

Iran was initially interested in the S-300 missile complexes, signing in 2007 a contract worth $800 million for five missile defense systems of this make. But the deal was scrapped in 2010 by then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, who was unilaterally expanding on sanctions against Iran imposed by the UN Security Council.

Iran filed a $4-billion lawsuit against Russia in the international arbitration court in Geneva, which is currently pending review.

Moscow has struggled to have the lawsuit dropped, including by offering the Tor anti-aircraft systems as replacement, media reported earlier this month, adding that the offer was rejected by Tehran.

While the S-300 was developed for the use by missile defense forces, the S-300VM was specifically tailored for the needs of ground forces, which could also be an advantage for Iran, known for its large land force.

Russia is already exporting the S-300VM, having delivered two missile systems to Venezuela earlier this year.

India and Turkey were also named as potential buyers, though no deals were formalized so far.

Will Israel destroy Russian missiles?

The main reason for the heightened tensions on the northern front is Iran and Syria's interest to intensify and hasten the arming of Hezbollah. Tehran apparently believes the West's patience is running out quickly and that by the end of the first half of 2013, or by the end of the year, Washington or Jerusalem – or both – will decide on a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

The Iranians want to deter Israel and the Western nations from making such a decision by threats of mass casualties and devastation in the Israeli home front. Tehran plans to realize this threat with the use of Hezbollah and Syria's huge missile and rocket arsenal. Particularly important for the Iranians is Hezbollah's arsenal, which is protected from a ground invasion and is deployed in the heart of a supportive population in south Lebanon.

 While Syria has a far larger amount of rockets and missiles, it is difficult to gauge how many of them will actually work when Iran will need them most. Therefore, Iran is looking to beef up Hezbollah's arsenal with as many accurate and devastating advanced long-term rockets as possible - rockets such as the Fateh-110, which are capable of reaching the Tel Aviv metropolitan area and even further south.

A significant amount of such rockets would allow Hezbollah to fire a relatively large number of them simultaneously. Assad does not possess any spare rockets or missiles to give Hezbollah so it may threaten Israel's cities. The Assad regime needs its missiles in the fight against Syrian citizens who are assisting the rebels.

However, Hezbollah would very much like to get its hands on Assad's Yakhont anti-ship cruise missiles, which pose a major threat to Israeli Navy vessels and gas fields located up to 300 kilometers (186 miles) from the coast. According to the New York Times, Russia has apparently transferred to Syria recently an improved version of the missile, outfitted with an advanced guidance system that makes them more accurate than the older version. 

Assad also has an interest in supplying Hezbollah with advanced, mobile anti-aircraft missile batteries that can protect the Lebanese Shiite group's surface-to-surface missiles and cause heavy casualties to the Israeli Air Force that will try to take them out. 

Therefore, Iran and Syria currently have a common goal: Bolster Hezbollah's rocket and missile arsenal while making it more resilient to Israeli airstrikes. 

Israel apparently has no intention of allowing Khamenei and Assad to intensify the threat already posed to the Israeli home front, and it does not plan on allowing Hezbollah to diminish the IDF's ability to quickly neutralize this threat if needed. 

This "red line," it has been reported, has been implemented by Israel three times as of late – when it bombed a convoy en route to Lebanon and when it attacked missiles stored in Syrian warehouses ahead of their transfer to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Syria, Iran and Hezbollah each had its own reasons not to respond to these attacks in the short term. 

The question is – what will happen next time? Assad has apparently not given up on his plan to supply Hezbollah with "deterrence diminishing" weapons as a reward for the Shiite group's assistance in his regime's battle for survival. Assad also wants Hezbollah to safeguard his strategic weapons systems so they will not fall into rebel hands.

This is why the West estimates Israel will apparently be forced to attack - perhaps in the near future - additional arms shipments making their way from Iran to Hezbollah via Syria. It is also estimated that Assad would have to respond, despite the fact that he has almost no effective retaliation options. The Syrian army, in its current state, cannot attack us on the ground, and if it fires missiles toward Israel's home front, Israel will destroy most of the Assad regime's military assets, and other assets, which are crucial for its continued survival.

Therefore, Assad will try to attack Israel indirectly in a way that will not draw a harsh Israeli response. One possibility is a terror attack against an Israeli target abroad. However, the preparations for such an attack, with the cooperation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah's special unit, may take a long time. 

In addition, such an attack would most likely be thwarted by Israeli intelligence. In any case, the effect of such a Syrian response would not be worth the effort. The other, more effective option is to shatter the calm that has prevailed in the Golan Heights for the past 40 years.

The Syrians realize that the calm in the Golan is a sensitive subject in Israeli politics and public opinion. The near hysteric reports in Israel that follow the landing in the area of every stray mortar shell fired by the Syrian army or the rebels, or the reports on the UN's plans to withdraw its forces from the territory - are a testament to this.

Assad, Khamenei and Nasrallah have apparently reached the conclusion that the Golan Heights is the soft spot which can be used to effectively deter Israel from thwarting arms transfers to Hezbollah. Syria, Iran and Hezbollah have issued numerous threats clarifying that the response to additional Israeli strikes will be "strategic…in the Golan." The bottom line: Assad will allow Hezbollah to operate in the Golan, and should Israel attack the transfer of "deterrence diminishing" weapons in Syria or Lebanon, the lives of Israelis in the Golan will be similar to the lives of Israelis residing in communities bordering the Gaza Strip. 

Israel will not be able to respond with full force because the terror attack may not be on a large enough scale to justify confining Israel's citizens to shelters for a period of a few weeks or because the identity of those who carry it out will not be clear. This would make it difficult for Israel to garner international support for a forceful military response.

Assad and Hezbollah's threat on the Golan Heights puts the ball back in the Israeli court and makes the dilemma all the more difficult: How will Israel respond the next time a shipment of advanced weapons makes its way from Syria to Lebanon? For now, Jerusalem (which is coordinating its strategy with Washington) is not blinking. 

To make Israel's intentions clear, a senior official told the New York Times Israel does not plan on intervening in favor of the rebels, but it will not allow Syria and Iran to transfer "game-changing" weapons to Hezbollah. 

The Israeli official stressed that any Syrian retaliation to an Israeli attack will cause Israel to topple Assad's regime. How? By attacking what is left of his army and other assets that allow for the Alawite regime's continued survival. More importantly, Israel will destroy the assets the regime plans to use in order to create an Alawite enclave that will be connected to the Hezbollah-controlled Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. 

Such an enclave in the Mediterranean Basin is crucial not only for Assad and his sect, but also for the Iranians and the Russians, who want to preserve their interests in Syria. An Alawite enclave would serve this purpose well, and this is why the Iranians are setting up an international Shiite force that will fight alongside the Alawites in the enclave and outside of it and also help Assad maintain control over Damascus. The Russians, for their part, wish to hold on to facilities in the port of Tartus, which is situated at the center of the future Alawite enclave. 

Israel made it clear to Assad and his patrons that any attacks in the Golan will dash their hopes of creating a coastal sanctuary in the Alawite enclave. 

The Russians are reading the map well and are aware that in the current situation Assad does not have the means to deter Israel from attacking Hezbollah-bound arms convoys. This is why Putin's aides – in order to deter Israel and the Americans from attacking in Syria - leaked to the press that Moscow will finally transfer to Syria three S-300 missile batteries. The original agreement for the transfer of long-range (200 kilometers, or 124 miles) missiles was signed some three years ago –before the revolt against Assad erupted. Russia has already received some of the payments, but the missiles have not been transferred to Syria due to American and Israeli pressure on the Kremlin not to supply the Assad regime with these missiles, as they may fall into Hezbollah's hands and undermine regional balance - because the Israeli Air Force would be forced to act in Lebanon before these missiles hinder its ability to operate there. 

Medvedev, the Russian president at the time, was convinced, and he decided to freeze the agreement in 2010, but he did not cancel it. Nothing has changed since then, but Putin wants to use this arms deal to force Netanyahu to guarantee that Israel will not attack Syria and threaten the regime there. The Russian president apparently wants a similar commitment from Obama. It is safe to assume that Netanyahu did not give such a guarantee to Putin when the two met on the eve of the Shavuot holiday in Sochi. This is why Putin is refusing to promise that he will not transfer the advanced missiles to Syria. This impasse led to the vague statements made by Foreign Minister Lavrov and Putin's spokesman Peskov, from which we can understand that Russia plans to transfer the S-300 missiles to Syria, despite the fact that the two senior officials did not specifically say so. Based on Russia's conduct in recent years, it may very well delay the arms transfer.

 The Russians certainly do not want to see their rockets fall into the hands of Islamist Syria rebels or force Israel to attack and destroy the missiles in order to restore its freedom to operate in Lebanese and Syrian airspace.

This issue was discussed during the meeting between Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon and CIA director John Brennan, who made a surprise visit to Israel. The two also discussed Iran.
In the meantime, it is safe to assume that Syria and Hezbollah will not rush to act against Israel in the Golan or along the Lebanese border, mainly because Iran has an interest in keeping Hezbollah and Syria's rocket and missile arsenals ready for action in order to deter Israel and the US from attacking its nuclear facilities. This interest will remain relevant for at least another six months, perhaps even more. Therefore, Iran will advise Assad to act with restraint, for now, even if Israel strikes Hezbollah-bound arms convoys.