Tag Archives: Путин

NATO and Global Policy in Rambo Style


When is viewed from a world-wide perspective, America is such something as in the language of Hollywood producers is called an ”ham” or ”over-actor”. This means an actor, not very bright and talented, but possessing with very distinctive physical features who exaggerates all the techniques he knows, from gestures to his speech, trying to be noticeable or to mask obvious faults.

The typology of such a character could be found not only in action movies like Rambo, but also in the existential DNA of the big political and military strategy of the United States.

As Christofer Layne[1] wrote in his book ”The Peace of Illusion”, the US commitment to transforming the entire world is ill-founded and self-defeating. Layne argues that the history of powerful empires shows that in the end they all fall into the trap of overextension, unnecessary military entanglements, and excessive interventionism. That is exactly the kind of approach practiced by the US during the last 40 years, but especially noticeable in the last decade. Practically, it means the ”dissuasion” strategy that plans to surround other powers at their own homes with land- and sea-based nuclear missiles, submarines, and fighter jets.

But at the same time it’s the US that claim the breach of international treaties, because a foreign military division has been moved 5 km closer to the Sea of Japan. Surprisingly, the leaders in Washington seem not to understand that there is an approach that harms the US regarding its partners and public perception. One of the world’s leading economists, Professor Michael Hudson says that ”the US-led confrontational approach of NATO to Russia is driving European countries to consider disbanding or leaving the military alliance due to increased risks to security.” So, in whose interests is it to keep up this agressive rhetoric?

Prosperity of War Industry – a Constant of Great Powers

us-military-background-fullAt the end of the World War II, the US had a military presence in Europe of approximately 1,9 million of troops and more than two million vehicles ranging from tanks to dozers to Indian brand motorcycles. It’s not too difficult to see that at this ratio of forces and resources deployment, practically one third of them could not be used because there were really no one to control them. What does it mean? It means a huge business that has moved money from pockets of American tax payers into pockets of big manufacturers operating in that period. It means huge public contracts with the American state, and while they have been implemented, some food staples for the population were limited and could be bought only with ration cards (although, apparently, many still believe that ration cards were invented on the other side of the Iron Curtain).

Of all the countries involved, the United States has spent the biggest sum in wartime being surpassed only by Japan spending approximately 341 billion dollars, of which 50 billion went for resources. That’s to say nothing about loans granted to others countries. These 341 billion were at that time a huge figure for the American industry, which at the end of the conflict has fallen dramatically somewhere below 1%. So, the enemy had been defeated and it was necessary to invent a new one, equally fierce, otherwise the business had a risk to collapse and take the entire US economy along with it.

In the spring of 1948, President Truman and his administration held secret talks in Washington D.C., to discuss the impending enlargement of the Soviet power. That was the post-war context that made five members of the Western Europe (Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) to sign the Brussels Treaty, whereby they have decided to constitute a common system of defense. The decision seemed justified, the severe trauma left by the war persisted strongly in social mindset. And the rise of the Soviet power seemed unstoppable.

But Great Britain was at the low level of its economic strength, the rest of the countries were completely insignificant regarding their military force. Metaphorically speaking, it looked as if you were going to protect yourself against a dangerous animal attack by purchasing a rifle with pellets for starling. Evidently, something more than just the will was necessary. Thus the negotiations with the USA and Canada occured. At the same time other European countries, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, and surprisingly the ally of Nazi Germany, Italy were invited to participate in this process as well.

It was rather odd taking into account the fact that the majority of these states were on/under the ground from a military point of view and some of them, from the economic point of view also. France was a real loser since the times of Napoleon, Italy was ready to surrender at the first sign of troubles, and Iceland until this day does not have an army of its own. Great Britain had done some interesting moves in the North Africa, but that happened thanks to heroism of its soldiers; for its technical military equipment was disastrous (the Churchill and Matilda tanks, which did not sink together with the ships in the North Sea and were delivered to the USSR, were sent immediately to meltdown and recast into glorious Soviet T-34).

The US immediately felt the oppotunity and used the moment and opportunities for its own gain. That was an attitude fit to a power in the global rising. Washington accepted this new military alliance and took the role of its undisputed leader.

So, on April 4, 1949 in Washington the North Atlantic Treaty Organization – NATO[2] was established, an alliance with numerous principal discrepancies, disagreements that have brought much real harm since then until now. “To look big and to impress” seems to be quite logical basis when the leader, as I have already said, is an overplay.

According to the ”main goal of its creation”, NATO was meant to be a Meeting of NATO and Partner Chiefs of Defence - Opening of the 159th MC/CS Sessioncounter-force to the presence of the Soviet military forces in the Eastern Europe. The US had a real interest to quickly demonize the USSR thus getting the necessary and veridic enemy in the long term to support the alliance resilience. In the next few years Greece and Turkey have acceded and in 1955 Federal Germany itself joined this organization. On May 9, 1955 the decision of the governments of the United States and Western Europe to include West Germany into NATO generated a geo-political balance preserving move. The USSR decided to set up the Warsaw Pact in order to counterbalance the military force of NATO and the plan of the Western Europe military equipping worth over 6 billion dollars.

Warsaw Pact was designed to increase the international negotiating power of the Soviet Union. Another logic fact is that the Soviet Union has also used the Warsaw Pact as a way to develop new armies and train them under its military strategies. More to that, in the framework of the Warsaw Pact the USSR was the principal supplier of weapons and military equipment and technology for the member countries of the Warsaw Pact, except (for a period of time) for Romania. The great global powers have a similar constant: they have a military industrial complex which is one of the most effective businesses of the state.

The tensions between the two military blocks have led inevitably to the triggering of the Cold War and the expensive Arms Race. Both alliances were proposing ways to basically dominate the world and spread their beliefs of ideal governments. This is the context in which the US began to send a nuclear missiles all over the world. In 1947 the president Harry S. Truman authorized US aid (The Truman Doctrine) to anti-communist forces in Greece and Turkey. The policy was expanded to justify support for any nation that the US government considered to be threatened by Soviet expansionism. This policy, known as the George Kennan[3] doctrine, was aimed at holding back and restricting the spread of Communism worldwide. Containment quickly became the official US policy towards the USSR. The USSR began to be strangled from all sides. The constrictor rings of the Anaconda strategy started to tighten around the Soviet Union and the US nuclear missiles reached the neighborhood of Crimea and the Black Sea by means of placing outdated, but still dangerous PGM-19 Jupiter and PGM-17 Thor in Turkey sometime in 1960.

A move in return from the Soviet Block was predictable and justifiable. In response, the Caribbean (Cuban Missile) Crisis becomes a cold shower for the US. Americans, who until then had filled the planet with nuclear weapons knew Russia’s feeling very good and knew how it was when others come up with nuclear weapons near the borders that you thought were guarded by two huge oceans and thousands of kilometers of airspace. Both sides have learned from the Cuban Missile Crisis that risking nuclear war in pursuit of political goals is just too dangerous. It was the last time during the Cold War that either side would take this risk. After the Cuban Missile Crisis was over, the US and the USSR preferred to bring their competition onto local conflicts in other parts of the globe.

The Cold War has had a special feature: it reflected confrontation between the two blocks on the criterion of ideological purposes (Communism vs. Capitalism). Therefore, once the communist ideology was removed, a new similar confrontation in this part of the world seemed unlikely. But that was a miscalculation. Nowadays, the confrontation is more sharp, pragmatic and has a purpose of controlling the biggest part of resources of the planet. At the same time, the experts usually skip an important detail: the Cold War stopped due to the lack of a main combatant and not as a result of a bilateral agreement. Consequently, the claim of the United States and the Western block composed of allies/satellites to be the sole pole of power in the world and to establish a planetary way of life based exclusively on ideology and principles of their leadership has absolutely no grounds. The US strategy is to prevent neutrality. Europe’s economic interest is to achieve neutrality with Russia, and have economic unity so that there’s little chance of any confrontation with Russia. The result of such a rebellious is already visible and do not require detailed examples.

The Cold War Doctrine in Use Again

 By eliminating competition with the Warsaw Pact, NATO should not be competing for world domination especially when the money people pay is being used for missiles, bombs, and tanks rather than education, housing, and healthcare. But it still is! Although the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Act (July 1991), the Cold War was never over. Between the new planetary hegemon of the US and Russia, the heir to all good and bad things of the Soviet Union, the competition trend is always presented. In spite of the political statements, the US wanted a confirmation of being a unique worldwide leader. Russia wanted to get its revenge and return to the table of the global decision makers. The truce lasted for two decades, only as far as it has been necessary for Russia to regain strength.

nato_russia_flagsExhausted by the Arm and Space Race through the 1980s, the USSR gave to the North-Atlantic Alliance and the Euro-Atlantic community some signals that it intended to end up the Cold War on a unilateral basis. In other words, NATO remained without the „Enemy” which (for almost half a century) had been defining the Western politics as active confrontation to communism values. Based on the danger of the Soviet power, NATO created a geo-strategic plan of neutralization of the Soviet threat and its allies. Maybe surprised by the Soviet Union weekness, the West has got the message from Moscow as an unconditional capitulation. This was another misunderstanding.

Through the unilateral termination of the Cold War, the USSR did not mean its disadvantageous capitulation, but rather a truce through which it would get the time necessary either for lasting negotiations or for in-state reforms. It was a question of time before the „confrontation” would be restarted. Another error was that the West had not understood that the commitment, or the “deal” did not mean that the countries which were detached from the conglomerate and the sphere of the USSR influence, had no right to establish new alliances with former opponents, therefore, to integrate into structures of the Euro-Atlantic community.

 NATO – Preferred ”Weapon” of Advancing American Interests

On the one hand, NATO has pledged many times that expansion to the East will enhance security of Europe as a whole and not produce new dividing lines. On the other hand, the expansion of NATO to the East was accompanied by the colored revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, the Arab Spring in North Africa and the conflicts triggered and supported by the US in the Middle East, deployment of troops and weapons in Romania and Poland, launch of the missile shield elements in Romania.

On the top of all that some economic sanctions against Russia were imposed. main-qimgEven at a quick glance we can observe that a set of policies and restrictive practices of the same type of is used, a new incarnation of the containment doctrine. Besides, it is clear that America is trying to force Russia to spend more as a part of its economic warfare.

The United States and its allies from NATO are trying not only to prevent Russia from its possible expansion and retrieval of its former sphere of influence. The actions of the past few years suggest a real siege, which is composed of multiple constricting rings, intended either to kneel the Russian Federation, or to induce it to react aggressively. With the same aim, the „challenges” have a huge part of mingled defiance and arrogance. Otherwise, one cannot explain how it is possible that the largest military exercises of NATO nearby the Russian borders are called „Anaconda 2016”. Especially so that the Pentagon is well known to have talented specialists with the ‚poetical’ sense when it comes to giving names for the US military operations abroad. In the 1990s, critics warned that the NATO expansion would cultivate a new cold war. It seems that they were right.

 And regarding declarations which outraged the opponents of the republican candidate for the US presidency, Donald Trump, related to the Baltic countries and Article 5[4] of the Treaty of the North Atlantic Alliance, it appears to have been right in accordance with the principles of assistance specified by Article 6 of the same Treaty:

“With the invocation of Article 5, Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to a situation. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in the particular circumstances. This assistance is taken forward in concert with other Allies. It is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. It is therefore left to the judgment of each individual member country to determine how it will contribute.”

It means that the North Atlantic Treaty does not impose to the US or to another state that it must defend the military attacked ally; each state which is deemed to have been under the military attack by another state shall be free to take the measures that are considered necessary.

Basically, if the United States or any other NATO member refuses to take military intervention in favor of the Baltic states and confines to assistance and provision with helmets and anti-bullet vests (as it was done in the case of Ukraine which is not NATO member), it would not breach the provisions of this Treaty. In addition, the USA has infringed enough international treaties which it had signed and ratified: the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Convention against Torture – there were breaches of the most scandalous nature, so it’s better remember the proverb about glass houses and stones.

 Article 5 has been invoked by the US and accepted by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on September 11, 2001. The US is not (at least theoretically) an exception to the rule, as the right shall apply to all parties according to international laws.

flickrBut it happens only when the US interests coincide with the interests of other governments (permanent members of the UN Security Council). If the US as NATO chief declares firmly that it will render military defence to any ally, it is not because a treaty was signed in 1949, but because such a position can best serve the US foreign policy and interests at the moment. In fact, the current strategy of the West of ensuring safety by limiting the “enemy” is by far the most inefficient approach when aiming at long-term peace. It is an option when the final aim is a military conflict.

 *** Epilogue

What would happen if Russia decides to invade a member of NATO as a reply to aggressive extension of the North Atlantic alliance up to its borders? Estonia, for example, which expresses its concern in the most explicit ways? Estonia will invoke Article 5 of the Treaty of NATO and the alliance will follow the standard procedures. And what will happens if a member of NATO – Turkey, for example, will refuse to attend confrontation ? It seems nothing. It can happens that many countries – members NATO were dissapointed. Most probably because the purpose of the start – defensive alliance – has been seriously misused and has become an instrument of (re)pression in the hands of a global Rambo.” 

Original file published by ”New Defence Order. Strategy” / «Новый Оборонный Заказ. Стратегии»

2016, №4 (41), History of Defence Industry and Military History, Military and Technical Cooperation

[1] Christopher Layne is Associate Professor at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. He is the author of „The Peace of Illusions: American Grand Strategy from 1940 to the Present” (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2006).

[2] www.nato.int

[3] The author of the „Doctrines of Containment” was an American diplomat George Kennan, who defined the theoretical basis of this policy in 1947 for use in America’s geopolitics.

[4] www.nato.int

Российский военный эксперт Евгений Крутиков: ”Армия США еще с первой Войны в Заливе привыкла «воевать в прямом эфире» и Минобороны России не имеет пока достаточного опыта в этом смысле”

Romanian-flag– Уже две недели весь мир напряженно смотрит в сторону России и вмешательства в Сирию. Для начала, скажите, пожалуйста, какова атмосфера на Командном Национальный центр управления обороны РФ и Министерство Обороны России?

Evgeny_KrutikovЕвгений Крутиков: – Для начала надо определиться с терминами. Никакой «российской интервенции» или «вмешательства» [1] в Сирии нет. Российская авиационная группа и службы поддержке находятся на территории Сирии абсолютно законно, по приглашению законного правительства этой страны. Также нет никакого давления «целого мира» на Россию в связи с событиями в Сирии. Постоянные встречи российского руководства с лидерами множества стран, особенно арабских, тому подтверждение. Что же касается «атмосферы» в Национальном центре управления обороны РФ, то такого понятия не существует. В работе Министерства обороны отсутствуют эмоции, и как-то «змоционально» охарактеризовать работу командного центра нельзя. Это ежедневный, размеренный и регламентированный труд, в котором отсутствуют внешние факторы влияния.

Евгений Крутиков – известный российский политолог и военный эксперт, специалист по проблемам Кавказа и Балкан. Он окончил Московский Военный институт иностранных языков.

– После первого вмешательства  Воздушно-космических сил России в Сирию, западные СМИ быстро ”вспыхнули”. Сколько пропаганды и как насчёт реальных “сопутствующий повреждений” в этой информационной войне?

–  Пропаганда и информационные войны сейчас, к сожалению, не способствуют взаимодействию между всеми союзниками, включая Россию и западные страны. Если на военном уровне кооперации с каждым днем все больше и больше, то пропагандистские машины, наоборот, только искажают реальность во вред реальному сотрудничеству. Информационные войны никак не связаны с практической стороной событий в Сирии. Они преследуют в основном внутриполитические цели, в том числе, и в США. Предвыборная обстановка, стремление администрации Барака Обамы «войти в историю», желание эффектно продемонстрировать свою силу – все это пропаганда. Реальная же оценка результатов российской военной помощи правительству Сирии будет возможна только через несколько недель, когда сирийские войска самостоятельно смогут продемонстрировать свои возможности в борьбе с радикализмом и экстремизмом.

– По вопросам пропаганды против России… я заметила, что Вы несколько расстроен тем, как отвечает Отдел Печати Министерства Обороны РФ. Почему? Какой с Вашей точки зрения самый лучший способ управления этими атаками?

–  Российское Министерство Обороны не имеет пока достаточного опыта, чтобы противостоять насыщенной антироссийской пропаганде различного происхождения. Российская армия не участвовала в подобных операциях, в отличие от американской. Армия США еще с первой Войны в Заливе привыкла «воевать в прямом эфире». Это стало даже «визитной карточкой» американских военных операций в «третьем мире». У российского министерства обороны такого длительного опыта нет, хотя, надо отдать должное, оно быстро учится. Сейчас уже нет таких проблем, которые были у российской военной пропаганды во времена событий в Чечне, когда значительная часть журналистского сообщества была настроена антироссийски и антиармейски.

Defence_Russia2Сейчас это не вопрос идеологии, а вопрос практики, опыта и технического обеспечения. А все это при желании приходит со временем. В России последние примерно лет 10 очень вырос престиж армии и армейской службы. На службы приходят очень перспективные молодые люди с хорошим образованием и разносторонними знаниями. В том же Национальном центре обороны на дежурстве находятся десятки молодых людей, блестяще говорящих на нескольких редких языках. Они же обеспечивают, например, линии прямой и экстренной связи с министерствами обороны США, Франции, Израиля, Турции, Саудовской Аравии. Так что в этом аспекте Министерство обороны заслуживает не критики ради критики, а скорее подсказок «со стороны».

– Россия создала в регионе потрясающую систему сбора и обработки информации. Но некоторые эксперты заявили, что Россия не имеет необходимых высоких технологий и это является серьезным ограничением. (”Лётно-технические характеристики напрасны если Вы не знаете, куда целиться” – П. Фелгенхауер). В данном случае это миф или обман?

– Мне жаль, что приходится разъяснять некоторые персональные особенности, но сейчас именно такой уровень «экспертизы» и стал одним из базовых элементов пропаганды и информационной войны. Павел Фенгельгауэр считается на Западе «военным экспертом» по недоразумению. Ученый-биолог, он в начале 90-ых годов «назначил себя» военным журналистом, а потом и «экспертов», не служив в армии, но зато регулярно посещавшим приемы в посольствах. Его профессией стала дискредитация российской армии во все времена ее становления – как при Ельцине, так и при Путине. В августе 2008 года в первый же день войны в Южной Осетии он заявил, что российская армия будет разгромлена, потому что она «технически устарела» и пообещал полное уничтожение российской авиации силами ПВО Грузии. Комментировать этот «прогноз» нет никакой необходимости.

Я могу привести больше примеров его «экспертных оценок», в том числе, и из личного общения, но одного этого уже достаточно. К сожалению, такие «эксперты», как он, считаются авторитетными для западного общественного мнения не потому, что они действительно умны и осведомлены, а потому что они говорят то, что Запад хочет слышать. Фенгельгауэр уже много лет живет в эмиграции и никакого представления о современной российской армии не имеет, как не имел и ранее. Его слова для специалистов ничего не значат.

По сути же, российская авиации и флот продемонстрировали очень высокую эффективность в короткие сроки. При этом, надо понимать, что российские авиаудары не хаотичны, а преследуют точную военную цель. Они обеспечивают правительственным войскам возможности для перехода в наступление. Не «вообще», а на конкретных участках фронта в соответствии с данными разведки. Одновременно подрывается система снабжения исламистов и возможности для пополнения фронта подкреплениями. Эта тактика гораздо более эффективна, нежели бесконечное преследование по пустыни отдельных маленьких групп экстремистов без возможности подкрепить эти действия «на земле».

Чисто военно-технические характеристики российского вооружение также никто не ставит под сомнение. Более того, сейчас российская авиация и флот обладают возможностями изменять свою тактику и характеристики вооружения в зависимости от целей и обстановки.

– “Washington Post” заявил, что, так как есть серьезные подозрения об истинных намерениях США в Сирии, Россия начала сопровождать в миссии свои бомбардировщики с истребителями Su-30 SM, это правда?Sukhoi SU-30SM

– На авиабазе Хмеймим около сирийской Латакии размещены, в частности, несколько истребителей Су-30СМ. Нет ничего удивительно, что для поддержки штурмовой авиации приданы истребители. Это обычная практика. Никто никогда не оставить бомбардировочную и штурмовую авиацию без истребительного прикрытия. Это «дважды два» военной тактики, вне зависимости от того, использует ли потенциальный противник воздушное прикрытие или нет. Сейчас нет никакой опасности воздушного столкновения с авиацией США или других стран западной коалиции. По последним данным, между ВКС РФ и ВВС США достигнуты договоренности даже об обмене кодами «свой-чужой». А это ранее невиданный уровень кооперации, позволяющий говорить о полном исключении возможных случайностей в небольшом воздушном пространстве Сирии.

– Вмешательство России будет ограничено Военно-Воздушными Силами, а на земле будут сосредоточены войска Башара Аль-Ассада и Хезболлаха? Или стратегия может изменится и мы увидим русские солдатские сапоги на Сирийской земле?

– Повторюсь: никакой «российской интервенции» в Сирии не существует. Порядок и цели пребывания российских войск в Сирии определен запросом Дамаска и двухсторонними соглашениями между РФ и Сирией. Москва не заинтересована в каком-либо долгосрочном втягивании в военные действиям. Также нет никакой заинтересованности в физическом контроли за территорией или каких-либо формах «оккупации» или чего-либо подобного. Правительство в Дамаске должно постоять за себя самостоятельно, а российская армия может только немного помочь.

– Как насчёт Китая?

– Позиция же Китая, как обычно, не проявлена четко. Пекин в принципе не стремиться открыто проявлять свою позицию в регионах, где его интересы непосредственно не представлены.

– Между прочим, как оценит Россия ощутимые результаты этой военной кампании?

– У России нет никаких территориальных интересов в регионе. Сейчас сложно однозначно говорить о далеко идущих целях российского присутствия регионе, но они явно прежде всего политические, а не прагматические. Тем более, они не лежат в территориальной или экономической плосткости.

 Беседу вела Главный редактор PPW, Габриэла Ионицэ

Thanks to Форум Министерства обороны Российской Федерации  because is sharing my interview.


[1] The deliberate act of a nation or a group of nations to introduce its military forces into the course of an existing controversy, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.

Russia will hold about 4,000 various combat training missions in 2015

According press release published on the official page of Russian Ministry of Defence, Tuesday, 13 January 2015, the Russian Federation National Center for State Defence Control has hosted a meeting between the Minister of Defence and the key personnel of the Armed Forces. They discussed the key issues of the state defence to deal with in the year 2015.

***o analiza extinsă asupra noii doctrine militare ruse și implicațiile în contextul actual puteți citi aici (Română):

Russian Ministry of Defence, General Army Sergey Shoigu

Russian Ministry of Defence, General Army Sergey Shoigu

Minister of Defence, Army General Sergey Shoigu reiterated the necessity of increasing the capacity of national Armed Forces in all strategic directions and improving the quality of training of the troops. He also mentioned that the Plan of Russian Federation Defence for the period of 2016-2020 should be worked out. “We are drawing up a new Russian Federation Defense Plan for 2016-2020 to ensure timely placing and obligatory fulfillment of state defense orders in 2015 to have modern models of weapons and military equipment as planned” Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said, as Moscow refocuses its major rearmament plan, worth over 20 trillion rubles ($310 billion) over the span of 10 years, according to a new military doctrine. President Vladimir Putin has introduced a new Military Doctrine in the context of the Ukraine crisis, deteriorating relations with the United States, the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as well as shifts within the international security environment. However, the doctrine appears innately defensive in its tone and content, offering some adjustments to the 2010 Military Doctrine, but retaining most of its core elements. This year, Shoigu said that Russian armed forces are set to receive some 700 armored and 1,550 other vehicles, 126 planes, 88 helicopters, and two Iskander-M missile systems. The navy will receive five surface warships and two multi-purpose submarines.

Also Ministry Shoigu turned his attention to the arrangement of the 201st military base garrison. He has brought into focus the necessity of creation of comfortable living environments for servicemen so that they could perform their tasks at a high quality level.

Russia will hold about 4,000 various combat training missions in 2015. A network of joint warfare training centers will be set up in every Russian military district, which by 2020 will all be interconnected by a single virtual battle space, according to the minister. In order to raise the professional level of its troops, the military hopes by the end of 2015 to recruit 52,000 contract soldiers, in addition to conscripts.

At the meeting there have been negotiated such key issues as fulfillment of tasks of the State Order – 2015; financing; re-equipment of the Armed Forces with modern armament, improvement of military infrastructure; issues of housing and social security of the servicemen;  surprise comprehensive inspections of the combat readiness of troops, trainings, and exercises, creation of the 330th center of military training for the Army, Airborne troops and the Navy (Ashuluk settlement, Astrakhanskya Oblast), arrangement of military settlements of the 201st Russian military base in Tajikistan, creation of centers for multi-service troops training.

Russia’s chief of General Staff, Gen. Valery Gerasimov

Russia’s chief of General Staff, Gen. Valery Gerasimov

Russia’s chief of General Staff, Valery Gerasimov, said that in 2015 Russia will focus on reinforcing its military on the Crimean peninsula, the Kaliningrad Region, and in the Arctic. “In 2015, the Defense Ministry’s main efforts will focus on an increase of combat capabilities of the armed forces and increasing the military staff in accordance with military construction plans. Much attention will be given to the groupings in Crimea, Kaliningrad, and the Arctic”  said General Gerasimov, quoted by RT.

During the teleconference the key personnel of the Ministry of Defence have received operational tasks within their competence. In the Arctic region, deputy Defense Minister Gen. Dmitry Bulgakov specified that Russia will rebuild an additional 10 military airfields in 2015. “We will reconstruct 10 airfields in the Arctic region this year, which will bring the number to 14 operational airfields in the Arctic” said Bulgakov.

A new branch of the Russian military, the Aerospace Defense Force, will be formed in 2015, ahead of schedule, through the merger of Air Force and Space Forces. “A new type of armed forces will be created in 2015, the Aerospace Defense Force, by merging two already existing military forces: the Air Force and Space Force” General Valery Gerasimov said, as Russia continues developing a reliable space echelon of the early-warning radar system to detect missile launches.