Russia & CIS

Military units of the armed forces of Armenia violated ceasefire 136 times throughout the day.

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said recently that the notorious "Kremlin report" materialised as a result of the undercover struggle of the American establishment with US President Donald Trump and the overall confrontation of the Washington elite, which has nothing to do with Russia's reality. Official spokesperson for the Russian Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, warned the US not to interfere in the presidential election in Russia in March, adding that the USA was already taking efforts in this direction. The "Kremlin report" controversy is essentially much ado about nothing. The expectation of the publication of the list was a lot more intriguing than the actual exposure of the copied and pasted list of Russian names from web pages of the presidential administration and Forbes magazine. Moreover, a warning from the US Treasury saying that new sanctions against Russia may potentially lead to negative side effects for the global financial markets has clarified the situation.Given that US officials are bad at observing their own "instructions" with respect to sanctioned individuals, it brings up one simple question: whom is this circus for? It goes about the recent visit of Russian security officials to the USA. Not only did they receive visas to the United States, but also demonstratively entered the buildings where they intended to hold meetings with US colleagues.One shall assume that it was Washington that wanted Russian security officials to come to the USA. CIA chief Mike Pompeo stated afterwards that such meetings were to ensure the safety of US citizens in the first place. Representatives of the US State Department said that such contacts were an exception for the sake of benefit. In my opinion, one can give a small ovation to the CIA director in his approach to public security.  Everyone in this world knows who is standing behind the procedure for creating a world-wide terrorist threat, and Washington is well aware of further unpredictable consequences for the Americans themselves.The Americans understand that effective anti-terrorist work without Russia is impossible. I am sure that the Americans took great care of their own image when they invited Russian security officials. It seems to me that the nonsensical "Kremlin report" and the "progress" in the Surkov-Volker format on the Ukrainian issue came as a result of the analysis of the current state off affairs in the world and Washington's realisation of the fact hat America no longer holds the initiative in the struggle for  global domination.At the same time, such an approach can be based on the interests of the United States in the first place, because the forthcoming elections to the US Congress this year can change the balance of forces. Neither Trump himself, nor his team need any surprises at this point. The Americans were forced to invite top Russian security officials to come to the States, because if meetings of such level had been held in Moscow, they would not have been allowed to take advantage of the game. One may assume that the West and the USA could be interested in the strong Russia and the strong Russian leader against the background of the global terrorist threat. After all, ensuring security is  much more important than following illusions of geopolitical domination in the world. The West understands that attempts to interfere in the Russian presidential election may lead to  unpredictable and lethal consequences for both politicians and global elites. Both Western politicians and "globalists" realise that it is only Putin who can handle all the sore points on the geopolitical map. The Americans have not been able to take successful pinpoint measures to ensure their own safety, because their strategy was always to create hotbeds of tensions and provocation. To crown it all, the West and the US have not learned to effectively counter the effects of their "colour revolutions." Many authors and bloggers in the West claim that it is too difficult for Putin to create a new image for himself to be able to surprise people on the eve of elections. Why would Putin need a new image taking into consideration the fact that he already has the reputation of one of the most influential politicians in the world?The image of Putin has been stable for long already, and Russia's recent successes in the field of defence and foreign policy are based on Putin's verified and pragmatic policy. Never before has the world respected Russia like this; never before have we been so proud of our own army and our arms. In my opinion, the March elections in Russia will be relatively smooth and quiet, because all measures to ensure the citizens' safety have been prepared very carefully. One may, of course, expect provocations, but they will mostly be informational in nature.If the West runs the risk of putting pressure on Russia, that Russians will stand up for their president and they will unite around him. This is what the phenomenon of the Russian people is about. Vladimir GromovPravda.Ru Read article on the Russian version of Pravda.Ru

Helicopter carrier Priboi (Surf) is expected to become part of the new concept of the Russian Navy. The model of the new vessel was presented at the stand of the Russian fleet during the international forum in the Moscow region in 2015. Back then, military analysts said that the Priboy would be an alternative to French Mistrals that had never found themselves in the Russian waters.Russian shipbuilders took account of the experience of their French colleagues and offered their own concept of a ship for over-the-horizon landing purposes. The ship is to have a semi-trimmed body that ensures high resistance to disturbance at sea and provides for less resistance to movement while cruising.It is expected that the first of the two landing ships will pass into service at the Russian Navy in 2025, although no official statement has been made on the matter. The construction of the helicopter carrier, which is to become a universal landing ship, is scheduled to begin in 2020. Preparations have already started in St. Petersburg at Severnaya Verf shipyard. The mock-up of the Nevsky Design Bureau presented at the forum differed from the design of the French Mistral helicopter carrier. The stated specifications of the vessel do not match those of large amphibious ships of the Soviet period and most foreign analogues.The Russian Priboi vessel will have the displacement of 14,000 tons, a running speed of 19-20 knots and the draft of five meters. The navigation range will make up 6,000 nautical miles with the autonomy of 60 days. The length of the ship is expected to be 165 meters and width of 25 meters.The French Mistral helicopter carrier has different specifications: displacement of 22,000 tons, speed of 19 knots, and draft of 6.42 meters. The crew of the French landing ship is 177 men.A Mistral can carry 16 attack helicopters (Eurocopter Tiger), a tank battalion (40 French Leclerc) and 450 paratroopers. The ship can also be used as a hospital at the same time. In addition, Mistral helicopter carriers can also assume the role of floating headquarters. It is equipped with a French combat information management system, which unites several ships into a single whole. It remains unknown whether the new Russian vessel is going to have such a system. The Priboi will be able to carry eight deck-based Ka-52/Ka-52K helicopters, which is significantly less than with the French ship. Helicopters will receive a modified on-board radar station with a radius of up to 80 km.It is not ruled out that the Priboi will also carry Ka-27 helicopters, which is an antisubmarine chopper. However, the Ka-27 exists in two modifications - an anti-submarine and a search and rescue vehicle. It appears that the new ship will be able to carry out complex tasks rather than operate within a rigid framework of narrow specialisation.It is possible that the new Russian vessel will be able to carry Russia's first unmanned aircraft known as Chirok with a wingspan of 10 meters. The Priboi will be able to transport up to 900 troops, about ten tanks and fifty infantry vehicles. Two or four landing boats are also going to be on board. The ship is expected to be armed with three anti-aircraft missile systems Pantsir-M/Palitsa (SA-22 Greyhound).Many experts were puzzled by Russia's desire to create a ship like the Priboi. After all, a Mistral helicopter carrier can travel for 20,000 nautical miles. Yet, the ship is clearly intended for defence purposes to protect the extensive coastline along the Arctic Ocean, or in the Black Sea and along the chain of Kuril Islands. The ship is not designed to travel across oceans, and this is where the 6,000 mile range comes from. Alexander Artamonov Pravda.Ru Read article on the Russian version of Pravda.Ru

On January 29, a closed briefing was held at US Congress, during which US Senators discussed anti-Russian sanctions. Neither US lawmakers, nor representatives of the State Department and other government structures reported any details about the meeting.The so-called "Kremlin Report" or the "Kremlin List" was published soon afterwards. The report includes Russian politicians and businessmen, who, according to Washington, are members of  Russian President Putin's team. As for the new sanctions that were discussed at the above-mentioned briefing, US officials discussed (judging from scanty reports) restrictive measures against enterprises of the Russian defence complex and their foreign counterparts. According to representatives of the State Department, the current restrictive measures have deprived Russia of contracts worth several billions of dollars. Yet, it is difficult to be specific here, as the meeting was held behind closed doors. After the meeting, however, several Democratic Congressmen accused the Trump administration of unwillingness to impose new sanctions against Russia.A little later, State Department spokesman Heather Nauert indirectly confirmed this opinion. As she said, the United States did not see the need to impose new sanctions on the Russian defence industry, because the already effective measures against Russian defence companies have shown their effectiveness.As for the Kremlin List, the document contains the names of 210 people - all, as Washington believes, are part of Putin's milieu. The entire Russian government, including its chairman, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, happens to be part of Putin's milieu, as US Treasury believes. The list includes all Russian wealthiest people according to Forbes Magazine - i.e. all major entrepreneurs  holding fortunes over one billion dollars. It is worthy of note that there is the classified part of the Kremlin List, which includes officials and entrepreneurs with a fortune of less than a billion dollars.Officials with the US Treasury noted that the list did not imply restrictive measures against the persons named. At the same time, the Kremlin List does not include all representatives of the Russian authorities and state corporations. For example, chairwoman of the Russian Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina and the head of Rosnano Anatoly Chubais do not appear on the list. Chairwoman of the Accounting Chamber Tatyana Golikova is not there either. Alexei Kudrin's name does not appear on the list: although he does not hold office in Russian power structures, is hardly a secret who in the Kremlin  listens to his opinions.So there, there is the list and thee are sanctions. What will be the response? Judging by first reactions - Russia is not working on something impressive. "A look at the American list, which  the Treasury sent to Congress yesterday, creates (at least in its political part) a strong feeling that US security services, being so desperate to find the promised and, most importantly, provable compromising information against Russian politicians, have simply rewritten the Kremlin telephone book," Senator Konstantin Kosachev wrote on his Facebook page.Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich said the list looked like the book "Who's Who in Russian Politics." "As a member of the government, I was supposed to be on this list, the whole government is there, and there is nothing surprising in this. This is the list of persons who are obviously leading figures in Russian politics and business. This is not the sanctions list - this is the list that is going to be used for further decisions and assessments. We will keep an eye on the situation and evaluate whether there is a need to respond. For the time being, there are no reasons for action so far," he said.The head of the Human Rights Council, Mikhail Fedotov, who also appears on the list, called his authors lazy. "I understand that it was not politicians but bureaucrats who made the list, and like all bureaucrats, they are lazy, so they just took the list of all presidential advisors from the Kremlin's website and included them on their list. One does not have to take any intellectual effort for this," he said. Alexei Navalny's companion Leonid Volkov was also disappointed:"As expected, this is utter rubbish. US Congress ordered the Treasury to prepare the list of most influential Russian officials and oligarchs within 180 days, and the Treasury has formally executed the formal assignment. They have used exactly 180 days and compiled the list that could be made within a couple of hours:a) all officials, starting from a certain level (primarily from the administration of the president);b) all business people with fortunes worth more than $1 billion."It appears that Moscow will simply shrug the "Kremlin List" off. After all, US Ambassador to Russia John Huntsman urged the Russian authorities several days ago not to show a too emotional relation to the publication of the report. More importantly, Russia does have many reasons to respond to USA's actions, and the number of those reasons is more than enough. Oleg Artyukov Pravda.Ru Read article on the Russian version of Pravda.Ru

The entire Russian government, including its chairman, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, happens to be part of Putin's milieu, as US Treasury believes

Russian opposition activists reproach Russian President Vladimir Putin for not wanting to participate in the debate during the presidential campaign. "This silence is no longer perceived as a sign of force, but as lack of content and program, even as some sort of illegitimacy. The man can keep silence for two reasons: he either has nothing to talk about with us, or he has problems with discourse and he is afraid of any discussions," Dmitry Bykov wrote on Echo of Moscow radio station. According to Bykov, Putin allegedly "has nothing to say, nothing to show, except for the quarrel with the whole world and a huge number of people comfortably stagnating as he remains in power." The administration of the Communist Party in the person of its leader Gennady Zyuganov has been trying to arrange a debate between party candidate Pavel Grudinin and Russian President Vladimir Putin.According to Zyuganov, "the president said that it was very important that candidates coming for the elections should have creative programs. We have such a program, we have nominated a talented candidate, as we insist on a public debate with the main candidate, President Putin," Gennady Zyuganov said. It is worthy of note that candidates Pavel Grudinin, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Ksenia Sobchak, Grigory Yavlinsky, and Boris Titov intend to participate in the debate. Most of them want to debate directly with Putin, rather than with his representatives.Nevertheless, Vladimir Putin has already announced that he will not take part in the process. Other candidates said that they do not want to debate with each other. Opposition also insists on the debate, in fact, trying to superimpose the American reality on the Russian reality. In Western countries, it is allegedly believed that the debate sometimes shows who is going to win the votes of the wavering electorate.Many experts believe that this would be wrong to believe so in Russia, because a presidential campaign in the United States is not limited to the debate only. US candidates travel from coast to coast and meet their electors, sometimes several times in one day. There is also the fund raising activity. In Russia, candidates have their programs, but they do not travel all over the country nor do they try to work with electorate groups selectively - they do not try to meet specifically workers or farmers, for example.Therefore, candidate's unwillingness to participate in debates is a prerogative of a politician who is aware of his advantage over other competitors. "The law gives the right to participate or not to participate in the debate, but what does the opposition do? They do not care about consequences of decisions - they simply appeal to the needs of citizens, telling them that they would do this and that. Yet, talking about the need to make everyone happy, wealthy and healthy overnight is not a conversation on an equal footing," Putin said in 2012.Pravda.Ru Read article in Russian

Russian opposition activists reproach Russian President Vladimir Putin for not wanting to participate in the debate during the presidential campaign

Russia is weakly represented at the 48th World Economic Forum that opened in Davos on 23 January. Why discuss the system, which Russia should abandon? Strange as it may seem, the motto  of the forum - "Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World" - reflects the situation at its best. In Davos, Russia will be represented by Vice Prime Minister Vladislav Dvorkovich and "old wave" businessmen of the Yeltsin era. Chairwoman of the Central Bank of Russia Elvira Nabiullina wanted to attend the forum, but subsequently declined for a number of undeclared reasons. Judging by the slogan of the forum, globalists accused Russia of disunity in the world. So why go?Yet, the Russians are no strangers there, because the world cannot live without Russia's oil and gas, Andrei Suzdaltsev, political scientist and deputy head of the Faculty of World Economy and Politics at the Higher School of Economics, told Pravda.Ru. "They will make us believe that Russia should return to the joint economic system, to the world without sanctions, but Russia would need to make concessions for this. They will try to put pressure on Russia in an effort to return the Crimea to Ukraine, etc, promising that everything will get better for Russia and investments will come," the expert said. Davos will show interest in Russia's economic policy after the elections, because some things will change considerably, the expert believes. During the 1990s, an agreement was concluded between Russia and the United States, according to which the West received all assets of the USSR outside the borders of the RSFSR at its disposal. In return, the West guaranteed investment and support of economy within the framework of the so-called "Yeltsin family" economist Mikhail Khazin said in an interview with "Echo of Moscow."Since then, the "family" has been setting Russia's economic policy following instructions from Washington. "Nabiullina is bending over backwards to prevent an increase in the monetisation of the economy, not to let Russian enterprises get access to cheap loans," the economist said. However, the economist believes, the "family" has not been fulfilling its obligations properly for a while already and may therefore retire after the presidential election in Russia in March 2018. Russia is not interested in the Davos forum from the point of view of strategic prospects, because the forum is devoted to outdated economic models, which Russia should leave behind. Trump has "divided" the world too The US also has big problems in Davos. US President Donald Trump has managed to quarrel with all his allies by the first anniversary of his stay in power. According to Andrei Suzdaltsev, Trump does not have a close dialogue either with Europe or with Asia. Trump needs to support the global leadership of the United States, not only in the political, but also in an economic sense, the expert believes. Therefore, Trump will predictably speak about the "rise of the US economy, the minimal level of unemployment, available investments, the growth of the US stock market to let the whole world appreciate all those achievements."According to Mikhail Khazin, Trump represents the real, rather than the financial sector" of the United States. In other words, Trump uses an administrative resource to support the real sector and exports, the expert concluded. The new global leader is China China intercepts the leadership of the United States in the globalisation of the world. Chinese leader Xi Jinping regularly uses phrases like "common future" in his speeches. For example, a year ago he spoke at the UN office in Geneva with a keynote address - "Working together to create common future for humanity."Beijing is watching turbulence in Europe and the United States while implementing its grandiose global project known as One Belt, One Road Initiative. This is a win-win option, because it is based on the construction of infrastructure - the basis of economic growth in any system. The project will cost China about 900 billion dollars and embrace 65 countries throughout Eurasia. Chinese companies will build railways and roads, ports, warehouses. China will benefit greatly from exporting its products.Russia does not have the strength for an independent project like that. At this stage, Beijing acts as an ally in switching the world to a new economic model. One should not forget that the economic union may quickly evolve into dictatorship, including in politics. Lyuba Lulko (Stepushova)Pravda.Ru Read article in the Russian version of Pravda.Ru

Russia is not interested in the Davos forum from the point of view of strategic prospects, because the forum is devoted to outdated economic models

The last month or so has seen a number of good overviews in the Russian press of recent procurement and future plans of the Russian Air Force. The Russian Air Force has been substantially modernized and upgraded as part of the current State Armament Program (SAP-2020). The table below summarizes procurement in tactical aviation over the last ten years, as compiled by Moscow’s CAST think tank.

Type earlier 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Contracted Su-34 15 10 14 18 18 16 16 107 129 Su-35S — 2 8 24 12 12 10 68 98 Su-27 SM3 12 — — — — — — 12 12 Su-30 SM — 2 14 21 27 19 17 100 116 Su-30 M2 4 — 3 8 3 2 — 20 20 MiG-29 SMT /UBT 28/6 — — — 3/2 11/0 — 42/8 50 MiG-29 KR /KUBR — — 2/2 8/2 10/0 — — 24 24 Yak-130 12 15 18 20 14 10 6 95 109 Total 77 29 61 101 89 70 49 476 560

Much of this procurement reflects the need to replace aging Soviet aircraft with new airframes with modern electronics and weapon systems. Nevertheless, many Soviet-era airframes remain in service. These include approximately 100 Su-27 and Su-27SM and approximately 150-170 MiG-29S fighter aircraft, approximately 150 MiG-31 interceptors, and over 200 each of the Su-24 bomber and Su-25 strike aircraft.

Most of these aircraft are expected to be either replaced or modernized over the next 10 years. According to Ilya Kramnik, who recently published a comprehensive summary of Russian aircraft procurement plans, the Russian Air Force is planning to have at least 700 fighter aircraft in active service. The bulk of these (around 450) will be designed by Sukhoi. These will include 66 additional Su-30SM aircraft, with 16 of these to be delivered in 2018 based on an existing contract signed in 2012 and the other 50 by 2022 based on a new contract to be signed in the near future. These aircraft are being built at the Irkutsk aircraft plant. This will bring the total number of Su-30SM and Su-30M2 aircraft to at least 186 by 2027, with approximately 50 of these in naval aviation.

In addition, approximately 130 Su-35S aircraft are to be delivered over the next 10 years, with 30 still remaining on an existing contract from 2015 and another 100 expected to be procured on a new contract to be signed as part of SAP-2027. When added to the 68 aircraft already delivered, the Russian air force should expect to have approximately 200 Su-35S fighters by 2027. The new fifth generation Su-57 fighter aircraft will be procured in limited numbers, with reports indicating that 12 aircraft will be delivered by 2021 and around 50 more by 2027. Delays in deliveries of these planes may be covered by an increase in purchases of Su-35s and perhaps Su-30s.

There is still a lot of uncertainty about the extent to which the Russian Air Force will procure the new MiG-35 multi-role fighter jet. Some sources have stated that 170 MiG-35 aircraft will be purchased over the next 10 years, while Kramnik quotes unnamed experts who believe that the number purchased will be limited to 70-80 units. I expect the lower number to be closer to reality, given the general lack of enthusiasm in the Russian MOD for the MiG-35. In the meantime, the air force is continuing to modernize its existing fleet of Soviet era MiG-31 aircraft, with as many as 150 of the 250 units in inventory expected to be modernized by 2027. Of these, around 30 will remain assigned to naval aviation. The 50 MiG-29SMT and UBT variants procured between 2009 and 2016 will also remain in the force, while older MiG-29 versions are likely to be phased out over the next ten years.

Carrier-based naval aviation will consist of the 17 remaining older Su-33 fighter planes, currently undergoing an expensive modernization, together with 23 MiG-29KR aircraft delivered in the last few years.

Strike aviation will consist of modernized versions of the Soviet-era Su-25, with a total of 120-140 aircraft to be converted to carry precision-guided munitions. The venerable Su-24 bombers, on the other hand, will be entirely replaced by the new Su-34s, which performed quite well in Syria in recent years. In addition to the 114 Su-34s already in service, Kramnik expects the Russian military to sign a contract in the next two years to purchase an additional 90-100 aircraft, with perhaps additional units earmarked for naval aviation to replace its current stock of Su-24s.

Prospects for long range aviation are relatively clear, with serial production of a modernized version of the Tu-160 expected to start in 2021. While exact numbers of aircraft to be procured have not been revealed, some early estimates suggested that as many as 50 new Tu-160s will be procured over the next decade. In the meantime, existing Tu-95 and Tu-160 aircraft are in the process of receiving new engines, avionics, and weapon systems.

Transport aviation is in much worse shape than combat aviation, with relatively few new aircraft procured in the last ten years.  The Il-76MD is expected to remain the heavy transport workhorse of the Russian Air Force. These aircraft were built in the 1980s and were relatively underused in the post-Soviet period, so that they could serve another 15-20 years in their present form. In 2013, the MOD ordered 39 aircraft of a modernized Il-76MD-90A variant, although only five have been delivered through the end of 2017, including two units that will be developed into the A-100 AWACS aircraft. According to Vladimir Moiseev, the main need for modernized aircraft is as a platform for the A-100 and for the Il-78 refueling aircraft, rather than for new heavy transport aircraft themselves. Moiseev notes that given the issues with organizing timely production of the modernized Il-76, development of a next next generation heavy transport aircraft has been put off into the distant future.

Meanwhile, the Russian Air Force desperately needs a new medium transport aircraft, since the remaining 60 or so An-12 aircraft were built in the 1960s and early 1970s and are rapidly approaching the end of their service lives. The various projects to build a new multi-role transport aircraft that have been under discussion for more than 15 years have been united only by their continued failure to produce an aircraft. The current plan is to have a design finalized this year and test flights to start in 2023. Given that most An-12s will have to be retired by 2024, this gives little margin for error and in fact almost guarantees that the Russian Air Force will either face a gap of at least a few years without a medium transport aircraft or (more likely) will have to do what it can to keep as many An-12s as possible airworthy for as long as it can.

The situation with light transport aircraft is a little better. Although the 40 existing An-26 aircraft will also have to be retired soon, the design of the new Il-112 replacement aircraft is relatively far along, with initial test flights expected in late 2018 and serial production possibly ready to start no later than the early 2020s.

Finally, the Il-114 is expected to become the main platform for special aviation, including variants for maritime patrol (to replace the Il-38), electronic warfare, AWACS, and reconnaisance. About 50 aircraft of this type are expected to be produced for the Russian military over the next ten years.

Based on this overview, we can make a rough estimate of what the Russian Air Force and naval aviation will look like in 2027. I am excluding the various types of specialized aircraft, such as AWACS, tankers, maritime patrol, etc, from this table, just to keep it manageable. The table includes aircraft in both the air force and in naval aviation.

Type Category Number Su-25 Strike 120-140 Su-27 Fighter 60-70 Su-30 Fighter 190-200 Su-33 Carrier-based fighter 17 Su-34 Bomber 210-230 Su-35 Fighter 200 Su-57 Fighter 50-60 MiG-29 Fighter 60-80 MiG-31 Interceptor 150 MiG-35 Fighter 70-80   Total Tactical 1100-1200   Yak-130 Trainer 110-130 Yak-152 Trainer 150   Total Trainers 260-280       Tu-22 Bomber 69 Tu-95 Bomber 60 Tu-160 Bomber 66 Total Long Range Aviation 190-200     Il-76 Heavy transport 100-150 An-12 Medium transport 30-60 Il-112 Light transport 40-50 Other types (mostly Antonov) Transport 40-50 Total Transport 210-300

As can be seen from this overview, Russian military aviation is set to build on its core strengths in combat aviation while improving its strike and long range bomber capabilities. Transport will remain a weakness, with little progress being made over the next decade to address continuing problems in that sphere that have only been exacerbated by the end of defense cooperation with Ukraine and its Antonov design bureau.

Overall, Russian aircraft procurement has followed the path of buying more of what Russian defense industry is good at producing, rather than basing procurement on a programmatic assessment of Russian defense needs. In addition, the MOD has to some extent succumed to pressure to support defense industry and will be procuring aircraft such as the MiG-35 that it is not particularly excited about. As a result, the air force will be faced with a proliferation of combat aircraft types, with the attendant higher maintenance and training costs. In the meantime, the long-term weakness in transport aviation will persist, limiting the improvements in military mobility that have been one of the core aspects of military reform efforts over the last decade.

To expand the horizons of its "red lines," Russia should get out of someone else's economic project, political analyst Leonid Krutakov said.In an interview with Kommersant, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov outlined Russia's "red lines," which Western "partners" are not recommended to cross. Serious Western politicians should not only understand but also respect this, he added. "Russia has the right to defend the interests of its compatriots, especially when they are persecuted in many countries, when their rights are oppressed, as it happened in Ukraine," Sergei Lavrov said.He referred to Russia's action in the Crimea after the coup in Ukraine. "The first thing that the Ukrainian parliament did after the coup was the law which said that the Russian language should know its place. This place, roughly speaking, was simply under the bench," Lavrov said."Two days later, there were statements made that the Russians would never honour Bandera and Shukhevych, so the Russians should be expelled from the Crimea. After that, the Supreme Council of the republic was in the hands of thugs. Russia could no longer stand by and look at how Russian people would be killed there," the Russian Foreign Minister said.Political analyst Leonid Krutakov told Pravda.Ru that Ukraine has been and still remains Russia's "red line." "NATO's presence is absolutely excluded there - this is an absolutely clear condition that is constantly voiced at all closed and open meetings."As for the Donbass "red line," Russian President Putin clearly stated that Russia would never let anyone to destroy and massacre those people.Russia has "red lines" not only in the "Russian world," the political scientist noted. Russia's "red line" in Syria is the preservation of Syrian statehood. The world has seen what happened to Iraq and Libya, and one can see chaos in the Middle East at the moment, where the state framework and public consensus have been breaking down. This is the reason why Russia vetoed the decision of the UN Security Council to create a no-fly zone over Syria, having thus prevented the development of the "Libyan scenario."To make the West respect Russia's taboos, "it's about time Russia needs to exit someone else's project," said Leonid Krutakov. "Politically, we advocate sovereignty, but economically, we live in the institutional environment created by the Western world - their banking system of dollar settlements, stock markets, and the West will continue putting pressure on Russia through these institutions because Russia is a competitor on the political field," he said."The United States does not have a picture of the strong Russia, and the Americans will never allow us to become strong. The conflict is so obvious that we were shown through sanctions that we do not have the common financial market. Russia is not strong enough to exit the Western system alone, so we need to cooperate with other countries that share the same view of the world's future - China, India, the BRICS, SCO, Eurasian Economic Union - to create a separate monetary system. Otherwise we will lose in the long term," the political scientist summed up.Lyuba LulkoPravda.Ru Read article in Russian

The USA does not have a picture of the strong Russia, and the Americans will never allow Russians become strong. Sanctions show how obvious the conflict is

The media interpretation of the remarks by Putin's official spokesman Dmitry Peskov about the contacts between Russian and Ukrainian presidents was incorrect. The rumours about Putin's secret contacts with Poroshenko appeared after Dmitry Peskov's interview on Rossiya 1 TV channel. In this regard, Peskov stressed that "no one said anything about any meetings." During the interview, a journalist wondered about the time of the most recent meeting between the two presidents recalling such "contacts from last year, when the press was notified about them several months afterwards." According to Peskov, "President Putin has a huge number of meetings and contacts that are not of public nature. "We do not report anything about those meetings, and this is common practice. The president's working day ... is much busier than one can see it on television. Indeed, there are meetings about which we do not inform the press," Peskov said.The Ukrainian side has already announced that President Poroshenko did not hold bilateral meetings with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin after the conclusion of the Minsk agreements. However, not so long ago, President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev, who earlier became the main mediator in Erdoğan's apologies to Putin, said that Poroshenko had asked him [the Kazakh president] for help in finding a compromise with Russia. After attempts to commit subversive activities in the Crimea, Russian President Putin stated that  Ukraine had "crossed the line" and "proceeded to terror" adding that the Norman format meeting in China was not going to take place. Poroshenko was reportedly begged the Chinese side to find an opportunity for his arrival at the G20 summit, although to no avail. It was also reported that Poroshenko and Putin conduct secret telephone conversations. The Security Bureau of Ukraine supposedly classifies those talks not to cast any suspicion on the Ukrainian president. It was in particular said that the two presidents talked to each other on the phone in April. "The presidents would periodically switch to irony not to quarrel with each other," a source from the Ukrainian administration said. Pravda.Ru Read article in Russian

It was in particular said that the two presidents talked to each other on the phone in April. They had to maintain irony during the conversation not to quarrel

World's most powerful nuclear submarines, Arkhangelsk and Severstal, are to be dismantled after 2020. The Russian federal nuclear power watchdog, Rosatom, found their further exploitation unprofitable. The submarines have already been withdrawn from the combat structure of the Russian Navy. Why such a hurry? The work on the submarines started in December 1973. The construction of the first heavy submarine strategic missile cruiser of Project 941 (codenamed "Akula", NATO reporting name SSBN "Typhoon"), the Dmitry Donskoy nuclear cruiser, was launched in 1976. The sub entered the combat strength of the Northern Fleet in 1981. The Dmitry Donskoy was the only submarine that was modernized and re-equipped for Bulava intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Dmitry Donskoy will remain the only underwater cruiser of Project 941, which remains part of the Russian Navy. A total of six cruisers had been built afterwards, but three of them (TK-12, TK-202 and TK-13) were withdrawn from the Russian Navy in 1996-1997 due to the lack of funds. It is worthy of note that it was the United States that covered the costs for the dismantlement of those submarines.

World's most powerful nuclear submarines, Arkhangelsk and Severstal, are to be dismantled after 2020 - their further exploitation is unprofitable

The Russian Foreign Ministry accused the United States of the covert transfer of money assets to opposition groups in Russia to destabilize the political situation in the country. The announcement from representatives of the foreign ministry came in response to the recent article published on BuzzFeed. The article disclosed confidential information about transactions of Russian diplomatic institutions in the United States. In particular, the article said that the authorities of the United States were studying "suspicious money transfers" of the Russian embassy in Washington. Representatives of the Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs stressed that such information was "deliberately falsified and maliciously interpreted for the next round of accusations connected with Russia's alleged interference in US elections. It goes about conventional salary transfers, which "they try to make look like conspiracies."

Russia accused the United States of the covert transfer of money assets to opposition groups in Russia to destabilize the political situation in the country

I’ve written a short report for an American Enterprise Institute project on possible Russian interventions in neighboring states. I was asked to discuss possible reasons for and trajectories of a Russian intervention in Kazakhstan. You can access the full report through AEI, but here’s an excerpt.

Key Points

• Kazakhstan’s size and Russia’s lack of significant military presence in the region make outright invasion unlikely.
• Nevertheless, the death or deposition of Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev could generate regional instability, which may prompt Russia to intervene in support of a new regime or to undermine a newly empowered Kazakh nationalist one.
• The likeliest cause of intervention would be to put down an Islamist insurgency, either with or without a request from Astana.

Introduction

Although a Russian military intervention in Kazakhstan is fairly unlikely, there are scenarios under which it could occur. This report first describes several possible scenarios that might result in such an intervention, considering potential Russian responses that range from providing assistance at the request of Kazakhstan’s government to an outright invasion. It then briefly examines the forces Russia could bring to bear in a conflict in Central Asia, looking in slightly more depth at the likeliest scenario—a Russian intervention to suppress an Islamist incursion or uprising.

Possible Scenarios for Intervention in Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan’s size would make Russia reluctant to undertake a full-scale military intervention. Still, there are circumstances under which the Russian leadership would feel pressure to use force to intervene in Kazakhstan.

The greatest potential threat to political stability in Kazakhstan would come from the death or incapacity of Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev. Such a situation could be followed by a succession crisis, with multiple groups jockeying for position.

If prolonged government weakness or conflict ensues, radical Islamist groups connected to the Taliban or the Islamic State could seize the oppor-tunity to launch an armed insurgency, potentially combined with an incursion from the south. A weak or divided Kazakhstan government might prove incapable of resisting a well-organized insurgency, especially if the anti-government forces are able to draw on the support of local inhabitants in the more religious (Islamic) southern parts of the country. In such a situation, Kazakhstani leaders might request assistance from Russia. Russia might also intervene on its own without a request for help, but only if Kazakhstan were largely engulfed by instability and Russia wanted to protect its borders or ethnic Russians living in areas near Russia that were under threat.

Although the threat from religious extremist groups is real, it requires some degree of state weakness or division to develop. While scholars have long argued that a crisis precipitated by the death of an aging leader could provide such an opportunity in any of the Central Asia states, the two cases so far of leaders dying in office in Central Asia (Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) have both resulted in fairly smooth leadership transitions.

A second, though relatively unlikely, possibility is that Nazarbayev’s death coincides with a difficult period in Russian domestic politics for the Vladimir Putin regime. Whether because of economic problems or political weakness vis-à-vis younger politicians, Putin and his circle might choose to reenact the Crimea scenario in Kazakhstan. The goal would be to boost the regime’s popularity through another injection of militarized patriotism by annexing a territory with a predominantly Russian population. Such territories are located in the north and northeast of the country, directly adjacent to Russian territory. Counting on support from at least some of the local ethnic Russians, Moscow could seek to annex the territories around Petropavlovsk and Kustanay in the north or the territory around Ust-Kamenogorsk in the northeast.

Somewhat paradoxically, a third scenario for Russian intervention could follow a smooth transition of power. In this case, Nazarbayev could be succeeded by a leader who begins to implement a Kazakh nationalist agenda, acting aggressively to remove Russian language from the public sphere and ethnic Russians from positions of authority inside the country. Government policies under such a leader might also shift financial resources away from the northern and eastern parts of the country where ethnic Russian inhabitants predominate.

The leadership might undertake policies to reduce Kazakhstan’s ties to Russia, perhaps going so far as to suspend membership in the Eurasian Union. In doing so, the leadership would bank on expanding already close economic ties with China into the political and security spheres. Such a development would worry Russian leaders, who are comfortable with a division of influence with China in Central Asia as long as Russia continues its primacy in the security sphere—they would be concerned about a Kazakhstani government bent on severing political and security ties to Moscow.

Finally, Russian intervention might also be triggered by mass protests leading to a color revolution, similar to Georgia in 2003 or Ukraine in 2004–05 and 2013–14. The population might be outraged by corruption and repression during tough economic times. As in the first scenario, Kazakhstan’s leadership would need to precipitate the intervention by requesting assistance from either Russia directly or the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Russian leaders would then act in support of this request.

Read the full report here

Russia works to neutralise the USA's Prompt Global Strike strategy. The Pentagon has admitted that Russia has an unmanned submarine capable of carrying a powerful nuclear munition.To destroy an enemy in 48 hours, the United States pays first priority to high-precision weapons - hypersonic shells fired from surface vessels. In addition, the strategy involves the use of the nuclear triad shooting non-nuclear projectiles. However, before anything can be made, aircraft will have to take off and gain altitude. There are effective anti-aircraft and air defence complexes against ICBMs, whereas submarines appear to be most invulnerable. A recent report from the Pentagon, published on January 14, says that Russia works to develop its undersea fleet. Advantages of the submarine fleet Submarines can strike targets when approaching enemy's sea borders, and one does not have to maintain costly aircraft carriers and military bases for the purpose. Medium-range sea-based missiles are exempt from the INF Treaty. The launch of Caliber cruise missiles from the water area of the Caspian Sea on terrorists in Syria showed the effectiveness of such weapons to the whole world. To crown it all, Americans and Europeans periodically detect Russian submarines off their coasts, but they are unable to track them.For the time being, the United States has a quantitative and qualitative advantage over Russia in the submarine fleet, but, according to their own forecasts, the Americans will lose it by the end of the 2020s, if they do not take adequate measures.Russia, on the contrary, has been taking great effort to take its submarine fleet to a new level. Russia eyes Project 955 Borei nuclear-powered submarines armed with ballistic missiles. There are three of them in the Russian Navy - Yuri Dolgoruky, Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh. Five more subs are to arrive before 2020. Russia's Borei class submarines are more sophisticated than Ohio subs of the USA. It uses state-of-the-art noise-absorbing coating, more advanced hydroacoustic and navigation equipment, a higher level of automation.Another pinnacle of the Russian submarine fleet is the nuclear-powered Yasen submarines. These subs are superior to USA's Virginia submarines for their low-noise and missiles on board: Caliber missiles are more effective than USA's outdated Tomahawks.By 2020, the number of Yasen submarines (now Severodvinsk and Kazan subs) is expected to be increased to eight. Russia also has 20 diesel-powered submarines (Varshavyanka Project) - a class that the Americans do not have, which minimises the quantitative backlog on nuclear submarines  plus SSBN (38 - 56). Diesel-powered boats are inferior in terms of their atomic capabilities, but they are equipped with formidable Caliber cruise missiles. America needs to hurry up The Navy Times reported a year ago that according to the current US Navy purchase plan for 30 years, the fleet of multipurpose nuclear submarines in 2022 would be less than the permissible minimum of 48 boats, whereas only 41 submarines would remain in another six years. This is 25 subs below the new plan of 51 boats, which is to be implemented by the middle of the century, Real Clear Defense wrote. One needs to produce two multi-purpose submarines a year to make up for the Los Angeles class submarines (36 units) starting from 2027. As for SSBN submarines (ballistic missile boats), one will have to build at least one Columbia type boat annually to replace the ageing Ohio class.The first submarine of this type will reach its service life in 2027. Thus, one needs to start the construction no later than in 2021.