President of the Russian academy of geopolitical problems, Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, was interviewed on the recent conflicting policy of the US vs Russia by Izvestia.ru. Here the full translation (original is headline article at http://izvestia.ru/weekend/article3121205/).
Title: Worldwide Endgame
Izvestia: I’ll ask head-on: is a full-scale war between Russia and the US possible in the near future?
Ivashov: It should be made clear that the “cold war” between the US and Russia never ended. The opposition of the two world centers - marine and continental - is embedded in the Anglosaxon geopolitics. Without doubt, the mutual targeting by the armed forces of those countries is constant, no matter the ideology changes.
Izvestia: Can’t we all live in peace?
Ivashov: The West with its transnational financial structures aims at establishing control over the whole world, the creation of a unipolar world. All geopolitics classics are saying that Russia, being the “heartland”, the center of the continental world, will always be in the way of that world domination. Whether things will come to large-scale armed conflicts or everything will end at a “cold war” (which does not exclude local conflicts), largely depends on Russia, on the state of our geopolitical potential and the ability to inflict an unacceptable damage to the US and their allies in the case of a military aggression against our country.
Izvestia: Are we able to inflict such damage?
Ivashov: During recent years, a process of allegedly mutual disarmament has been going on, including the strategic nuclear area. In reality, there wasn’t even a trace of mutualness. Russia, at the start of the 90s, had gladly accepted Western offers regarding the reduction of the level of strategic opposition. That process was necessary. But right from the start of the START-I treaty, Russia was in fact inferior to the West. The Americans could keep and increase the main component of their nuclear triad - the naval one. We, on the contrary, were destroying our main “jokers” - highly defended silo-based missiles, including heavy ones, and were getting the right to develop the naval “nuclear stick”. The Americans anticipated that our economy was going into a difficult stage, making it hard for us to develop our navy.
The second thing where we made concessions was liquidating missiles of medium and short range. We destroyed the unique SS-20 “Pioneer” systems. While the Americans were scrapping the much weaker “Pershing-2A” systems, in much smaller quantities.
Izvestia: What about the START-II treaty?
Ivashov: It also had a couple of misjudgements. When it was created, there was the issue of making up for the damage made by START-I. Even that didn’t happen, we made concessions. In the end, when we ratified START-II and implemented it to about a half, the Americans simply rejected it. Additionally, when they quit the MD treaty and started to increase their anti-missile capabilities, they even further devalued our nuclear missile potential.
Izvestia: So what do we get? War tomorrow?
Ivashov: Today, a full-scale war between Russia and the US, especially using WMDs, is practically impossible. So far we have the ability of a counter-preemptive or at least a counter-strike, which would basically destroy the US.
Because of that, the Americans are carefully observing the development, or more precisely the degradation, of our nuclear triad. And on the other hand, they are creating a global missile defense system and implementing a concept of a “fast global strike”.
Izvestia: That’s probably going to be expensive..
Ivashov: For the realization of that program, the Congress has recently allocated 277 billion dollars. Now, in more detail, what that program is about. A system of complete radiolocative observation of the whole Russian territory and airspace is being created. That includes ground-based radars as in the Czech Republic, sea-based radars (as around the Aleut islands), and air- and space-based radars.
A multi-echelon system of action against our nuclear forces and strategic aviation is being created. The Americans have posed the goal of having over 100 thousand of cruise missiles by 2015. Starting 2009, a unique cruise missile is going to be deployed, which almost cannot be intercepted. That missile, even with regular warheads, would be able to inflict crushing damage on elements of our nuclear triad. This is the first echelon.
The second echelon is the aerospace one. Boeing-747 planes will be equipped with continuous chemical lasers, which are effectively capable to hit intercontinental ballistic missiles. Most likely, such planes would be on alert near the areas where our strategic nuclear submarines patrol. Further, there are 3 space-based elements of missile defense. Up to 16 platforms with continuous space-based lasers are going to be deployed in orbit (that is actually our development, which at the beginning of the 90s we practically gave away to the Americans) - they are going to destroy our missiles in mid-flight. Additionally - a multi-use space-based attack system, for which money has been already allocated by the Congress. At a certain moment, the system goes into orbit and attacks targets, for example satellites, and then returns for reloading. And, finally, simple kinetic attack satellites.
The third echelon - ground- and sea-based interceptor missiles. What is deployed on US territory or in a close vicinity of their objects. Warheads that made it through the previous stages would be intercepted by the territorial missile defense system.
Izvestia: Are the interceptor missiles which the US plans to deploy in Poland dangerous for Russia?
Ivashov: And how. Although the Americans are not publishing the tactically-technical characteristics of those missiles, experts believe that those are very modern missiles with a range of over 5000 km and a ceiling of 1500 km. The payload will probably be of cluster type, according to some data, up to 40 warheads. Those missiles will be probably used to intercept starting missiles and missiles on their trajectory.
Izvestia: What will happen when that “envelope” will cover our country?
Ivashov: When Americans will be sure that they will be able to “cover” our strategic nuclear potential, US politics and military strategy towards us will cardinally change. It will be possible to impose political conditions on us, enforce further disarmament, rather ultimatively. Such a model is clearly visible today in the American military-political strategy.
Izvestia: So what should we do? Aim desperately for a parity? Our military budget is, mildly speaking, not comparable with the US one..
Ivashov: That US program cannot be realized before 2015-2017. Although even before that time they certainly won’t sit still. Armed conflicts can have a regional character. For example, states under American control can be used. Why not create a conflict with, say, Norway? There’s Spitzbergen, there’s “fishing” disputes. And the Baltic states, Poland - relations are tense as well. In the Ukraine emotions are boiling over the issue of our Black Sea fleet. We will constantly be kept under pressure.
Izvestia: And the recent military conflict with Georgia - is it from the same group?
Ivashov: In essence that was also a multi-purpose operation against us. A test of the presence of political determination in the Russian leadership. Judging the capabilities of our Armed forces, which, in fact, have many shortcomings. And the main objective - discrediting Russia internationally, picturing it as an aggressor, stopping the growth of international prestige of our country.
Izvestia: Are there other forces which could be used against us?
Ivashov: They are less visible. By US initiative, many private armed corporations are being created. In the world there are already over 200 such firms. The US, Israel, UK actively use such private armies for the solution of their problems. There is data that in Iraq the Pentagon has contracts with 68 such organizations. They are reducing their own strength, while at the same time increasing the number of mercenaries who are used both for guarding purposes and for specific attack missions. In the Abu Ghraib prison only 30% of personnel were from the regular US army. The rest were employees of a private military corporation specializing in running interrogations.
The same mercenaries were also active in Georgia. The whole internet is now filled with ads of their “services”. There is the danger that this network of military corporations could escape control at some point. For a given sum of money, destabilize the situation in any country, including ours. We, by the way, have observed their activities on the Caucasus.
Izvestia: Wars often start with ultimatums. What kind of ultimatum could be issued to us?
Ivashov: Anything! For example, providing access to our hydrocarbon resources. We disagree - a mass cruise missile strike. We start to counteract - a heavier strike. It could be asked to surrender to international control our remaining nuclear objects. Various requirements could be issued, including even a change of president. So, falling fully under US control is not such a distant fantasy.
Izvestia: So what can we do?
Ivashov: It is necessary to create a package of real threats. It is unlikely that, as in 1941, armored armadas will invade us. But we must develop the Armed Forces - and especially special forces, to be always able to reach US territory. It is necessary to develop the navy, increase the number of military satellites. Bases abroad are necessary, for example in Cuba. We also have to sort out the strategic aviation. We need mobile forces, but also of a strategic kind. Today our paratroopers are meant by that. But we don’t have long-range transport aviation. And mobile sea-based forces and aviation, which are able to overcome missile defenses, are essential. We need to develop everything, but especially the strike component which is able to hit the territory of the potential opponent. Including creating special forces which can run covert operations on the territory of the potential opponent.
Izvestia: It’s not enough to simply defend?
Ivashov: Serbs defended bravely, Iraqis shot down US helicopters. But they could not perform a strike on the territory of the enemy. It is necessary to have preventive measures to stop the start of a war against Russia. It is not enough to simply defend now.
Izvestia: In the case of the US, what kind of damage is unacceptable? One missile hitting a large city is enough?
Ivashov: One is not enough. It should be understood who controls the US. It’s not presidents or administrations, but rather powerful financial structures. Losing several thousand people is not a big issue for them. At least 40 powerful strikes on US territory are necessary, including financial centers… although, certainly, it would be better if it did not come to all that. We’d all be better off.
