Russia fleet 'may leave Ukraine'

BBC
Saturday, 18 October 2008 00:59 UK

Russia's deputy PM has told the BBC the country's Black Sea Fleet will vacate its naval base in Sevastopol in 2017 if the Ukrainian government demands it.

Speaking exclusively to Panorama, Sergei Ivanov said Russia would seek to renew its lease on the Crimean port, but will move the Fleet if it cannot.

The move will anger nationalists who consider Sevastopol a part of Russia.

It is feared the port could become a flashpoint in already strained relations between Russia and the West.

"We are not aggressive. We have recognised the territorial integrity of all former Soviet republics." - Sergei Ivanov

Asked if he could envisage the Fleet not being based in the Crimea - its home for the last 225 years - Mr Ivanov, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's number two who oversees Russia's military and industry, said:

"Yes I can imagine that easily after 2017. Why not, if the Ukrainian government then in power decides not to prolong the lease?"

It will also surprise the West where in the wake of the war in Georgia many fear Moscow could seek to reclaim parts of the Crimea by force to secure the Fleet's future.

'British and US aggression'

Mr Ivanov however dismissed such claims as Cold War-style propaganda and gave Russia's strongest assurances to date that it has no territorial ambitions.

"We are not aggressive," said Mr Ivanov. "We have recognised the territorial integrity of all former Soviet republics. That was in 1991. Russia, of course, has no territorial ambitions regarding any former Soviet countries."

"We are not going to start a war or attack any country. Right now, in fact, Russia does not fight any war at all. If you analyse how many wars the United States and Britain are fighting - it's quite different," he added.

The future of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol is a sensitive and emotional issue for most Russians.

The Crimea was handed over to Ukraine during Soviet times when the transfer was a mere legal technicality - and no-one envisaged the collapse of communism and Ukraine's subsequent independence from Moscow.

Local opposition

In Sevastopol, most locals feel closer to Moscow than Kiev, the Ukrainian capital.

They would like to see the peninsula returned to Russia and are bitterly opposed to the possibility of the Black Sea Fleet leaving. Some would be prepared to take up arms to prevent that from happening.

"Russia will definitely react, because we can't just not react." - Sergei Ivanov on US plans for missile defence shield bases in Europe

Asked what would happen if the Ukrainian government kicked out the Fleet after 2017 despite strong local opposition, Mr Ivanov, who spent 20 years in the KGB and was defence minister for six years, said:

"I love Crimea and even have relatives there but that is Ukraine's problem, not Russia's."

Despite the conciliatory tone, which comes as Russia seeks to rebuild its relations with the West in the wake of the war in Georgia, Mr Ivanov mounted a robust defence of Russian action in the tiny state and strongly criticized Nato's expansion eastwards.

Missile shield

He also dismissed America's claims that its plans for a missile defence shield in Europe are to protect it from Iran and North Korea.

He said Russia sees the shield - parts of which are to be stationed in Poland and the Czech republic - as a threat to Russia.

Mr Ivanov warned that Russia would react militarily if the plans went ahead, but also rubbished a previous threat made by a Russian general who said Poland was exposing itself to a possible nuclear strike if it agreed to station parts of the shield on its territory.

Russian troops dismantle a checkpoint near South Ossetia. Photo: 7 October 2008
Since the conflict in Georgia, Russia's relations with the West have worsened

"Russia will definitely react, because we can't just not react," said Mr Ivanov, who as a teenager spent several weeks studying English in London.

"A new potential military will in several years be present, very close to our borders, only 300 kilometres away. But that doesn't mean of course that we are planning a new nuclear attack on the Czech Republic or Poland. That's total rubbish."

"There are still many Cold War warriors. Many Brits and Americans who still think that all Russians are drunk and treacherous, and that we spend our time thinking how to attack the West. That's part of old-style Cold War propaganda. There's too much mistrust. The wall should go. That's my favourite Pink Floyd song."

Misunderstanding

Mr Ivanov's message reflects the general mood in Russia - which Monday's Panorama seeks to test.

Nearly 20 years since the end of the Cold War, Russians feel let down by the West. Gone is the early euphoria. Instead most Russians now feel encircled by the West as a result of Nato's enlargement and are convinced the West wants Russia to be weak.

They also feel misunderstood by the West and argue that we are the true Cold War warriors, not them.

Many abroad vilify Mr Putin - who led Russia as president for eight years and remains its most powerful man despite stepping down and becoming prime minister. By contrast he is genuinely popular among most Russians. In the wake of the war in Georgia, relations between Russia and the West are at their lowest since the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Talk of a new cold war is exaggerated but as our investigation demonstrates, far from narrowing, the gulf in understanding between East and West is deepening.

"Yes Russia is in many ways its own worst enemy," said Vladimir Pozner, a Soviet propagandist during Communist times who is now one of Russia's sharpest commentators.

"But there are far too many things the West does not get about Russia. Most of all it does not want to understand that if you are a country which has never had democracy in its entire history then you cannot expect it in the space of 15 or 20 years to go 'Bingo - we're now democratic'. It's going to take generations. This country is still run by people who grew up in Soviet times."

"Give this country a break. Let the Russians evolve and don't put that much pressure on them because if you do you'll bring out the worst. You'll bring out the super patriots who will say: 'You see, we told you can't trust the West'."

It is a warning echoed less diplomatically by one of Mr Putin's greatest admirers - Nikita Mikhailkov, the most powerful figure in Russia's film industry who is a personal friend of the prime minister.

"You don't like me, Englishman," he told Panorama. "You haven't liked me for centuries, but I respect you. I want to engage with you, but on equal terms. I want you to respect me as I respect you."

"Russia must be respected, not least because it's strong and can answer back. It can say no, you want to talk let's talk. You want to fight, let's fight. But then don't complain."

Peace, peace, peace, just keep saying it. Russia will use peace to get her way, or war. Peace is cheaper and safer, but war is always an option.

Sevastapol will become much less important militarily in 2012, when a new Black Sea Fleet base at Novorossiysk will be finished. The Russians are also restoring their old naval base at Tartus, is Syria. When the Novorssiysk base is completed, the Russians will be free to play political games with the Crimea without risking their naval capability.

Ruskies are full of crap on this none...

They've had enough trouble for now... they've lost too much money over their Georgian adventure to waste more with impatience...

I don't think highly of Russian capability, whether it be military or economic, but they are some sharp mother fuckers, and they keep a well reconciled ledger.

They don't view the world as we do... not at all...

Quoted: They've had enough trouble for now... they've lost too much money over their Georgian adventure to waste more with impatience... I don't think highly of Russian capability, whether it be military or economic, but they are some sharp mother fuckers, and they keep a well reconciled ledger. They don't view the world as we do... not at all...

I'm not sure I agree with them losing out on Georgia. Europe's tripping over themselves to kiss and make up, there's no more talk about kicking them out of the G-8, and everyone's doing their best to get back to business as usual.

They bluff and posture a lot, and it works fairly well for them. In this Georgia thing, they learnt some very important lessons.

1) That in 2008 the US won't react militarily to an attack on a friendly nation who is not an ally if perceived US vital interests are not threatened.
2) That Europe will scramble to avoid upsetting the status quo to keep the oil and gas flowing.
3) How well or poorly their army works in real combat.

And they learnt all 3 for minimal cost. They also demonstrated, mainly to Europe, but also to the Central Asian republics, that they're willing to use force to achieve their goals. They may not yet have the ability to use force in any but the most trivial scenarios, but they certainly have the will.

They lost 23 aircraft and 1,700 soldiers.  They lost billions of dollars in foreign direct investment and their stock market has fallen into the gutter.

If McCain is elected, they ought to know that they will have to pay heed to the United States, but global warming puts Europe and Obama in their pocket.  They are turning off the nukes to use natural gas because they think the idea is environmentally sound.

And to top it off, oil is worth half what it was when Russia decided to invade Georgia.  They aren't in the same position anymore.

Sure they will.

Quoted: They lost 23 aircraft and 1,700 soldiers.  They lost billions of dollars in foreign direct investment and their stock market has fallen into the gutter. If McCain is elected, they ought to know that they will have to pay heed to the United States, but global warming puts Europe and Obama in their pocket.  They are turning off the nukes to use natural gas because they think the idea is environmentally sound. And to top it off, oil is worth half what it was when Russia decided to invade Georgia.  They aren't in the same position anymore.

I doubt that they're worried about the soldiers, but the aircraft would be more of a concern, especially that Backfire. The FDI loss, ironically, isn't such a problem anymore, considering that the global financial system is falling into a black hole at the moment and took down their stock market. The IMF is projecting a 7% growth rate next financial year for them, whilst most of the rest of the world will be flat or in recession. The thing is that they've got a captive market for their hydrocarbon exports to Europe, and are building pipelines to China to keep the cash flowing in the event that Europe wakes up. Europe needs to buy Russian gas whether or not the economy is in the tank. They go cold and hungry otherwise. Sure, the oil price is a lot lower now, but they're still making money, and I don' think that its going to stay low long term. OPEC is already making noise about cutting production to support the price.

If McCain wins, Russia will have to take notice, but McCain's looking very iffy in the poles, and Obama's likely to hand them Central Asia, the Caucuses and Europe over to Russia on a silver platter.

Your last statement is true but if I were you, I wouldn't underestimate American racism.  I expect Obama to lose, and that will draw this adventure out until the Electors meet and settle the issue.

As far as the Russians, I think the fact that they haven't moved on Ukraine is illustrative.  And their revenues will fall quickly.  Europe is already starting to wake up, but the constraints of environmentalism mean that the best they can do is Algerian solar power.

We'll see...

Quoted: Your last statement is true but if I were you, I wouldn't underestimate American racism.  I expect Obama to lose, and that will draw this adventure out until the Electors meet and settle the issue. As far as the Russians, I think the fact that they haven't moved on Ukraine is illustrative.  And their revenues will fall quickly.  Europe is already starting to wake up, but the constraints of environmentalism mean that the best they can do is Algerian solar power. We'll see...

I can't comment on American racism. I don't know enough Americans.

As far as the Russians go, I think its too soon to call this business over with. For example, if Timoshenko wins next year's Ukrainian elections, then the Russians won't need to fight. They'll be running Ukraine by telephone and email.

Like you say, we'll see.

Quoted: They bluff and posture a lot, and it works fairly well for them. In this Georgia thing, they learnt some very important lessons. 1) That in 2008 the US won't react militarily to an attack on a friendly nation who is not an ally if perceived US vital interests are not threatened. 2) That Europe will scramble to avoid upsetting the status quo to keep the oil and gas flowing. 3) How well or poorly their army works in real combat. And they learnt all 3 for minimal cost. They also demonstrated, mainly to Europe, but also to the Central Asian republics, that they're willing to use force to achieve their goals. They may not yet have the ability to use force in any but the most trivial scenarios, but they certainly have the will.

I think the key lesson here, and the reason for the less abrasive stance, is Georgia is proving the Russians saying $50 billion/year can't compete with $650 billion/year were right after all. They can still mess it up with their neighbors and play hardball to get what they want, but they're also more likely than ever to get fragged in a stand up fight with a 1st world military considering how lackluster their performance was even against an unprepared third world country whose forces were COMPLETELY on the wrong footing for resisting invasion by an organized military.

They took a situation where the US would lose 60 men, two helicopters, and break some Humvees, and managed to lose 1700 men, 23 aircraft, and plenty of armor. I would not be happy with that if I were them, and I suspect they aren't.

Quoted: Russia fleet 'may leave Ukraine' BBC "We are not aggressive. We have recognised the territorial integrity of all former Soviet republics." - Sergei Ivanov

Apparently nothing has changed since the wall came down, the Russian government still has the audacity to lie with a straight face.

Quoted: Quoted: They bluff and posture a lot, and it works fairly well for them. In this Georgia thing, they learnt some very important lessons. 1) That in 2008 the US won't react militarily to an attack on a friendly nation who is not an ally if perceived US vital interests are not threatened. 2) That Europe will scramble to avoid upsetting the status quo to keep the oil and gas flowing. 3) How well or poorly their army works in real combat. And they learnt all 3 for minimal cost. They also demonstrated, mainly to Europe, but also to the Central Asian republics, that they're willing to use force to achieve their goals. They may not yet have the ability to use force in any but the most trivial scenarios, but they certainly have the will. I think the key lesson here, and the reason for the less abrasive stance, is Georgia is proving the Russians saying $50 billion/year can't compete with $650 billion/year were right after all. They can still mess it up with their neighbors and play hardball to get what they want, but they're also more likely than ever to get fragged in a stand up fight with a 1st world military considering how lackluster their performance was even against an unprepared third world country whose forces were COMPLETELY on the wrong footing for resisting invasion by an organized military. They took a situation where the US would lose 60 men, two helicopters, and break some Humvees, and managed to lose 1700 men, 23 aircraft, and plenty of armor. I would not be happy with that if I were them, and I suspect they aren't.

Fair enough. It will be interesting to see what they do to remedy the situation. I recall that prior to the war, Putin was having a terrible time reforming the Russian armed forces. He wanted to professionalise them more along westen lines, and the general staff were digging their heels in. Even after all the cutbacks since the fall of the USSR, the general staff is still 10k strong, which was its Soviet manning level. After the war, this article came out in Ria Novosti . I guess they learned a valuable lesson.

Russian General Staff faces major 'overhaul' 12:58 | 30/ 09/ 2008 MOSCOW, September 30 (RIA Novosti) - An upcoming large-scale reshuffle of the Russian General Staff is aimed at optimizing the number of officers and generals serving at central headquarters in Moscow, a high-ranking military official said on Tuesday. "Up to 30% of the General Staff's personnel could be either transferred to other posts, including civilian positions, or retired. The General Staff will be reorganized by March 1, 2009," said the unnamed source. Russia has downsized its Armed Forces from 4.5 million in the Soviet era to about 1.1 million personnel, while staff numbers at central offices have remained almost unchanged, numbering up to 10,500 senior officers and generals. Future reductions will affect all main directorates and departments, including the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) and the Main Operational Directorate, the source said. "It will be a reshuffle on a global scale, but not overly drastic," he said. The scale and the context of military reforms is believed to be the major source of a long-running conflict between the General Staff and the Ministry of Defense, which intensified after the appointment of Anatoly Serdyukov as defense minister. According to some military analysts, the recent appointment of Gen. Nikolai Makarov, former chief of Armed Forces Arms Procurement, as chief of General Staff, indicates that the Russian military leadership is attempting to "reverse the negative, destructive trends that are now plaguing the Armed Forces, and stop the technical degradation of the Army and Navy." Commenting on the upcoming reforms, Col. Gen Vasily Smirnov, the chief of the Main Organization-Mobilization Department of the General Staff, said the optimization would be carried out in line with changes in the nature of tasks accomplished by the Armed Forces at present and in the future. These new tasks include the transition from conscription to voluntary military service and the modernization of weaponry and equipment in service with the Russian Armed Forces. "These new tasks must be accomplished and the structure of the General Staff must be changed accordingly," Smirnov said on Tuesday.

This is also interesting, especially the part in blue
Link

Military reform to change army structure. What about its substance? 00:00 | 17/ 10/ 2008 MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - The Russian army is changing. In addition to troop-size reduction, yet another reform is aimed at fundamentally changing personnel composition and structure, especially within the Ground Forces. Until now, despite all recent reforms and cutbacks, the Russian Armed Forces largely remained a scaled-down version of the Soviet army, which was supposed to lead a full-scale war preceded by general mobilization. Under present circumstances, however, the probability of such a war is relatively low. In the case of a nuclear conflict, there will be no time for general mobilization, while a local conflict can be won without resorting to such measures. So what will the Russian military look like after reform? The main change will be a move from the current vertical chain of command of the Armed Forces, a military district-army-division-regiment structure, to a military district-operative command-brigade regime, in order to increase efficiency by abolishing redundant elements. Mobile permanent readiness brigades, consisting of battalions, will be capable of operating tactical maneuver groups, either independently or together with other brigades under joint command. In addition, each military district will establish rapid response brigades, which will most likely be formed out of airborne units. Other important news is the plan to change the personnel composition of the Armed Forces, including reducing the commissioned officers' (CO) numbers from the current more than 400,000 (over 30% of the current 1,200,000 servicemen) to around 150,000 (15% of the future 1,000,000). The cutback will mostly affect logistics and staff COs and Generals, while the number of First and Second Lieutenants will increase from 50,000 to 60,000. A reduction in CO numbers will be accompanied by a boost in the size of the sergeant corps. The sergeant corps will play a much larger role in the future Russian Army. Well-trained and experienced professional sergeants will ensure fast and effective training of privates, both contract soldiers and conscripts. Although the new military reform is to be finished by 2012, some unofficial sources say the main reduction will take place within the next year. If this is true, a significant number of discharged officers will have to face the problem of civil readjustment. Official sources report, however, that the reduction will be done by attrition, by retiring COs who have exceeded their term of required service. This is difficult to believe, however. The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.