DOCSLIB.ORG

The Breakdown of Nuclear Arms Control and Its Implications Dr

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Breakdown of Nuclear Arms Control and Its Implications Dr Briefing nr. 5 2019 The breakdown of nuclear arms control and its implications Dr. Stefan Forss Introduction Russian interest. It reduced the U.S. strategic arsenal, and The important but cumbersome bilateral nuclear arms more importantly, delayed U.S. response to Russia’s nuc- control process between the United States and the Soviet lear build-up, which already was well on its way, not only in Union and later Russian Federation, a result of genuine the strategic field, but also in INF and short-range weapon efforts leading to impressive legally binding nuclear arms systems. This was the starting point of a process, which has control treaties (INF 1987, START 1991, START II 1993), led to a situation where nuclear arms control between the ran into trouble in the early 2000s. Presidents George W. two major nuclear powers is on the verge of collapse. Bush and Vladimir Putin couldn’t agree on how to proceed. American officials believe Russia began conducting flight Missile defense was a key priority for the Bush adminis- tests of a missile, prohibited by the INF treaty as early as 3 tration which decided to withdraw from the 1972 land- 2008. The U.S. informed NATO of Russia’s treaty breach 4 mark ABM treaty, effective 13 June 2002. President Vladi- in January 2014. At that time the particular missile type mir Putin responded in kind and declared that Russia no was not yet disclosed. longer was bound by START II.1 That treaty specifically This dispute between Russia and the U.S. was not solved prohibited multiple warheads (MIRV) on strategic ICBM and finally the Trump administration, with its open dislike missiles and heavy ICBMs, such as the huge SS-18 Satan for bilateral or multilateral agreements constraining the missile altogether. USA, drew its own conclusions. For the Russian political and military leadership U.S. mis- st The U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, the 1 of sile defense, however limited in quantity and performance February 2019 announced the U.S. withdrawal from the capability, was perceived as too threatening in the long INF treaty, an agreement which eliminated ground-based run. Vocal objections from Russian missile professionals ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and missile launchers in and designers claiming overwhelming superiority of Rus- the 500 – 5 500 km range. Legally, the INF treaty would sia’s offensive missiles over any missile defense systems for be terminated six months later. The decision was widely decades to come, were dismissed.2 5 feared to lead to an arms race. Russia embarked upon a vigorous program to rebuild its strategic nuclear forces. The New START treaty, which 3 Michael R. Gordon, U.S. Says Russia Tested Missile, Despite came into force in February 2011, was however still in the Treaty, The New York Times, 29 January 2014 4 Jonathan Marcus, US briefs Nato on Russian ‘nuclear treaty 1 Caroline Wyatt, Russia abandons Start II arms treaty, BBC breach’, BBC News, 30 January 2014 News, 14 June 2002 5 Anne Gearan, Paul Sonne och Carol Morello, U.S. to withdraw 2 Russian Nukes Not Undercut by U.S. Missile Defense, State Expert from arms control treaty with Russia, raising fears of a new arms Says, Nuclear Threat Initiative, 18 March, 2011 race with Russia, The Washington Post, 1 February 2019 www.frivarld.se @freeworldforum [email protected] /FreeWorldForum Briefing nr. 5 2019 The following day, Russia reacted with an equivalent with INF-ranges. President Putin approved Shoigu’s decision.6 President Putin, Foreign Minister Lavrov and request but insisted on not getting into an arms race and Defense Minister Shoigu, looked theatrically serious when said the program should be carried out within the stated they assured that they had done everything in their power defense budget, which Shoigu confirmed.9 to save the treaty, which the U.S. had violated. As a part of “Arms race” is obviously a relative term, but the rhetoric of the U.S. missile shield in Europe, they had already in 2014 president Putin is intelligible even from the fact that Rus- started to deploy Mk 41 launchers which also could be sia has progressed far in its dedicated and INF-violating used for firing Tomahawk cruise missiles at Russia.7 programme. The Russian approach may have some legal relevance, but from a practical standpoint it is absurd. The character of The USSR’s investment in INF-missiles the European missile shield – known as European Phased Soviet’s quantitative growth of nuclear weapons accelera- Applied Approach, EPAA – is exclusively defensive. The ted in the 1960s. In the 1970s they reached a compara- last nuclear warheads of U.S. Navy Tomahawk missiles ble level to the U.S., as they jointly had the breathtaking 10 were dismantled at the beginning of the 2010s.8 There are number of 50 000 operative or stored nuclear warheads. no American intentions to obtain offensive missiles for the Ten years later, the U.S. inventories were by already dimi- missile shield. nishing, while the Soviet Union reached its peak at 40 000 nuclear warheads. The theoretical threat towards Russia, from a dozen of conventionally loaded and relatively slow Tomahawk mis- The Warsaw Pact’s (read the Soviet Union’s) operational siles, is insignificant. These constitute only a fraction of plan for a war with NATO in the 1960s and the first half the firepower which a single U.S. Navy Ticonderoga Class of the 1970s built on massive use of battlefield tactical cruiser carries onboard. The two converted former Ohio nuclear weapons in the initial phase, primarily against air Class strategic submarines could be mentioned as well, bases and ports, but also against non-military targets and 11 each with the capacity to fire more than 150 Tomahawk potentially even neutral countries. The plan was under- missiles. stood to have been defensive in principle, but if war would break out, this was the most likely modus operandi. Defense Minister Shoigu asked the president for a man- date to proceed with research, development and deploy- In the Soviet Union, however, the environmental consequ- ment of ground-based missile systems in the coming years, ences from large scale use of battlefield nuclear weapons including already existing systems as the sea-based cruise 9 President of Russia, Meeting with Sergei Lavrov and Sergei missile Kalibr, as well as new hypersonic missile system Shoigu, 2 March 2019 10 Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, Estimated Glo- 6 The decision acquired legal force the 4th of March 2019, when bal Nuclear Warhead Inventories 1945 – 2018, Federation of the Putin signed an executive order. See President of Russia, Execu- American Scientists, November 2018 tive Order suspending Russia’s compliance with the USSR-US INF 11 Nicholas Watt, Poland risks Russia’s wrath with Soviet nuclear Treaty attack map, The Guardian, 26 November 2005. See also The Bal- 7 President of Russia, Meeting with Sergei Lavrov and Sergei tic Initiative and Network, Danish Belts were the link between the Shoigu, 2 March 2019 Baltic Sea and the Atlantic. See also National Security Archive, 8 Hans M. Kristensen, US Navy Instruction Confirms Retirement European Cities Targeted for Nuclear Destruction, Parallel His- of Nuclear Tomahawk Cruise Missile, Federation of American tory Project on NATO and the Warsaw Pact, Press Release, 29 Scientists, 18 March 2013 November 2001 www.frivarld.se @freeworldforum [email protected] /FreeWorldForum Briefing nr. 5 2019 had not been assessed in earnest.12 This task was given in operational plans, including a radical decrease in reliance the 1970s to the professor in mathematics, Vitaly Tsy- of nuclear weapons. According to Danilevich, the General gichko’s Scientific-Technical Institute for Systems Studies Staff believed in 1977 that the conventional phase of a war (VNIISI). The findings were both unexpected and drama- could go on for five to six days. Nonetheless, two years tic. Even the use of just a fraction of the planned quantities later, they estimated that the operation “Into France” could of nuclear weapons in the very initial phase of war, inclu- be carried out conventionally, and in 1981 the general staff ding the expected response from NATO, would entail seriously thought that war could be waged conventionally extensive counterproductive consequences. The radioac- altogether.14 tive fallout would cause devastating loss of civilian lives During Ogarkov’s time as chief of the general staff there in Eastern Europe. Furthermore, the usually prevailing was a fundamental shift in Soviet’s operational methods. western winds would cause so heavy radioactive exposure The doctrine was still formally defensive, but if war and eventual radiation sickness to the attacking armoured with the Western powers broke out, the Soviet Union divisions of the Warsaw Pact that they would soon come would surely be victorious, due to its massive conven- 13 to a halt. tional army, with its highly capable elite units in very 15 This fresh insight that the Soviet Union would not win a high readiness. However, this would require a robust nuclear war conflicted with Marxist-Leninist dogma and sub-strategic nuclear deterrence capability, which they could therefore not be accepted. However, Professor Tsy- had in their nearly 2 000 INF missiles. The INF flagship gichko, did not tweak his results despite threats from the SS-20 Saber could project a direct threat to all the bigger commander of the Warsaw Pact forces, Marshal Viktor cities of Europe, which the Soviet leadership believed Kulikov. Warsaw Pact nuclear training practices and pro- would contribute in preventing NATO to seriously consi- cedures, however, continued as before which led to misin- der the use of nuclear weapons. terpretations by the West.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Who Is Marshal Sergei Sokolov?
    Click here for Full Issue of EIR Volume 11, Number 44, November 13, 1984 active annies (20 divisions) stationed in East Gennany, known General Petrov, was summoned to Moscow to become head as the Group of Soviet Forces in Germany (GSFG), where of the land forces-the post he still holds. he directed a five-year program of modernizing and heavily Thus, while Zaitsev prepared the GSFG for all forms of strengtheI)ing the offensive power of the GSFG (especially warfare, from a limited "surgical strike" into part of West in armor, missiles, and aircraft/helicopters), and brought in Germany to an all-out offensive across Europe, Govorov and a new stable of "blitzkrieg" generals as army and major-unit Tretyak accomplished parallel tasks concerning military op­ commanders (see EIR July 17, Aug. 7, and Oct. 30). In the erations against Japan and South Korea. The parallels reach same month, December 1980, Gen. Vladimir Govorov, until down to the not insignificant detail that, in a clear statement then commander of the Moscow Military District, was named of offensive intentions, in 1983 and 1984 for the first time in commander of the Far East High Command at Chita, and both East Germany and the Far East, the Soviets stationed a Gen. Ivan Tretyak was named commander of the Far East minimum of three air assault brigades in each location. Military District, whose areas of responsibility include the The "symmetry" extends further to the case of Germany Vladivostok region, the Kuriles, and Sakhalin Island. The and Korea, the two nations which share the tragic postwar previous commander of the Far East High Command at Chita, "distinction" of being divided.
    [Show full text]
  • An Examination of the Current Revolution in Soviet Military Affairs
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 1988 An examination of the current revolution in Soviet military affairs Csuti, Robin Lee. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/23032 Ill I IIIWIIIIIIIIIl '"''' ;T, - ^ •"TAT'TT, 3CH0O. NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey , California THESIS cqad75 AN EXAMINATION OF THE CURRENT REVOLUTION IN SOVIET MILITARY AFFAIRS by Robin Lee Csuti March 1988 Thesis Advisor M. Tsypkin Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited, TP"^ft7QP jnclassiiied L'untN' classification of this oase REPORT DOCUMEMAIION PAGE lb Restrictive Markings a Report Security Classificaiion Lnclassilled a Security Classification Authority J Distribution Availability of Report b Declassification Down';:rading Schedule Approved tor public release; distribution is unliniited. Performing Organization Report Numberfs) 5 Monitoring Organization Report Numberis) a Name of Performing Organization 6b Office Symbol 7a Name of Monitoring Organization Naval Post'iraduate School i if aDplicable) 38 Naval Postgraduate School c Address { cin\ siace. and ZIP code) 7b Address (clew stare, and ZIP code) .lontcrey. CA 93943-5000 Monterey. CA 93943-5000 a Name of Funding Sponsoring Organization 8b Office Symbol 9 Procurement Instrument identification Number {if applicable) c Address dry. scale, and ZIP code) 10 Source of Funding Numbers ( Program Element No Project No Task No Work Unit Accession N 1 Title (include securirvdassijicanon J AN EXAMINATION OF THE CURRENT REVOLUTION IN SOVIET MILITARY vFFAIRS 2 Personal Author(s) Robin Lee Csuti 3a T}pe of Report 13b Time Covered 14 Date of Report year, monih, day) 5 Pi'je Count Master's Thesis From To March 1988 6 Supplementary Notation The views expressed in this thesis are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or po ition of the Department of Defense or the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Influence in Soviet Politics: Red Militarism Or National Security Consenus?
    4 Military Influence in Soviet Politics: Red Militarism or National Security Consenus? Matthew A. Evangelista Introduction In the past few years some Western observers have expressed growing concern about the state of civil—military relations in the Soviet Union. The issue was presented in its starkest form by a headline in the American press: 'Will the Soviet Military Assume Power?' This question received increasing attention in the West following the imposition of martial law in Poland, and later in the period of uncertain political succession preceding the emergence of Mikhail Gorbachev as the new Soviet leader. Several events, including the removal of Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov as Chief of the General Staff, the death of Defence Minister Dmitrii Ustinov, and his replacement by Marshal Sergei Sokolov have again focused attention on Soviet civil—military relations. This chapter seeks to provide a better under- standing of the issue, in its historical context, and particularly in its relevance to contemporary Soviet politics. Military rule is only one aspect of civil—military relations. The point at which the military take over the functions of civilian government represents one extreme on a spectrum of military influence in politics. At the other extreme lies the military's own domain — the preparation for and conduct of war — and the question here concerns the extent of civilian control and direction of military matters. For the Soviet Union, this question requires consideration of such issues as the role of the Communist Party versus the military in the formulation of Soviet military doctrine and strategy; the influence of design bureaux and military services in the acquisition of new weapons; and the place of arms control in the determination of military policy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Soviet and American Wars in Afghanistan: Applying Clausewitzian Concepts to Modern Military Failure
    Bowdoin College Bowdoin Digital Commons Honors Projects Student Scholarship and Creative Work 2020 The Soviet and American Wars in Afghanistan: Applying Clausewitzian Concepts to Modern Military Failure Artur Kalandarov Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.bowdoin.edu/honorsprojects Part of the American Politics Commons, American Studies Commons, Comparative Politics Commons, Eastern European Studies Commons, International Relations Commons, Islamic World and Near East History Commons, Military History Commons, Models and Methods Commons, Near and Middle Eastern Studies Commons, Political Theory Commons, and the Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies Commons Recommended Citation Kalandarov, Artur, "The Soviet and American Wars in Afghanistan: Applying Clausewitzian Concepts to Modern Military Failure" (2020). Honors Projects. 164. https://digitalcommons.bowdoin.edu/honorsprojects/164 This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship and Creative Work at Bowdoin Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of Bowdoin Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Soviet and American Wars in Afghanistan Applying Clausewitzian Concepts to Modern Military Failure An Honors Paper for the Department of Government and Legal Studies By Artur Kalandarov Bowdoin College, 2020 ©2020 Artur Kalandarov Table of Contents ACknowledgments………………………………………………………………………………..iii Introduction…………………………..…………………………..…………………………..…..1
    [Show full text]
  • Powerpoint Slides
    NPEC PUBLIC POLICY FELLOWSHIP RETREAT From Strategic Partnership to De facto Military Alliance: Sino-Soviet mil-mil contacts in the age of Hybrid warfare, Washington. DC, 10 March 2018 Jacob kipp, University of kansas 1945-1949, Soviet Support for PLA in Manchuria as part of struggle for control to achieve a Communist China 1950, Deployment of Russian Air Defense Forces to Shanghai to protect from Nationalist air attacks 1950-1953, Sino-Soviet Support for North Korean Bid to unify Peninsula 1950-1961Soviet support for Rearming PLA including aid in nuclear weapons development 1962-1969 End of military-to-military collaboration, Soviet Planning for Nuclear Preemption of PLA acquisition of Atomic Bomb, and increasing hostilities leading to fighting on the Ussuri River (Damansky Island Incident in March 1969. 1969-1988 Armed Confrontation as PRC sides with US to Contain USSR 1986-1991 Perestroika leads to Soviet Reform. Collapse of Soviet Bloc, Sino-Soviet Border Agreement and end of USSR in 1991. 1991-1999, Russia seeks Normalization of relations, renews arms sales to PRC to support Russian Defense industries, Russia attempts to entice PRC into Russian, Indian and Chinese Partnership to balance US as global hegemony in the wake of the end of the Cold War 1999-2014 In Response to NATO Air War in Kosovo Russian and PRC begin joint exercises and declare that they are in Strategic Partnership and members of Shanghai Cooperation Organization to counter US-dominated unipolar order, creation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization on 15 July 2001, then composed of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan 2008 global economic crisis brought about Russian reappraisal of relations with EU and shift by 2012 to Eurasian Initiative.
    [Show full text]
  • NEW EVIDENCE on the WAR in AFGHANISTAN Introduction
    COLD WAR INTERNATIONAL HISTORY PROJECT BULLETIN, ISSUE 14/15 NEW EVIDENCE ON THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN Introduction By Christian Friedrich Ostermann hat was behind the Soviet decision in December a substitute foothold in Afghanistan and worried about main- 1979 to invade Afghanistan? And when and why taining its credibility with communist world allies. Soviet lead- Wdid Mikhail Gorbachev decide to pull out Soviet ers were genuinely concerned that Afghan strongman troops nearly ten years later? What was the role of the US Hafizullah Amin was either a US agent or prepared to sell out covert assistance program, in particular the Stinger missiles? to the United States. At the CWIHP conference, former US What role did CIA intelligence play? How did the Afghan Charge d’Affaires J. Bruce Amstutz as well as other partici- War’s history, a key step in the rise of militant Islam, intersect pants forcefully refuted allegations of Agency links to Amin. with the history of the final decade of the Cold War? These In his five conversations with Amin in the fall of 1979, Amstutz were among the questions addressed at a major international remembered, the Afghan leader did not in any way suggest conference, “Towards an International History of the War in that he was interested in allying himself with the United States. Afghanistan,” organized in April 2002 by the Cold War Inter- US relations with successive communist regimes in Af- national History Project (CWIHP) in cooperation with the ghanistan had been volatile since the April 1978 communist Woodrow Wilson
    [Show full text]
  • The Soviet Army Between the Prussian General Staff and Dostoevsky's Madness
    Click here for Full Issue of EIR Volume 14, Number 24, June 12, 1987 Book Review The Soviet Army between the Prussian General Staff and Dostoevsky's madness by Laurent Murawiec youth organization (7 -9) where much effort is devoted to the The Soviet Military (PoUtical Education,. same aims. Training & Morale) Malchish Kibalshich and the Tale of the Military Secret by E.S. Williams. with chapters by C.N. Donnelly is cited by the author as exemplary for the kind of literature & J.E. Moore; Foreword by Sir Curtis Keeble absorbed at that stage: The Soviet armed forces, in the book's Royal United Services Institute. Defence Studies story, fight a cruel and evil enemy called the "Burzhins, " a Series. Macmillan Publishers. London 1987 buzz-word reminiscent of Russian for "bourgeois " (bur­ 203 pages. clothbound. £27.50. zhua). "It is a timeless war, having no beginning and no end in sight. Successive generations of Soviet people go off in turn to fight the ever-pressing Burzhins and in turn are killed defending their homeland.The Burzhins are depicted as tall, Le chef de I'Armee Rouge, Mikall hook-nosed people with pince-nez, wearing morning dress Toukhatchevski and top hats in the style of bankers of a bygone age.... The by Pierre Fervacque Burzhins never win but neither do they lose, so the struggle Paris. 1928 continues." Our little friend, Russian boy Malchish, will of course This book by Air Commodore (ret.) die under unspeakable tortures inflicted by the enemy.The E.S.Williams, a Soviet Studies Associate at the London Royal United Services In­ Orwellian quality of the eternal struggle is certainly an indi­ stitute for Defence Studies, provides a precious study, given cation of the underlying philosophy and content of Soviet the means available to the Westerngeneral and expertpublic, "education, " a Manichean world-outlook.
    [Show full text]
  • Reagan, Gorbachev and the Emergence of 'New Political Thinking'
    Review of International Studies (1999), 25, 577–601 Copyright © British International Studies Association Reagan, Gorbachev and the emergence of ‘New Political Thinking’ ROBERT G. PATMAN Abstract. This article contends that the interaction between domestic circumstances in the USSR and the radical change in the international environment occasioned by the advent of the first Reagan administration played a substantial part in the early emergence of ‘New Political Thinking’ in the Soviet Union. That process had begun shortly after Brezhnev’s death. The Reagan factor loomed large in an internal Soviet debate over the direction of Soviet foreign policy. Four types of causal association are identified. While the Reagan administration was not the sole cause of the Soviet crisis that brought new thinking to the fore, it certainly contributed to a climate that strengthened the position of advocates of this perspective within the Soviet ruling elite. Mikhail Gorbachev’s New Political Thinking (NPT)—the foreign policy counterpart of domestic restructuring or perestroika—was a baby that arrived unexpectedly in 1985. Very quickly however, a long line began to form of those claiming paternity. As Nikolai Shishlin, Chief Consultant to the International Department of the CPSU Central Committee 1972–82, noted in a 1994 interview: ‘Today, many claim to be the parent of these changes’.1 Yet it is important to emphasize that Gorbachev’s foreign policy revolution was an incremental one that gathered impetus with the passage of time. The unfolding of the NPT fell into two broadly, discernible phases. Between 1985 and late 1987, it marched under the banner of socialist renewal or acceleration (uskorenie); the second and more radical phase from late 1987 to 1991, was marked by the rejection of Marxist-Leninist ideology as a guide to the making of Soviet foreign policy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Russian Offensive Air Warfare Theory: from Deep Battle to Aerospace War
    Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive Theses and Dissertations Thesis Collection 1993-06 The evolution of Russian offensive air warfare theory: from deep battle to aerospace war Admiral, Mark A. Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/27040 ,HQO\ Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. THE EVOLUTION OF RUSSIAN OFFENSIVE AIR WARFARE THEORY: FROM DEEP BATTLE TO AEROSPACE WAR by Mark A. Admiral Lieutenant, United States Navy B.A., University of Southern California, 1986 Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS from the NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL June 1993 Unclassified Security Classification of this page REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE la Report Security Classification: Unclassified lb Restrictive Markings 2a Security Classification Authority 3 Distribution/Availability of Report 2b Dcclassification/Downgrading Schedule Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 4 Performing Organization Report Number(s) 5 Monitoring Organization Report Number(s) 6a Name of Performing Organization 6b Office Symbol 7a Name of Monitoring Organization Naval Postgraduate School (7/ applicable) 38 Naval Postgraduate School 6c Address (city, state, and ZIP code) 7b Address (city, state, and ZIP code) Monterey CA 93943-5000 Monterey CA 93943-5000 8a Name of Funding/Sponsoring Organization 6b Office Symbol 9 Procurement Instrument Identification Number (if applicable) Address (city, state, and ZIP code) 10 Source of Funding Numbers
    [Show full text]
  • Decision-Making and the Soviet War in Afghanistan from Intervention to Withdrawal
    KaDecision-Malinovsky king and the Soviet War in Afghanistan Decision-Making and the Soviet War in Afghanistan From Intervention to Withdrawal ✣ Artemy Kalinovsky Like many other Cold War conºicts in the Third World, the So- viet war in Afghanistan had reverberations that are still being felt today. Al- though the opening of some important East-bloc archives after the collapse of the Soviet Union allowed scholars to explore why the Soviet Union decided to invade Afghanistan in December 1979, the decision-making process during the rest of the Soviet intervention has gone largely unexamined.1 What makes this period interesting is that despite signiªcant pressure within the highest organs of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) and the Soviet armed forces to limit direct Soviet involvement, policymakers in fact persisted with the Soviet military intervention. Several factors explain why. First, throughout the Soviet Union’s involvement in Afghanistan, policymaking was dominated by a narrow circle within the CPSU Politburo. These ofªcials formed a consensus among themselves, and their seniority and closeness to the CPSU General Secretary allowed them to sideline most critics of their policies. Second, senior foreign policy ofªcials as well as the General Secre- taries under whom they served shared a concern that a failure in Afghanistan would damage the Soviet Union’s position and authority as leader of the Communist movement and supporter of “national liberation” movements. 1. Analyses of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in general are limited. Two important works have appeared that draw primarily on published materials and interviews: Sarah E. Mendelson, Changing Course: Ideas, Politics, and the Soviet Withdrawal from Afghanistan (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998); and Andrew Bennett, Condemned to Repetition? The Rise, Fall, and Reprise of Soviet-Russian Military Interventionism, 1973–1996 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999).
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from the Soviet Occupation in Afghanistan for the United States and NATO
    Lessons from the Soviet Occupation in Afghanistan for the United states and NATO 51 3 LESSONS FROM THE SOVIET OCCUPATION IN AFGHANISTAN FOR THE UNITED STATES AND NATO Jonathan Gandomi Already in its seventh year in Afghanistan, U.S. and NATO forces appear as if they will approach and likely surpass the decade-long occupation by Soviet troops. Currently, Afghanistan is far from becoming stable and even reaching the normalcy of developing-nation status. As the Spring 2008 NATO summit illustrated, it represents an important test of commitment for the trans-Atlantic alliance. This article will examine some of the military and political lessons from the Soviet experience and identify those that can be applied to the present period. Drawing on a number of transcripts from Politburo sessions and other significant Soviet documents from the 1979-1989 period, this article argues that despite the distinctions between 1988 and 2008 a number of common experiences and mistakes emerge. As the Taliban continues to fight an insurgency campaign and patience wears thin among Afghans for President Karzai’s govern- ment and the international community to deliver results, these lessons might be useful in informing U.S. and NATO policy. Ultimately, Afghans, especially in rural areas, must be offered tangible gains from siding with the current government, and a political solution must accompany military efforts to overcome the challenges that confront Afghanistan and its allies. Jonathan Gandomi is a Master of Public Affairs Candidate at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Affairs, Princeton University. 52 Jonathan Gandomi INTRODUCT I ON More than six years after U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia's National Policy in the Atlantic Direction.7
    HOWARD AND CZEKAJ RUSSIA’S RUSSIA’S MILITARY STRATEGY MILITARY AND DOCTRINE STRATEGY Russia’s Military Strategy and Doctrine is designed to educate Russia watchers, AND DOCTRINE STRATEGY RUSSIA’S MILITARY policymakers, military leaders, and the broader foreign policy community about the Russian AND DOCTRINE Armed Forces and security apparatus across the full spectrum of geographic, doctrinal and domain areas. Each chapter addresses a different strategic-level issue related to the Russian military, ranging from “hybrid” warfare doctrine, to the role nuclear weapons play in its strategy, to cyber and electromagnetic warfare, to Moscow’s posture in the Arctic or the Black Sea, to the lessons its Armed Forces have learned from their ongoing operations in Syria and eastern Ukraine. And each section of the book is written by one of the world’s foremost experts on that theme of Russia’s military development. ­■­■­■ The key questions emphasized by this book include “how Russia fights wars” and “how its experiences with modern conflicts are shaping the evolution of Russia’s military strategy, capabilities and doctrine.” The book’s value comes not only from a piecemeal look at granular Russian strategies in each of the theaters and domains where its Armed Forces may act, but more importantly this study seeks to present a unifying description of Russia’s military strategy as a declining but still formidable global power. Russia’s Military Strategy and Doctrine will be an essential reference for US national security thinkers, NATO defense planners and policymakers the world over who must deal with the potential military and security challenges posed by Moscow.
    [Show full text]