DOCSLIB.ORG

Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, and Future

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, and Future Russian Nuclear Weapons Russian Nuclear Weapons: Past, Present, : Past, AND future Present, And U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE Stephen J. Blank Editor Future Stephen J. Blank Editor U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE This Publication SSI Website USAWC Website Visit our website for other free publication downloads http://www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/ To rate this publication click here. Strategic Studies Institute Book RUSSIAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS: PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE Stephen J. Blank Editor November 2011 The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the -De partment of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Authors of Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) publica- tions enjoy full academic freedom, provided they do not disclose classified information, jeopardize operations security, or mis- represent official U.S. policy. Such academic freedom empow- ers them to offer new and sometimes controversial perspectives in the interest of furthering debate on key issues. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited. ***** This publication is subject to Title 17, United States Code, Sec- tions 101 and 105. It is in the public domain and may not be copy- righted. ***** Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should be forwarded to: Director, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 632 Wright Ave, Carlisle, PA 17013-5046. ***** All Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) publications may be downloaded free of charge from the SSI website. Hard copies of this report may also be obtained free of charge while supplies last by placing an order on the SSI website. The SSI website address is: www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil. ***** The Strategic Studies Institute publishes a monthly e-mail newsletter to update the national security community on the re- search of our analysts, recent and forthcoming publications, and upcoming conferences sponsored by the Institute. Each newslet- ter also provides a strategic commentary by one of our research analysts. If you are interested in receiving this newsletter, please subscribe on the SSI website at www.StrategicStudiesInstitute. army.mil/newsletter/. ISBN 1-58487-504-6 ii CONTENTS Foreword ........................................................................v Introduction .................................................................vii Stephen J. Blank Part I 1. Russian Nuclear and Conventional Weapons: The Broken Relationship .........................................1 Dale R. Herspring 2. Russia’s Conventional Armed Forces: Reform and Nuclear Posture to 2020 …………...33 Roger N. McDermott Part II 3. Nuclear Weapons in Russian Strategy and Doctrine ………………………................................99 Andrei Shoumikhin 4. Russia’s Security Relations with the United States: Futures Planned and Unplanned..............................................................161 Pavel K. Baev 5. Nuclear Weapons in Russian National Security Strategy ………………….......................187 Nikolai Sokov iii Part III 6. Caught between Scylla and Charybdis: The Relationship between Conventional and Nuclear Capabilities in Russian Military Thought ……...........................................................261 Daniel Goure 7. Russia and Nuclear Weapons..............................293 Stephen J. Blank 8. Russian Tactical Nuclear Weapons: Current Policies and Future Trends..................................365 Richard Weitz 9. New START and Nonproliferation: Suitors or Separate Tables?....................................................417 Stephen J. Cimbala 10. Russia’s Nuclear Posture and the Threat that Dare Not Speak its Name............................459 Jacob W. Kipp About the Contributors ............................................505 iv FOREWORD While the Cold War is long past, the importance of arms control in Russo-American relations and the related issue of nuclear weapons for Russia remain vital concerns. Indeed, without an appreciation of the multiple dimensions of the latter, progress in the for- mer domain is inconceivable. With this in mind, the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) is very pleased to pres- ent the following essays, which were presented at a conference at the National Defense University on June 28, 2010. These essays explore many, if not all, of the issues connected with Russia’s relatively greater reli- ance on nuclear weapons for its security. As such, they constitute an important contribution to the analysis of the Obama administration’s reset policy, Russo-Amer- ican relations, Russian foreign and defense policy, and international security in both Europe and Asia. Addi- tionally, questions concerning the approach taken by other nuclear power nations in reference to the arms control agenda provide a crucial backdrop for the progress toward curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, a long-standing central goal of U.S. security policy. We offer these essays to our readers in the belief that the information and analyses contained herein will strengthen our understanding of Russia’s ex- tensive nuclear agenda and provide a deeper under- standing of the many issues in international security connected with Russia and its nuclear posture. DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR. Director Strategic Studies Institute v INTRODUCTION As of November 2010, the so-called “New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty)” treaty between the United States and Russia that was signed in Prague, Czech Republic, on April 8, 2010, awaits a ratification vote in the Senate. Regardless of the arguments pro and con that have emerged since it was signed, it is clear that the outcome of the ratification vote will not only materially affect the Obama administration’s re- set policy towards Russia, but also the strategic nu- clear forces of both signatories. Indeed, throughout the Cold War, both sides built up their forces based on what each was thought to have or be building. Al- though the Bush administration (2001-09) rhetorically announced its intention to sever this mutual hostage relationship, it failed in that regard. As a result, criti- cal aspects of that relationship still survive in Russia’s orientation to the United States and in the language of the treaty, especially in its preamble, which explicitly affirms a link between nuclear offense and defense.1 Therefore, whatever the fate of the treaty and the reset policy, it is clear that both Moscow and Washing- ton stand before crossroads in regard to the future of their strategic nuclear programs and force structures. Moreover, each side’s course of action will tangibly affect the future course of action of the other side re- garding the panoply of issues and policies connected with the development of nuclear weapons and the missions for them. With this in mind, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) organized a conference bringing together several distinguished experts on Russian nuclear weapons. The conference took place at the National Defense University, Fort Lesley J. Mc- Nair, Washington, DC, on June 28, 2010, and the pa- vii pers that follow are the revised versions of the papers presented at this conference. Each author was asked to answer several different questions pertaining to the present and future pos- ture of Russia’s nuclear weapons (including tactical nuclear weapons). Moreover, it quickly became clear that Russia’s nuclear future in many ways, large and small, depends greatly on the degree of success that Moscow will have in its current large-scale efforts at comprehensive military reform. These reforms en- compass virtually the entire military structure and are the most thoroughgoing reforms since Mikhail Frun- ze’s reforms in 1924-25. Consequently, no analysis of nuclear present and future posture is possible with- out a systematic analysis of those reforms and their impact. Therefore, the following chapters provide an examination of Russia’s military and political motives behind nuclear weapons policy as they pertain not only to the U.S./North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), but also to China, whose rising power has clearly caught the Kremlin’s attention. Dale Herspring and Roger McDermott present a systematic exposition and analysis of the reforms of the conventional forces and the impact this might have on nuclear issues. Andrei Shoumikhin, Pavel Baev, and Nikolai Sokov closely examine the ways in which Russia has previously thought about nuclear weapons, how it does so at present, and as well as how it might think about them in the future. Daniel Goure and Stephen Blank analyze some of the larger strategic issues driving Russian security and defense policy and their connection to nuclear weapons. Ste- phen Cimbala relates both the U.S. and Russian struc- tures to issues tied to nonproliferation and to what viii future reductions to a 1,000 warhead level might look like, while Jacob Kipp analyzes the deep-seated stra- tegic challenges that Russia faces in its Asian-Pacific Far East. Richard Weitz provides an in-depth analysis of the vexing issue of tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) that are already a source of friction between the two sides and one that will figure prominently in any fu- ture arms control negotiation. In many cases, it will become clear that in the at- tempt to answer the questions asked of them, the authors of this book have produced a considerable amount of overlap, i.e., more than one author ad- dressing the same point. However, what is equally as clear is that there is no agreement among them.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Russia and the EU in a Multipolar World: Invoking the Global in Russian Terms
    Russia and the EU in a Multipolar World: Invoking the Global in Russian Terms Aziz Elmuradov Introduction Over the past decade, Russia’s relations with the European Union have evolved from competition to conflict. With the Ukraine crisis as a culmination point, many scholars explain the conflictual stand-off as a result of a long-term cri- sis rooted in the internal structure of EU–Russia interaction (Casier 2016; Chaban et al. 2017; Haukkala 2015). While such a perspective contributes to a better understanding of the conflict, there is more to the confrontational dynamics between the two sides. World politics can be traced back not only to the pursuit of national interests, but also to differing ways of envision- ing the world. To a considerable extent, the current conflict with Russia is a conflict of worldviews. In line with the theme of this volume, the following chapter takes this epistemic dimension of world politics seriously. The world and the global are not fixed realms but are constituted in the practices ofcon- crete actors who create their discursive horizons of the world and the global through symbolic representations, narratives and models. This chapter, there- fore, focuses on practices of worldmaking inherent in Russian foreign policy discourse. Retracing popular modes of mapping the world from the Russian perspective, I will show how a multipolar worldview informs the relationship between Russia and the Western world. Russian foreign policy discourse is greatly affected by major trends and trajectories under way in world politics. Russia finds itself in an increasingly dynamic global environment. The world is more volatile and uncertain to- day than at any time since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia and Asia: the Emerging Security Agenda
    Russia and Asia The Emerging Security Agenda Stockholm International Peace Research Institute SIPRI is an independent international institute for research into problems of peace and conflict, especially those of arms control and disarmament. It was established in 1966 to commemorate Sweden’s 150 years of unbroken peace. The Institute is financed mainly by the Swedish Parliament. The staff and the Governing Board are international. The Institute also has an Advisory Committee as an international consultative body. The Governing Board is not responsible for the views expressed in the publications of the Institute. Governing Board Professor Daniel Tarschys, Chairman (Sweden) Dr Oscar Arias Sánchez (Costa Rica) Dr Willem F. van Eekelen (Netherlands) Sir Marrack Goulding (United Kingdom) Dr Catherine Kelleher (United States) Dr Lothar Rühl (Germany) Professor Ronald G. Sutherland (Canada) Dr Abdullah Toukan (Jordan) The Director Director Dr Adam Daniel Rotfeld (Poland) Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Signalistg. 9, S-1769 70 Solna, Sweden Cable: SIPRI Telephone: 46 8/655 97 00 Telefax: 46 8/655 97 33 E-mail: [email protected] Internet URL: http://www.sipri.se Russia and Asia The Emerging Security Agenda Edited by Gennady Chufrin OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 1999 OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Athens
    [Show full text]
  • Political Marketing
    http://www.diva-portal.org Postprint This is the accepted version of a paper published in Journal of Political Marketing. This paper has been peer-reviewed but does not include the final publisher proof-corrections or journal pagination. Citation for the original published paper (version of record): Simons, G. (2016) Stability and Change in Putin's Political Imageduring the 2000 and 2012 Presidential Elections: Putin 1.0 and Putin 2.0?. Journal of Political Marketing http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2016.1151114 Access to the published version may require subscription. N.B. When citing this work, cite the original published paper. This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Journal of Political Marketing on 16 Feb 2016, available online: http:// wwww.tandfonline.com/10.1080/15377857.2016.1151114 Permanent link to this version: http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-277000 Journal of Political Marketing ISSN: 1537-7857 (Print) 1537-7865 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wplm20 Stability and Change in Putin's Political Image during the 2000 and 2012 Presidential Elections: Putin 1.0 and Putin 2.0? Greg Simons To cite this article: Greg Simons (2016): Stability and Change in Putin's Political Image during the 2000 and 2012 Presidential Elections: Putin 1.0 and Putin 2.0?, Journal of Political Marketing, DOI: 10.1080/15377857.2016.1151114 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2016.1151114 Accepted author version posted online: 16 Feb 2016. Submit your article to this journal View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wplm20 Download by: [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek] Date: 16 February 2016, At: 22:58 Stability and Change in Putin’s Political Image During the 2000 and 2012 Presidential Elections: Putin 1.0 and Putin 2.0? Greg Simons Swedish National Defence College and Uppsala University, Sweden Address correspondence to Greg Simons.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Perils in a New Era Bringing Perspective to the Nuclear Choices Facing Russia and the United States
    Nuclear Perils in a New Era Bringing Perspective to the Nuclear Choices Facing Russia and the United States Steven E. Miller and Alexey Arbatov Nuclear Perils in a New Era Bringing Perspective to the Nuclear Choices Facing Russia and the United States Steven E. Miller and Alexey Arbatov © 2021 by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. All rights reserved. ISBN: 0-87724-139-2. This publication is available online at www.amacad.org/project/dialogue-arms-control -disarmament. Suggested citation: Steven E. Miller and Alexey Arbatov, Nuclear Perils in a New Era: Bringing Perspective to the Nuclear Choices Facing Russia and the United States (Cambridge, Mass.: American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2021). Cover image: Helsinki, Finland, July 16, 2018: The national flags of Russia and the United States seen ahead of a meeting of Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump. Photo by Valery Sharifulin/TASS/Getty Images. This publication is part of the American Academy’s project on Promoting Dialogue on Arms Control and Disarmament. The statements made and views expressed in this publication are those held by the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Officers and Members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Please direct inquiries to: American Academy of Arts & Sciences 136 Irving Street Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: 617-576-5000 Fax: 617-576-5050 Email: [email protected] Web: www.amacad.org Contents Introduction 1 The Rise and Decline of Global Nuclear Order? 3 Steven E. Miller Unmanaged Competition,
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Public Opinion and the Two Chechen Wars, 1994-1996 and 1999-2002: Formation and Evolution
    Russian Public Opinion and the Two Chechen Wars, 1994-1996 and 1999-2002: Formation and Evolution A PhD Thesis By: Jason Clinton Vaughn School of Slavonic and East European Studies University College London Supervisor: Dr. Peter J. S. Duncan Secondary Supervisors: Dr. Andrew Wilson Dr. Vesna Popovski 1 UMI Number: U592450 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U592450 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 I declare that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Jason Clinton Vaughn 2 Acknowledgments: In the production of this thesis, I would firstly like to thank my parents for all of their support over the years. Much appreciation goes to my supervisor, Dr. Peter Duncan for having so much patience in reading through all the drafts of this thesis. Also, I would like to thank Professors Martyn Rady and Trevor Thomas for reading sections (and, on occasion, the entirety) of my drafts and giving their advice over the course of my writing. Thanks to Nadezhda Stoyanova for helping me to translate and sift through so much Russian language material and for always being there with a vote of confidence and support.
    [Show full text]
  • Ties That Do Not Bind Russia and the International Liberal Order by Andrej Krickovic a Dissertation Submitted in Partial Satisfa
    Ties That Do Not Bind Russia and the International Liberal Order by Andrej Krickovic A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Steven Weber, Chair Professor M. Steven Fish Professor Yuri Slezkine Fall 2012 Ties That Do Not Bind Russia and the International Liberal Order Copyright 2012 by Andrej Krickovic Abstract Ties That Do Not Bind Russia and the International Liberal Order by Andrej Krickovic Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Berkeley Professor Steven Weber, Chair The world is experiencing an unprecedented shift in wealth and power away from the West and towards the developing countries According to some estimates the combined gross domestic product of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India and China) will surpass that of the G7 nations by 2032. India’s GDP alone is predicted to surpass that of the United States by 2043 and China’s GDP will be almost twice that of the US by 2050. Rising powers are using this newfound wealth to expand their global influence. China has taken the lead in investment and development in Africa. Russia is consolidating its influence in the Post-Soviet space. India is flexing its muscle on the subcontinent. Brazil is pushing for regional integration in South America and promoting diplomatic initiatives to address some of the world’s most difficult problems, such as the Iranian nuclear program. What is the impact of institutions and regimes during periods of major power transition in the international system? My dissertation challenges liberal theories, which argue that the institutions and regimes established by the Western powers after World War II constitute a resilient and robust “International Liberal Order” (ILO) that will shape and restrain the behavior of rising powers.
    [Show full text]
  • A Threat to National Security
    ILYA YASHIN A THREAT TO NATIONAL SECURITY AN INDEPENDENT EXPERT REPORT 1 Ilya Yashin, the author of “Threat to National Security,” says the goal of his report about the Chechen IN troduction..................................................................................................................................2 President is “to open Russian society’s eyes to the fact that Ramzan Kadyrov, with the connivance of the country’s authorities and secret services, has become a figure that CHAPTER 1. RAGS TO RICHES.........................................................................................4 poses a threat to Russia’s national security.” His report 1.1 ETHNIC CLEANSING tells about the regime established by Ramzan Kadyrov in Chechnya, reveals his crimes and corrupt schemes and 1.2 THE FIRST CHECHEN WAR shows how he impacts the current Russian political system. 1.3 SWITCHING SIDES TO JOIN THE FEDERAL FORCES We believe that Ramzan Kadyrov is not only Russia’s 1.4 THE ASSASSINATION OF AKHMAD KADYROV internal threat – he has definitely become a global danger. 1.5 THE POweR STRUGGLE IN CHECHNYA Kadyrov is known not only by his public intimidation of Russian pro-democracy opposition leaders, human rights CHAPTER 2. THE CHECHEN KHANATE...............................................................12 activists and journalists, he’s also known for his countless violations of freedoms and human rights in his republic. CONTENTS 2.1 THE REGIME OF PERSONAL POweR There are not only suspicions, but also clear traces, of his 2.2 ARMING THE UNDERGROUND involvement in the assassinations of Anna Politkovskaya, Natalia Estemirova and Boris Nemtsov. There are also 2.3 KADYROV AND ISLAM known cases when Kadyrov’s opponents were murdered 2.4 RAMZAN’S CULT OF PERSONALITY not only outside Chechnya, but also outside of Russia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Russian Military Policy and Finland
    AND FINLAND AND FINLANDAND FINLAND AND FINLAND MILITARY POLICY MILITARY POLICYMILITARY POLICY MILITARY POLICY Stefan Forss, Lauri Kiianlinna, Pertti Inkinen & Heikki Hult Stefan Forss, Lauri Kiianlinna, Pertti Inkinen & Heikki Hult Stefan Forss, Lauri Kiianlinna, Pertti Inkinen & Heikki Hult THE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN Stefan Forss, Lauri Kiianlinna, Pertti Inkinen & Heikki Hult THE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN THE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN THE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIAN National Defence University Department of Strategic and Defence Studies Series 2: Research Reports No 49 National Defence UniversityNational Defence University Department of Strategic and Defence StudiesDepartment of Strategic and Defence Studies Series 2: Research Reports No 49Series 2: Research Reports No 49 National Defence University Department of Strategic and Defence Studies Series 2: Research Reports No 49 Stefan Forss, Lauri Kiianlinna, Pertti Inkinen & Heikki Hult The Development of Russian Military Policy and Finland Series 2: No 49, 2013 .maanpuolustuskorkeakoulu. .maanpuolustuskorkeakoulu..maanpuolustuskorkeakoulu. .maanpuolustuskorkeakoulu. w ww w ww wwww ww +358 299 800 +358 299 800+358 299 800 +358 299 800 Tel. strategianlaitos@mil. Tel. Tel. [email protected]@mil. Tel. strategianlaitos@mil. National Defence University Department of Strategic and Defence Studies P.O.Box 266, 00171 HELSINKI Suomi Finland National Defence UniversityNational Defence University Department of StrategicDepartment of Strategic and Defence Studiesand Defence Studies P.O.Box
    [Show full text]
  • Russian Discourse on Borders and Territorial Questions – Crimea As a Watershed?
    russian politics 4 (2019) 211-241 brill.com/rupo Russian Discourse on Borders and Territorial Questions – Crimea as a Watershed? Tuomas Forsberg Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies & Tampere University [email protected] Sirke Mäkinen Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki [email protected] Abstract This article addresses the question of how the Crimean case relates to Russia’s general understanding of territorial questions and border regimes. We examine the histori- cal evolution of Russian discourse on borders and territorial questions and investigate to what extent they can explain Russia’s decision to annex Crimea. We will look into the principles of inviolability of borders and territorial integrity that sustain the status quo, and how this has been challenged by three partly interlinked doctrines: national self-determination, geopolitics, and historical rights. We argue that the discourse on territorial integrity and the status quo has predominated in Russia since the Cold War, and that this has not changed fundamentally, either before or after the annexation of Crimea. Russia does not seem to want to abolish the existing norms altogether or to advocate any clearly articulated reformist agenda. Rather, it picks and chooses argu- ments on an ad hoc basis, imitating Western positions in some other cases when de- parting from the basic norm of the status quo. Hence, we claim that Russia’s territorial revisionism is reactive, self-serving, and constrained by the desire to avoid changing the status quo doctrine to any great extent. Keywords Russia – borders – territorial integrity – national self-determination – historical rights © tuomas forsberg and sirke mäkinen, 2019 | doi:10.1163/2451-8921-00402004 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the cc-by-nc 4.0 License.
    [Show full text]
  • Corruption of the Fourth Power: the Decline of the Russian Media
    Corruption of the Fourth Power: The Decline of the Russian Media Olga Khvostunova, Ph.D. Visiting Scholar Harriman Institute, Columbia University Abstract Independent and free media are among the key instruments in fighting corruption. But in today’s Russia this instrument itself has been corrupted and misused. Russian government has deliberately taken control over the major national media outlets, including TV channels, radio stations, print press, and some internet resources. Only few publications remain free and are able to fulfill their duties. As competition on the global media market becomes fiercer, traditional media in all the countries are looking for new ways of surviving and are becoming more susceptible to corruption. The problem is universal, but in case of Russia it is aggravated by Vladimir Putin’s corrupt political regime. Corruption has poisoned Russian media on both levels— institutional and individual. The objectives of this research are: to investigate main methods of corrupting the media and the journalists that the Russian government has employed; to trace the effects such a corruption can have on media content and, as a result, on public opinion; and to see whether the few free media can contribute into overcoming this negative trend. The research framework Ten years ago, corruption as a subject of study was quite a small field. Today, numerous academic and media articles on the issue are being published almost daily. The research field on corruption has expanded, and this trend reflects growing public concern for the effects that corruption has on people’s lives. Another reason for the growing interest is development of the new media (mostly, internet) that allowed for better access to information and data exchange and, therefore, led to a greater awareness of the scale of the problem.
    [Show full text]
  • What Does Russia Think About All This? 'Washington Has Gone Crazy.'
    Opinions What does Russia think about all this? ‘Washington has gone crazy.’ By David Ignatius Opinion writer June 1 MOSCOW When Russian officials and analysts here talk about the U.S. investigation of their alleged hacking of the 2016 campaign, two themes predominate: They’re flattered that their country is seen as such a powerful threat, and they’re amazed that the United States is so preoccupied with the scandal. This is the official line, to be sure, but it was also expressed by several critics of the regime I interviewed this week. People can’t quite believe the sudden reversal of fortunes: Russia is back as a global force, after decades of humiliation. And the United States, so long the dominant superpower, is now divided, disoriented and, to Russian eyes, in retreat. For the Kremlin version, here’s how Sergey Karaganov, the head of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, describes his reaction to the investigation: “It’s a mixture of disgust and sympathy. Disgust because 99 percent of that is lies or a concoction, maybe 100 percent. As for sympathy, it’s a desperate picture when a great democracy is killing itself, committing collective suicide.” There’s an undisguised tone of schadenfreude here, even as officials talk about U.S. overreaction. “I would have been proud and happy if the authorities of my country would have used some hackers to penetrate [your system], and showed that you’re living in a crystal palace and should not interfere in the affairs of others,” said Karaganov, who’s an informal Kremlin adviser in addition to running the think tank.
    [Show full text]
  • Competing Western and Russian Narratives on the European Order: Is There Common Ground?
    April 2016 Conference Report Competing Western and Russian narratives on the European order: Is there common ground? Thomas Frear and Lukasz Kulesa (eds.) Contents Page 1 - Introduction Page 2 - Summary Page 4 - Session One: Russia and Western views on the nature of the European security order in the 21st century Page 7 - Session Two: Respect for sovereignty, use of force and the principle of non- intervention in internal affairs of other states Page 10 - Session Three: Inviolability of borders, territorial integrity of states and self- determination of peoples Page 12 - Conclusions and next steps Page 14 - Appendix One: List of participants Page 15 - Appendix Two: Written contributions Page 17: The Procedural Foundations of the European Security Order: Russian and “Western” Perspectives – Mikhail Troitskiy Page 23: Russia’s “energetic” policy in the struggle for a new international order: a Ukrainian perspective - Oleksandr Tytarchuk Page 28: Reflections on Post-Cold War Order - Richard Sakwa Page 37: Respect for Sovereignty, Use of Force and the Principle of Non-intervention in the Internal Affairs of Other States - Natalino Ronzitti Page 43: Contested understandings of sovereignty, the use of force and the wider inter- national legal order: the political context - Roy Allison Page 49: Territorial integrity and self-determination: rules and standards - Sergey Markedonov Competing Western and Russian Narratives on the European Order: Is there common ground? Thomas Frear and Lukasz Kulesa April 2016 On 7th November 2015 the European Leadership Network (ELN), in cooperation with the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), hosted an event in London on the competing legal and political narratives between Russia and the West.
    [Show full text]