Search

Begin New Search Topic Defense Policy Political Geography Russia

91. The Georgia Crisis: Implications for the Partnership for Peace

Author:
Graeme P. Herd and Daniel A. Flesch
Publication Date:
03-2009
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Connections
Institution:
Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes
Abstract:
On 7 August 2008, Georgia attacked Tskhinvali, the capital city of South Ossetia, with heavy artillery, rocket launchers, and ground troops in an attempt to take control of the breakaway republic, which contained bases of both Russian and OSCE peacekeepers. Russia, claiming to be acting under the mandate of peace enforcement, pushed Georgia out of both South Ossetia and another breakaway Georgian republic, Abkhazia, and deep into Georgian territory. This created the potential for regime change, as the Russian Army appeared to be moving on Tbilisi with the intent of overthrowing Georgia's democratically elected government. On 8 August 2008, Russian military forces crossed the Georgian border into South Ossetia and Abkhazia in a successful effort to repulse Georgian troops. The immediate casus belli for Russia was genocide, with claims that “over two thousand” South Ossetians had been killed by Georgian troops, along with the shooting of ten Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, which necessitated a humanitarian and peace enforcement operation. The Russian advance included ground troops, tanks and armored personnel carriers, and air and sea operations, combined with coordinated kinetic and cyber attacks. Russian forces also crossed into Abkhazia in defense of their compatriots – 70 percent of the Abkhaz population of 220,000 are Russian passport holders, and 90 percent of the South Ossetian population of 70,000 are also Russian citizens.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, International Affairs, and Population
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Georgia, and South Ossetia

92. The Defense Monitor, Volume XXXVIII - July/August/September 2009

Publication Date:
09-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
The international Global Zero Commission, a group of political and military leaders from the United States, Russia and other key countries, held an intensive two-day meeting in Washington, D.C. on June 28-29, 2009 - where they presented a practical and comprehensive plan calling for the phased and verified elimination of all nuclear weapons over the next 20 years, and briefed senior Obama administration officials on their recommendations in advance of the July 6-8 Moscow Summit.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Security, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Counterinsurgency
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Washington, and Moscow

93. Medvedev's amendments to the law on defence: The consequences for Europe

Author:
Yury E. Fedorov
Publication Date:
11-2009
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Finnish Institute of International Affairs
Abstract:
In November 2009, the 'Law on Amendments to the “Law on Defence”' proposed by President Medvedev entered into force. It allows the Kremlin to dispatch troops outside Russia for four purposes: to counter armed attacks against Russian armed forces, other troops and bodies deployed beyond its borders; to counter or prevent an armed attack against another country if this country has requested Russia to do so; to protect Russian citizens abroad from an armed attack; and to combat piracy and guarantee the safety of shipping. The law is an attempt to close the gap between Moscow's strategic goals, primarily the establishment of its geopolitical dominance over the former Soviet republics, and Russia's legislation, which restricted its ability to deploy armed forces beyond national borders. In effect, the amended legislation enables the Kremlin to deploy its armed forces abroad in a wide range of situations, precisely because of a lack of clear criteria. The wording of 'Medvedev's amendments' sheds light on some plans and scenarios that may be taking shape in Moscow. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that Russia may plan to ignite large-scale disturbances and ethnic clashes in Sevastopol or in Latvia and Estonia, which may be used as a pretext for Russian military intervention. A Russo-Ukrainian conflict in Crimea would pose not so much a military as a political challenge for Europe and the West. Even though Ukraine does not belong to these organizations, if NATO and the EU failed to respond to Russian intervention in Crimea with strong political and economic measures, their strategic relevance would be seriously undermined. If NATO did not defend its member states in the Baltic, the strategic role of the Alliance would be reduced to zero. The aforementioned scenarios fall into the worst-case category, yet there are numerous precedents in Russia's history which demonstrate that worst-case scenarios can become reality. European dependence on Russian energy supplies and interest in Russia's support in resolving the Iranian nuclear problem and the conflict in Afghanistan, as well as the Obama administration's interest in Russia's partnership in nuclear issues, constrain Western ability to respond. However, the West could and should make it quite clear that new Russia's military interventions will result in the country's political ostracization. Furthermore, the West could propose and develop an internationally recognised mechanism regulating the most important aspects of humanitarian intervention. In particular, it should minimise the ability of individual states to make unilateral decisions to intervene militarily if the UN Security Council were unable to make firm decisions. Such mechanisms could be discussed and developed in the frameworks of the UN, the OSCE, the so-called Corfu process and similar international forums.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, and Law
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and Asia

94. The Defense Monitor, U.S. Missile Defenses in Europe: The Putin Alternative

Author:
Philip E. Coyle, Whitney Parker, Theresa Hitchens, and Richard May
Publication Date:
07-2007
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
At the G-8 Summit in early June, the difficulties and complexities of proposed U.S. missile defenses in Europe were on full display. In the weeks preceding the G-8 Summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin had set the Bush administration – and the world – back on its heels with talk of Russian missiles aimed at Europe in retaliation for proposed U.S. missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. This set the stage for what the Bush administration thought might be a G-8 confrontation over its proposed missile defense system. Then, on June 7, Putin proposed a smart missile defense technical and policy solution that the Pentagon should have thought of first: establishing a missile defense radar site at the existing Qabala early warning radar station in Azerbaijan.
Topic:
Defense Policy and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, and Asia

95. Foreign Military Bases in Eurasia

Author:
Zdzislaw Lachowski
Publication Date:
06-2007
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Abstract:
On 16 August 2004 the President of the United States, George W. Bush, announced that some 60 000–70 000 US troops stationed in Asia and Europe would be returned to the USA over the coming decade. This realignment of forces signals a major change in US global and regional policies that will affect the structure of US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) base deployment (referred to as 'basing' or 'forward basing' by the military) throughout the world. In the 1990s Russia had begun pulling out of its cold war spheres of influence, but it either halted or began to reverse its base withdrawal process at almost the same time as Bush's plan was made known.
Topic:
Security and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, Eurasia, and Asia

96. Defense Reform and the Russian Navy

Author:
Yuri Krupnov
Publication Date:
10-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
As recently as 1991 Russia maintained one of the world's largest military establishments. Moscow's powerful armed forces included one of the largest nuclear weapons arsenals. Owing to the profound political, economic and geostrategic transformation that Russia has experienced since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Russian armed forces have gone through a terrible crisis. The consequences of this crisis persist today. The Russian armed forces must, therefore, continue implementing reforms to deal with the new internal situation and the international security environment.
Topic:
International Relations, Defense Policy, and NATO
Political Geography:
Russia, Soviet Union, and Moscow

97. Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1998-2005

Author:
Richard F. Grimmett
Publication Date:
11-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
This report is prepared annually to provide Congress with official, unclassified, quantitative data on conventional arms transfers to developing nations by the United States and foreign countries for the preceding eight calendar years for use in its various policy oversight functions. All agreement and delivery data in this report for the United States are government-to-government (FMS) transactions. Some general data are provided on worldwide conventional arms transfers by all suppliers, but the principal focus is the level of arms transfers by major weapons suppliers to nations in the developing world.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, and Arms Control and Proliferation
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Europe, and Asia

98. The Defense Monitor: Dear Friends Colleagues

Publication Date:
11-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
Many of you are aware of CDI's 30-year history of research and commentary on U.S. defense topics. You may also have noticed the expanding breadth of our international projects and activities, such as our ground-breaking China Security Bulletin featuring contributions from a retired Chinese general, and a forthcoming report on Russia's defense spending by a Russian scholar who heads our Moscow office. To better reflect our global scope and project diversity, we have created the World Security Institute — which can be thought of as our “holding company.” We felt that this title better describes all of our activities that now encompass a wider definition of “security.”
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Disaster Relief, Government, and Nuclear Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, China, Europe, Iran, Middle East, Asia, and Moscow

99. If Not Balancing, What? Forms of Resistance to American Hegemony

Author:
Jeremy Pressman
Publication Date:
03-2004
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
While traditional understandings of international affairs would predict the formation of a balancing coalition against the dominant U.S. position in world affairs, some analysts now contend that the U.S. advantage is so comprehensive and so unprecedented that we have not seen and will not see balancing behavior on the part of second tier powers like China, Russia, Japan, and Germany. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that the absence of balancing means the United States will not face any meaningful opposition in the international arena. Though in the short term a bloc of states is unlikely to form a counter-coalition. the historical form of resistance to dominant powers other states still find important ways to resist U.S. dominance.
Topic:
International Relations and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
Russia, United States, Japan, China, and Germany

100. The Proliferation Security Initiative in Perspective

Author:
Andrew Prosser
Publication Date:
06-2004
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Defense Information
Abstract:
Participant countries of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), a U.S.-led effort to stem the illicit trafficking of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and delivery systems, met on the first anniversary of the initiative, from May 31 to June 1 in Krakow, Poland. Russia announced on the first day of the meeting its decision to participate in the PSI, a move that U.S. officials had supported as an important step in augmenting the effectiveness of the initiative. However, Russia's participation will only occur, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry, as long as PSI activities do not violate national or international law. Russian officials have similarly expressed concerns that the PSI's land, sea, and air-based WMD interdiction activities could endanger international commerce, and give unwarranted powers to the U.S. Navy to act as a global police force.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Political Geography:
Russia and United States