Install

Get the latest updates as we post them — right on your browser

Today's paper. Last Updated: 02/10/2012

One Way to Disarm

A distinctive feature of the Russian power vertical is that leaders do not bother determining what government officials have already said on a particular subject before preparing their own remarks. At a meeting on security agency budgets on May 24, President Dmitry Medvedev set the goal of modernizing at least 30 percent of Russia’s weaponry by 2015. The president was apparently unaware of the previous arms program, announced by then-Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov three years ago. In 2007, Ivanov told State Duma deputies that the program would rearm 45 percent of the military by 2015. It failed miserably.

In addition, officials often do not feel obliged to fulfill the orders  of their bosses — even those issued by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. In a February meeting on the new armament program, Putin ordered that 70 percent of the country’s armed forces be modernized by 2020. But at a recent Duma hearing, acting army chief Lieutenant General Oleg Frolov contradicted Putin. Frolov said the 13 trillion rubles ($418.4 billion) for rearmament to be allocated over the next 10 years was only sufficient for modernizing Russia’s strategic nuclear forces, air defense forces and aviation. He said 36 trillion rubles ($1.2 trillion) would be needed to carry out all of the tasks put before the armed forces.

Thus, the new armaments program is doomed to fail, just like the four previous plans. All of these programs go through the same life cycle:

Stage 1: New goals are ceremoniously proclaimed stating exactly what percent of the military will be rearmed over the next 10 years.

Stage 2: The government allocates trillions of rubles with lofty promises about modernizing the armed forces with new technology and weapons programs.

Stage 3: The money disappears without a trace — or at least the traces are ignored. And then the whole cycle repeats itself in the next round of “weapons modernization programs.”

During the meeting on security agency budgets, nobody asked Ivanov, who was sitting next to Putin, why the previous armament program had failed several years ago. Why didn’t anybody ask Ivanov where the tanks and armored vehicles were for equipping 40 tank battalions, 97 motorized infantry battalions and 50 airborne battalions that he had promised in 2007 — not to mention the five brigades equipped with Iskander missiles? Why was there not a peep about the much-vaunted S-400 missile defense systems, only two of which have been deployed?

It goes without saying that corruption is one of the main reasons why so little modern weaponry has been manufactured over the past 10 to 15 years. Kickbacks for weapons contracts can account for 30 percent to 50 percent of the total cost. The level of corruption in military weapons programs grows with every year, despite all the methods announced by Medvedev to curb kickbacks.

The other major problem is that Putin and Ivanov have created a parody of the Soviet military-industrial complex. Huge, clunky and inefficient Soviet-era ministries have been revived in the form of state-owned giants such as the United Aircraft Corporation and the United Shipbuilding Corporation — both of which were created by then-President Putin’s decrees in 2006 and 2007.

Just like their Soviet analogues, these government behemoths are on the brink of bankruptcy. The price tag for delivering the proposed military equipment includes the cost of keeping those dying firms afloat. This makes the defense industry enormously inefficient. Recently published Audit Chamber data reveals that only 64 percent of state defense orders were filled last year.

Another pie-in-the-sky goal is the plan to switch all military communications to digital technologies by 2012. This goal is hardly attainable considering that 85 percent of the army’s technologies are still stuck in the old analog system. Take, for example, the ultramodern prototype radio unit that Medvedev recently demonstrated. These units can only be manufactured abroad. It would be interesting to know which country will be producing Russia’s secret military communications technology and which country will supply the spare parts. Perhaps France will offer its know-how as a follow-up to the Mistral ship deal, or perhaps China will sign a technology-transfer contract with Russia.

In reality, nobody has any serious plans to resolve the problems of the domestic military-industrial complex. It remains a cash cow for corrupt military officials and enables hundreds of dying companies to stay alive on the state’s highly expensive and wasteful life-support system.

The one thing the country’s military-industrial complex cannot do, however, is provide the armed forces with the modern weaponry it so urgently needs.

Alexander Golts is deputy editor of the online newspaper Yezhednevny Zhurnal.





Tags

military rearmament modernization



Also in Opinion

Putin Chasing Imaginary American Ghosts

Here we go again — another round of anti-Americanism from the Kremlin and state-controlled media. Blaming outside forces for Russia's woes has a long history in the country. The closer we get to the March 4 presidential election, the more intense the anti-American hysteria becomes.


Putting Everything In Its Place

Remember how I drove you all nuts with the innate propensity of Russian creatures and inanimate objects to stand, sit or lie? And how relieved you were when I moved on to other topics?
Well, I'm back.

Russia Gets Bad Rap Over Syria

As the violent standoff between Syria's security forces and armed opposition groups roils the country, the crisis has opened heated divisions at the United Nations Security Council.

A Propaganda Breakdown

Propaganda is not as powerful as many think. You might convince Russians that people in Egypt, Italy and Ukraine are paid or otherwise persuaded to join street protests, but you certainly cannot convince them that their own dissatisfaction with the government is the result of a foreign conspiracy.

Violent Reaction to Protests Could Bury Putin

Nonviolent revolutions do not always remain nonviolent, as the examples of uprisings in Egypt, Libya and Syria in the Arab Spring have shown. But peaceful movements for regime change often do succeed. For example, they have toppled illegitimate rulers, as with the post-Soviet Color Revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and ended apartheid in South Africa.

Realpolitik Without Realism

People have been asking me all week why the Kremlin is so stubbornly supportive of Syrian President Bashar Assad. "Is Russia's support based solely on weapons contracts with Syria," they wonder, "or the Kremlin's desire to maintain its naval base at the Tartus port?"




Discussion
The Moscow Times welcomes your comments and invites you to discuss topics with other readers. Your comment will be posted automatically to enable a live discussion. If you aren't familiar with our comments policy, you can read it here.

If you're a registered user, you can start typing your comment below. If not, take a moment to sign up. and then return to the article.

If your comment doesn't appear, contact us by using our web form.

Comments

Comments via Facebook

print


Comments

This article has no comments.

Be the first to leave a comment



To Our Readers

The Moscow Times welcomes letters to the editor. Letters for publication should be signed and bear the signatory's address and telephone number.

Letters to the editor should be sent by fax to (7-495) 232-6529, by e-mail to oped@imedia.ru, or by post. The Moscow Times reserves the right to edit letters.



Most Read