Russia’s 2018–2027 Rearmament Programme: Significance for Poland and NATO

PISM Spotlight: Russia’s 2018–2027 Rearmament Programme: Significance for Poland and NATO

Polish POV on Russia's rearmament. The Kaliningrad oblast of Russia sits directly north of Poland. Moscow has stationed nuclear-capable Iskander-M (SRBM) missiles in Kaliningrad.

Moscow's Baltic Fleet is also headquartered in Kaliningrad (Baltiysk Naval Base).


With a range of 500km, the Iskander-M missiles in Kaliningrad can target five NATO capitals

Rogue Valley:

From the article you linked to the Poles conclude that Russia is de-emphasising ground forces and concentrating on air and naval assets as well as nuclear deterrence. That does not seem to be a very aggressive long-term posture and would indicate that, barring NATO aggression, the Russians are less likely to embark on any attack on NATO states and are focusing on the defence of Russia and the near-abroad. $335 million dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to the almost $1.1 trillion estimated to have been spent by the USA on National security expenditures in FY 2017. And that estimate does not include hidden spending on "black projects".

All in all, good news for Poland and the Baltic States, I conclude. I was surprised to see that the Russians have reportedly cut funding to the Armata family of tanks and AICV's as well as other new land-based weapon systems. I guess they intend to focus their land-warfare efforts on hybrid warfare and special operations forces. So expect more disruption but less risk of open warfare is the take-away I guess.

As to positioning nukes in Kaliningrad, that may just be payback for positioning dual purpose ABM launchers in Poland and Romania which can also deliver nuclear weapons to Russian soil. The surreal chess game of deterrence continues.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

As to positioning nukes in Kaliningrad, that may just be payback for positioning dual purpose ABM launchers in Poland and Romania which can also deliver nuclear weapons to Russian soil.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The SM-3 Interceptor (US Navy, Japan Navy, Deveselu, Romania, and Redzikowo, Poland) do not have nuclear capability.

Raytheon: Standard Missile-3 (SM-3)

RIM-161 Standard Missile 3

Rogue Valley said:

Wrong. The SM-3 Interceptor (US Navy, Japan Navy, Deveselu, Romania, and Redzikowo, Poland) do not have nuclear capability.

Raytheon: Standard Missile-3 (SM-3)

RIM-161 Standard Missile 3

Click to expand...

Rogue Valley:

The problem is not the missiles but the launchers. The Mk 41 VLS units of the Aegis Ashore system can also launch nuclear tipped and conventional cruise missiles. While US deployment of such nuclear armed cruise missiles is banned by the INF Treaty, that treaty could be violated or renounced making the ABM sites into offensive launch sites in short order. Russia does not like this and thus is deploying more intermediate range missiles into Kalingrad which is Russian territory.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

Rogue Valley:

The problem is not the missiles but the launchers. The Mk 41 VLS units of the Aegis Ashore system can also launch nuclear tipped and conventional cruise missiles. While US deployment of such nuclear armed cruise missiles is banned by the INF Treaty, that treaty could be violated or renounced making the ABM sites into offensive launch sites in short order. Russia does not like this and thus is deploying more intermediate range missiles into Kalingrad which is Russian territory.

Click to expand...

The US has publicly, for a number of years (under SecDef Gates I believe), accused Russia of being in violation of the INF Treaty. Seems you always conveniently forget anything that doesn't implicate the US.

U.S. Demands NATO Action on Russian Missiles

Rogue Valley said:

The US has publicly, for a number of years (under SecDef Gates I believe), accused Russia of being in violation of the INF Treaty. Seems you always conveniently forget anything that doesn't implicate the US.

U.S. Demands NATO Action on Russian Missiles

Click to expand...

Rogue Valley:

The Putin government announced in 2007 that the INF treaty no longer served the interests of Russia and that it would be no longer bound by it. This announcement was repeated by various military and diplomatic personnel from Russia. Given the Russian publicly stated position, I didn't think mentioning the ins and outs of an effectively defunct treaty was necessary. But in the interests of completeness both Russia and the US are in violation of the INF in the eyes of the other side,

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

The Putin government announced in 2007 that the INF treaty no longer served the interests of Russia and that it would be no longer bound by it. This announcement was repeated by various military and diplomatic personnel from Russia. Given the Russian publicly stated position, I didn't think mentioning the ins and outs of an effectively defunct treaty was necessary. But in the interests of completeness both Russia and the US are in violation of the INF in the eyes of the other side

Click to expand...

Never assume every member of DP or our online guests either know the facts or understand the nuances. That's how disinformation spreads. But you are sophisticated enough to already know this.

Evilroddy said:

Rogue Valley:

From the article you linked to the Poles conclude that Russia is de-emphasising ground forces and concentrating on air and naval assets as well as nuclear deterrence. That does not seem to be a very aggressive long-term posture and would indicate that, barring NATO aggression, the Russians are less likely to embark on any attack on NATO states and are focusing on the defence of Russia and the near-abroad. $335 million dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to the almost $1.1 trillion estimated to have been spent by the USA on National security expenditures in FY 2017. And that estimate does not include hidden spending on "black projects".

All in all, good news for Poland and the Baltic States, I conclude. I was surprised to see that the Russians have reportedly cut funding to the Armata family of tanks and AICV's as well as other new land-based weapon systems. I guess they intend to focus their land-warfare efforts on hybrid warfare and special operations forces. So expect more disruption but less risk of open warfare is the take-away I guess.

As to positioning nukes in Kaliningrad, that may just be payback for positioning dual purpose ABM launchers in Poland and Romania which can also deliver nuclear weapons to Russian soil. The surreal chess game of deterrence continues.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Given the much smaller size of the Russian military compared to Nato members even excluding the US, an outright invasion of a Nato country is very unlikely. Not to mention the high financial cost of doing so. Political destabilization is a much cheaper option and generally more effective to serve long term interests.

Russia could for example fund extreme right wing parties in Poland (that are against Russia) but also are against the EU and Nato as a means to weaken Poland and divide it from potential allies. While in France supporting parties that would be against those in Poland

Lord Tammerlain:

Turning Von Clausewitz on his head and "making policy an extension of war by other means". Russian interests and Russian policy is preoccupied with protecting/controlling the western and southern near-abroad while simultaneously forging a new Eurasian trading block and new financial structures to undermine American economic and political hegemony in the world and especially Europe. Russian reasoning is that if the US economy weakens, then the military hegemony will soon wane too.

The World Reserve Currency status of the US dollar is the ultimate target for the Russians as that is America's Achilles heel in Russian planners' minds. If demand for the US Greenback drops precipitously and permanently then the debt service of the deficit financing of US militarism and power projection will become unsustainable and US power will degrade rapidly and permanently, changing a monopolar world back to a multipolar world. If Russia can cash in on a flourishing Eurasian trading system then it can realign to the East and more easily ignore the protests and threats of the West. Land-power will replace sea-power and the US will no longer be able to control or interdict much of this new international trade. This weakening of America and by extension Western Europe will suck for democracy and wide-spread affluence in Russia but will serve the interests of Russian elites/cleptocrats well. So they must hold off the West until the East can rise to it's full potential.

As to Poland, their government is already pretty far right-wing and quite authoritarian so fostering even more extreme right-wing elements could be dangerous. But yes, compromising Western and Eastern Europe and the European Union politically is a wise and hopefully low-cost strategy from the Russian Government's POV. It is not that different from what the US has been doing for over a hundred years in Central and South America and the Caribbean. Russia is just being cruder and less sophisticated about it and has accelerated the pace to where it is far more noticeable to anyone who takes the time to look.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Damn it, I spelled kleptocrat wrong and didn't catch it until too late! Apologies.

An illiterate Evilroddy.