NSS translation with a foreword by Vince Dhimos
Following is our translation of an article from ria.ru based on an article written by military expert Konstantin Sivkov, who holds a Doctor of Military Science.
I have noticed that reports on military affairs such as weapons systems, in US journals rarely mention the academic credentials of the authors, and when they do, their academic backgrounds are not generally of a military nature. For instance, in
this article from Military Times comparing Russian and US military capabilities, one of the co-authors is a former Pentagon bureau chief, ie, a bureaucrat, with no academic credentials listed, and the other author has no credentials specified in her bio.
And here’s a curious one: The CFR, an influencer of US military decision makers, published an article on the Russian military, authored by a well-known author who “writes on foreign policy and national security and his work has appeared in Foreign Affairs, the Atlantic, and Bloomberg.” His credentials? A BA in political science from Emory University and an MA in social theory from the New School.
Finally, the National Interest published an article titled “Russia vs America: Which Army Would Win a War?” The author’s bio provides no credentials that would make him a candidate as a writer for such a military-oriented publication, and in fact, no academic credentials at all.
Although publications like these are heavy on military news and analyses, and frequently mention “experts,” eg, “Pentagon experts,” they never seem to identify these “experts” let alone mention their credentials.
Is it any wonder that the US blunders into wars that it either outright loses or that completely destroy the target countries and murder hundreds of thousands of civilians, eg, the nearly half-million in the Iraq war – which was fought allegedly to save civilians from harm? Is it any wonder that, once the war is over, the US military cannot keep the peace and terrorists typically take over the “saved” countries? Is it any wonder that the latest poll taken among Middle Eastern young people to rate their trust in world powers showed that, in comparison to the previous poll, Russia is more trusted than the US?
Presidents routinely mouth the words “mission accomplished” for consumption by their constituents after their troops pull out. But the hearts and minds are already lost by then.
Expert on how to neutralize the missile threat from the United States.
Topic: US withdrawal from the INF Treaty
MOSCOW, November 14 - RIA Novosti. In order to fully neutralize the threat that the deployment of American medium-range ballistic missiles in Europe may create, Russia needs to develop a mobile component in the structure of its Strategic Nuclear Forces (SNF). Such an opinion was expressed by the Vice-President of the Russian Academy of Rocket and Artillery Sciences, Doctor of Military Sciences Konstantin Sivkov, in his article for the newspaper Voenno-Promyshlennyi Kurier (Military-Industrial Courier).
The expert analysed the strengths and weaknesses of intermediate range-range missiles, both cruise and ballistic, and concluded that their use against mobile nuclear missile systems is ineffective.
Therefore, the expert proposed a number of measures to improve the mobility of the entire system of strategic nuclear forces (Strategic Nuclear Forces).
First, according to Sivkov, with the emergence of any threat, it is necessary to introduce constant air patrols with the maximum possible number of strategic bombers, and at the same time radically expanding the strategic aviation basing system by creating military airfields based at civil airports.
Secondly, in the event of a rise in tension, an effective measure could be assigning all the missile submarines suitable for this purpose to combat patrol, the expert said.
Further, according to Sivkov, it is necessary to prepare a road network for mobile strategic missile systems such as Topol-M and Yars for wartime, since at the moment, in accordance with the START treaty, the routes of such systems are strictly regulated.
With regard to heavy silo-based missile systems, such as the R-36UTTH and the Sarmat complex currently under development, the expert proposed the following measures: building up missile defence forces and EW facilities in launch areas to improve their protection.
In addition, according to Sivkov, Russia must contemplate recreating rail-mobile strategic missile train systems (BZhRK) to confer mobility to Russian strategic missiles of the middle and heavyweight classes. At the same time, the expert noted Russia’s developed river network, which, in his opinion, would allow the use of suitable sea-going and river vessels as missile carriers.
Another effective measure in improving Russian nuclear forces will be, according to Sivkov, an increase in the fleet of long-range radar detection and control aircraft (AWACS), since at this point, in his opinion, there is a shortage of such aircraft.
Finally, to increase the combat stability of the control system of strategic nuclear forces, it is necessary to improve its mobile component, the expert believes.
“To put it figuratively, it is advisable to boost the control system with a kind of mobile Perimetr” (automatic control system for a massive nuclear response [known in the West as the Dead Hand]) with advanced functions,” said Sivkov.
According to the expert, there can be "rail, road, ship, and air control points and communications centres."
"Все перечисленное, безусловно, будет дорого стоить. Но сохранение национального суверенитета и парирование угроз Запада — дело заведомо недешевое. Впрочем, затраты на асимметричный ответ все равно окажутся существенно меньше и главное — эффективнее, чем на зеркальный", — заключил эксперт.
“All of the above will certainly be costly. But preserving national sovereignty and parrying Western threats is obviously not cheap. However, the costs for an asymmetric response will still be significantly less and most importantly more efficient than a symmetric response,” the expert concluded.
Earlier, US President Donald Trump said that the United States does not intend to comply with the Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear Forces when Moscow is violating it, and will withdraw from the treaty. The US President, commenting on the exit from the INF Treaty, also said that Washington would develop weapons.
Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow wants to get a more detailed explanation from the United States, and added that breaking the provisions of the INF Treaty would force Russia to take measures to ensure its security. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that any action in this area will meet with opposition.
In recent years, Moscow and Washington have regularly accused each other of violating the INF Treaty. Russia has repeatedly stated that it strictly complies with its obligations under the contract. Lavrov noted that Moscow has very serious questions for the United States about the implementation of the treaty by the Americans themselves.
In particular, in Moscow they indicate that the United States has stationed on land — at a military base in Romania, and also in Poland — installations capable of launching Tomahawk-type cruise missiles, which is prohibited by the agreement. The Russian side also draws attention to the fact that the United States is developing attack drone vehicles and funding research on the creation of a ground-based cruise missile.