Admiral Gene LaRocque (USN, Ret.),
Pres., Center for Defense Information
HOST:
Admiral John Shanahan (USN, Ret.)
Director, Center for Defense Information
DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH:
David T. Johnson
DIRECTOR of TELEVISION:
Mark Sugg
SENIOR PRODUCER & NARRATOR:
Ira Shorr
PRODUCERS:
Glenn Baker
Jennifer Hazen
Daniel Sagalyn
Stephen Sapienza
PRINCIPAL ANALYST & SCRIPTWRITER:
David T. Johnson
SEGMENT PRODUCER:
Stephen Sapienza
VIDEO GRAPHICS:
Adam Luther
ORIGINATION:
Washington, D.C.
PROGRAM NO.:
912
INITIAL BROADCAST:
3 December 1995
CONDITION OF USE:
Credit "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR" (Center for Defense Information).
The Brookings Institution
EUGENE CARROLL, Jr., USN (Ret.)
Deputy Director,
Center for Defense Information
WILLIAM COLBY
CIA Director, 1973-1976
JAMES COLLINS
Ambassador-designate, State Department
FRANK GAFFNEY
Center for Security Policy
SHERMAN GARNETT
Department of Defense, 1984-1994
SERGEY ROGOV
Director, Institute for USA and Canada Studies, in Russia
TED WARNER
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Requirements
What is going on in Russia? What is the state of the Russian military? And what's at stake in the future of relations between Russia and the United States?
["AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR" program introduction.]
Admiral JOHN SHANAHAN (USN, Ret.): I'm Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, director of the Center for Defense Information. Frankly, ladies and gentlemen, I must admit that I do lose sleep over US-Russian relations. For over 36 years, while in the military, I spent fighting the Cold War, while the American people contributed 12 trillion, 800 billion dollars to that adventure.
Where are we? Today, our program looks at Russia and asks the question, "Friend or Foe?"
NARRATOR: As Americans puzzle over what to make of the mixed signals coming from the former Soviet Union, it may be useful to remind ourselves of the way things used to be. Our country was once obsessed with the menace of Soviet military power.
From "Soviet Military Power" (Department of Defense):
"Soviet military capabilities -- land, sea, and air, both strategic and theater, continue to constitute a major threat to Western security."
NARRATOR: American taxpayers spent some $12 trillion waging the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Two generations of our leaders focussed the nation's energy and resources on combating the Soviet menace worldwide. There are those who think, in retrospect, perhaps we exaggerated the strengths of the Soviet Union.
Many things have changed since the bad old days of the Cold War, but perhaps nothing has changed more than the state of the Russian military. Soviet military power no longer exists following the break-up of the Soviet Union. Russian military power is but a shadow of the old military machine.
Ted Warner is assistant secretary of defense for strategy and requirements. He has been a specialist on the military in the former Soviet Union for many years.
TED WARNER: Russia's military capabilities are dramatically reduced from what they were at the time of the Cold War. Clearly, the fundamental revolution that has been sweeping Russia since the early part of this decade is not yet complete. Russia's military manpower is contracted from over five million personnel perhaps ten years ago to now probably less than one-and-a-half million. It's a military that probably has as many officers as it has enlisted personnel.
NARRATOR: Bruce Blair, an expert on the Russian military at the Brookings Institution in Washington, goes even further in describing the decline of the Russian military.
Dr. BRUCE BLAIR: The Russian military is in very dire straits with the exception perhaps of the nuclear forces and the strategic rocket forces, in particular. Their budget has collapsed. They're not buying any new weapons systems. Their research and development has ground virtually to a standstill. Their operations and maintenance is very poorly funded, causing enormous difficulties.
The conventional forces are in particularly bad shape. They don't have enough fuel for pilots to practice flying planes. Ships and submarines are sitting in port for want of spare parts and maintenance, and even qualified crew members.
NARRATOR: Things have gotten so bad for a Russian military which can't pay its bills that the government recently had to issue an order banning power plants from cutting off energy supplies to military bases. Draft dodging has become a way of life. The Russians are trying to sell their aircraft carriers to Third World countries to raise money. And the Russian air force is reduced to hawking on the Internet joy rides on its advanced aircraft for Western tourists.
On a more serious note, as Bruce Blair points out, Russia still maintains large and potent nuclear forces, controlling by far the largest portion of what remains of the 30,000 nuclear weapons of the former Soviet Union. The existence of all these weapons of mass destruction in a part of the world that now faces considerable conflict and disruption is viewed by some as the number one danger in the world today.
Senator SAM NUNN (D-GA):
"Russia currently possesses at least 20,000 nuclear weapons -- in fact, over 20,000. This is the first time in history that an empire has disintegrated while possessing such enormous destructive capabilities. Even if these capabilities are greatly reduced, the knowhow, the production capability and the dangers of proliferation will endure for many years. Even if we do our very best job, this is going to be our number one security threat for America, for NATO, and for the world in terms of decades, not simply a few years.
NARRATOR: In 1991, Senator Sam Nunn and his Republican colleague, Senator Richard Lugar, initiated an American government program to assist Russia and the other countries of the former Soviet Union in destroying nuclear weapons and ensuring the safety and security of nuclear materials.
The Nunn-Lugar program has recently faced opposition from some members of Congress who are looking for ways to cut the federal budget, although only about $1 billion has been spent on the program over four years. Some people also still fear a military threat.
Representative BOB STUMP (R-AZ):
"I personally don't believe that the Soviet Union has suddenly been rendered impotent. I think the threat is still there."
NARRATOR: To help push through increases in US military spending, some military officials have pointed to a few remnants of Russian military power, such as their submarine program.
Despite these fears, the United States and Russia, in addition to nuclear cooperation, have been working together in a number of other areas. American officials see a huge benefit for the United States in helping Russia.
Ambassador-designate James Collins is the top State Department official dealing with Russia and the states of the former Soviet Union.
Amb. JAMES COLLINS: One aspect where we wish to prevent a reemergence of any real threat to the United States. The second point which I think is equally important is that the end of the Cold War present us with an immense opportunity. And that opportunity really is in this huge area of the former Soviet Union to encourage and work with the developing states, to bring them to democracy, to a more stable and integrated role in the family of nations and in the broader context of a new security space for Europe and the Euro-Atlantic community.
I think the potential is immense for American economic interests. Trade and investment has barely begun in that part of the world.
NARRATOR: To help convert good intentions into concrete results a commission on US-Russian cooperation, chaired by Vice President Al Gore and Russian Prime Minister Victor Chernomyrdin, is pursuing joint activities on a wide range of economic, scientific, social and educational programs. The recent collaboration in space with the MIR space station is one example.
NASA Communications: "The Russian interface officer is notifying mission control in Kaliningrad that the orbiter is outside of 50 feet."
NARRATOR: But behind these relatively modest cooperative ventures lies a more troubling picture. The Russian economy is in a tailspin, experiencing a collapse that far exceeds the Great Depression in the United States in the 1930s.
Because of a staggering economy, Russian non-nuclear military forces and the Russian military-industrial complex have collapsed in the past four years. Among the many consequences of this has been a temptation on the part of the Russian government and military to rely more on nuclear weapons for Russia's security. Russia is being pushed closer to the nuclear trigger.
Dr. BLAIR: The conventional forces have deteriorated to the point where they really can't project any capability vis a vis external threats or internal threats. And that has, unfortunately, led Russia to the conclusion that it depends more than ever on nuclear forces. This reliance on nuclear weapons is evident in the fact that the nuclear forces do have more access to resources.
NARRATOR: Senator Nunn also fears that the United States' effort to rush the expansion of NATO without Russia's participation will push the Russians more in the direction of emphasizing nuclear weapons.
Senator NUNN:
"I believe that we must carefully measure NATO enlargement's effect on this proliferation security problem, which is our number one security problem. Increased Russian isolation, paranoia or instability would make our number one security challenge more difficult and more dangerous."
NARRATOR: The general deterioration of economic and social conditions in Russia has combined with a polarized and divisive political situation to feed Russian fears and anxieties about security. The Russian military has become more active in trying to cope with violence in neighboring regions, the so-called "near abroad" parts of the former Soviet Union. The Russian military has been involved in Tajikistan, Moldova, Georgia and other parts of the troubled Caucasus region.
Some observers see this role of the Russian military as signaling a resurgence of Russian imperialism.
Frank Gaffney is a former Reagan administration military official.
FRANK GAFFNEY (in a speech):
"I've mentioned the flexing of muscles that's been going in the periphery of the former Soviet Union. A particular flashpoint, of course, in and focus of such activities has been the Caspian Sea and the Caucasus and Transcaucasus region, where we have seen everything from intimidation, assassinations, covertly promoted civil wars and overt military operations. Aimed, I believe, at resubordinating the near abroad and discouraging independent-minded policies on the part of the other former Warsaw Pact states."
SHERMAN GARNETT: There is still a tendency to look at he politics of this part of the world in terms of very old categories, Soviet or Russian imperialism.
NARRATOR: Sherman Garnett was a prominent official in the Defense Department dealing with the Soviet Union and Russia in the Bush administration. He is now at the Carnegie Endowment in Washington. He takes a less alarmed view of Russia's policies in the near abroad and, in fact, worries about the consequences of Russian weakness and the collapse of authority in the former Soviet Union.
Dr. GARNETT: I think that no one has come to terms with yet. I mean, at the same time you see the emergence of China, again not necessarily as an aggressive power, but as a real power. You see south -- in Eurasia you see a number of new states emerging in the sort of space that the Soviets and ourselves left. Some of these militaries have nuclear, chemical, biological capabilities.
And so, I think it's becoming a much more wild, potentially wild military situation. And in that sense, Russian military weakness may or may not be in our interest, but it certainly is a problem. People have to look at a lot more than are they beating up on Georgia.
NARRATOR: The use of force to try to solve conflicts came home to Russia itself in the war that broke out in Chechnya in December 1994. This tragic conflict has yet to be settled, but Sherman Garnett finds the Russian military a reluctant participant in the war in Chechnya.
Dr. GARNETT: Essentially, it was a political decision. The army was given very little time. There's a lot of reluctance within the army for even doing this mission and I think it was never properly defined. Commanders resigned, quit.
NARRATOR: Dr. Sergey Rogov is director of the Moscow-based Institute for the USA and Canada. He fears for the future of his country.
SERGEY ROGOV: The irony is that it was the Soviet Union which lost the Cold War, but today it is Russia which is forced to pay the cost of this defeat and to carry the burden of the defeat in the Cold War. And enlargement of NATO, in very many ways, reminds many of the Versailles system as the winner takes all.
And if you look at the loss of self-identity, if you look at tremendous economic problems which Russia faces, if you look at the retreat in the institutionalization of the democratic procedures in Russia, one can conclude that a rather pessimistic scenario can be possible.
NARRATOR: Retired Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll, deputy director of the Center for Defense Information, recently returned from a trip to Russia. He also finds Russians increasingly suspicious of the West's intentions and policies.
Adm. EUGENE CARROLL: During my work in Moscow I was struck with the evidence of total disorganization -- military, political, economic. There's no sense of leadership, no sense of the future direction in Russia. They simply are totally confused and they blame it, in part, on the United States forcing economic and political reforms on them too rapidly. We promised to help them. We've delivered very little promised and they're simply getting further and further into a hole.
NARRATOR: One consequence of these developments is that Russian military men, both active duty and retired, are becoming more involved in politics. A total of some-370 active and retired officers are running for seats in the parliament. The most prominent of these is recently retired General Alexander Lebed.
Does this presage a military coup or military domination of the government? Experts find the Russian military as divided as the Russian population at large.
Dr. BLAIR: The politization of the military has not come anywhere close to crossing the line into Bonapartism; that is, where the military would try to actually take control of the state. And I think that there's a very profound reluctance and professionalism within the Russian military to stop short of crossing that line.
However, the Russian military is more political. It has been unleashed by the forces of democracy that are emerging in Russia. At the same time that that could present a threat to the state, it has divided the military because there are all sorts of different lines of political belief and programs and agendas that have been adopted by various military groups.
Dr. GARNETT: They want to fight foreign enemies, not domestic ones. And again, this is not a Latin American army. I think that there is a desire to do their job professionally.
NARRATOR: There is, however, a real problem in Russia today of assuring civilian control over the military, as well as preventing use of the military in the fierce domestic political struggles. President Yeltsin pushed the military over the line when he used them against his foes in the parliament in October, 1993. This was followed by the use of the military against the domestic opposition in Chechnya in the face of near unanimous public opposition.
A recent study at the National Defense University in Washington concluded that the Russian military is presently freer from any civilian control than at anytime since 1918.
Dr. ROGOV: There is no military reform in Russia at all. With the collapse of the communist party, with its dissolution, no governmental mechanism for supervision of military policy was created. And as a result of that, the generals got a completely free hand to run their own affairs.
NARRATOR: Regardless of how the military fare in the elections, Russians will continue to face a host of problems at home and abroad. While some military men have prestige in Russia today, it is unlikely that the military establishment will be able to do much more than try to increase its lobbying for more money for an already underfunded force.
Dr. Sergey Rogov of the USA Institute believes that much more attention needs to be focussed on reducing the size and cost of the Russian military and reforming its structure and strategy. He argues that Russia simply cannot afford to pay for even the greatly reduced current military force it has today.
Dr. ROGOV: Today, Russia spends much more on defense than she can afford. The Russian military burden, because of much more drastic reduction of Russian economic base, is heavier even when the Russian army has shrunk and when its combat readiness is extremely low. But there is another side of the coin. It's the military bureaucracy which is trying to preserve the inflated military structure and to protect its turf.
NARRATOR: The prospects for Russia can appear bleak, despite the good intentions of some Americans to try to help. Can the United States play a constructive role?
The Clinton administration wants to continue the existing efforts to dismantle nuclear weapons, plus other programs that the US Defense Department calls "cooperative threat reduction."
Amb. COLLINS: One of the important developments of the past few years has been the fact that we have begun to have our militaries work together on things. We've just had a military exercise in Fort Riley. That was a follow-up to one a year ago in Russia. It is the beginning of an approach to our militaries demystifying each other, finding projects that can be done together.
NARRATOR: The American public may need to better appreciate their interest in a stable Russia and the need for US-Russian cooperation.
Amb. COLLINS: It is certainly a fact that we are two great powers, we and the Russians. We have different perspectives, we are at different stages in our political and economic lives. But what I think is the critical fact today is that we are no longer ideological enemies. There is at this time every opportunity to work with Russia, even though we may not agree on all issues and we certainly differ on some, but to work through issues and problems and questions of our interests in a way that was not possible, frankly, at a time when we were ideological enemies.
Dr. BLAIR: I think that it's very likely that US-Russian relations are headed downward, quite possibly to the point of Cold War II. There are a number of other issues, most especially NATO expansion, that if you throw into the hopper along with domestic politics in Russia and the United States with their strident emphasis on nationalism and patriotism, that when all combined look like a potential deterioration of relations to the point of reviving Cold War-like tensions in the next five years or so.
NARRATOR: There clearly needs to be greater appreciation on the American side of Russian perspectives and priorities.
Amb. COLLINS: They would hope for a degree of understanding that this is a difficult time and they would hope most of all that the societies of the United States and Europe would be open to them to create relationships of equality and partnership.
NARRATOR: Expansion of US-Russian military contacts and cooperation could be helpful in averting Cold War-like tensions. Perhaps the burden of military spending could be eased in both countries.
Dr. ROGOV: I believe that if we are able to create this kind of institutionalized cooperation between Russia and the United States, both nations could probably reduce between 60 to 70 percent of their present efforts in the military field and the economic efforts in the military field, which are still aimed at maintenance of the military forces which are suppose to fight each other. And we know it's never going to happen.
NARRATOR: With the end of the Cold War and the emergence of political and economic reform, the Clinton administration has sometimes presented its policy towards Russia as a success story, a "jewel" in the administration's crown, as some have characterized it. But there has been a reluctance to reach out to a broad spectrum of political figures in Russia. American policy has been very much focussed on and linked to the success or failure of one man, President Boris Yeltsin, whose reputation has suffered considerably since the heroic days of August, 1991.
It is well to remember that President Yeltsin, a former top communist party official, was elected president in 1991, when the Soviet Union still existed. Russia has yet to elect a post-Soviet president. The potential emergence of a new constellation of political forces from the new elections may accelerate a reassessment of American policy.
Can Russia and the United States live without President Yeltsin? What if the Russians, as American voters in 1994 did, throw the rascals out?
Dr. GARNETT: I think we ought to be able to live with whatever emerges from this Russian political system. I would say there's been all too much of a sense from the West that there's only a very narrow scope of people with which we should deal and which ought to justify our intervening very directly in the domestic affairs of Russia, which I think it completely unjustified.
NARRATOR: Much is at stake in how successful Russians are in addressing their problems. The United States has a modest, but nevertheless important role to play.
William Colby, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, worries that we will miss an historic opportunity.
WILLIAM COLBY: I think the most important international question we face is the future orientation of Russia. After World War II, we very sensibly reversed the bad thing we did after World War I of trying to crush our former enemies. Instead, we rebuilt Germany and Japan. It's been a magnificent success. We may have a trade war now and again, but that's not a bloody war.
Now Russia is in ruins, we need to help it. The Marshall Plan cost us in those dollars in the
forties about $20 billion, which equates to maybe 100 billion today. How much have we given
Russia? About six or seven. This is nothing compared to the importance of it, and I think we're
missing a great opportunity. I think five, ten years from now, we'll look back and say what did we
do during the 1990s, the early 1990s, did we do enough. And the answer will be 'no.'
ADM SHANAHAN: The Russian people are great, proud and are searching for a new identity, as well as a better way of life. The West needs to follow the US example, as in the aftermath of World War II when we aided our defeated enemies. Without Western aid, compassion and understanding, the outcome in Russia, which could affect the stability of Europe, could well be not to our liking.
For "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR," I am Jack Shanahan.
NARRATOR: Special funding for this program was provided by the John D. and Catherine T.
MacArthur Foundation.
[End of broadcast.]
(C) Copyright 1995, Center for Defense Information. All Rights Reserved.