The National Defense Strategy of the United States of America, released late 27 October by defence secretary Llyod Austin, directed the Department of Defense “to act urgently” to sustain and strengthen U.S. deterrence, with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as the department’s “pacing challenge”.

However, it noted that “conflict with the PRC is neither inevitable nor desirable”.

It also identified Russia as an “acute threat” and said that the United States and its allies and partners will increasingly face the challenge of deterring two major powers with modern and diverse nuclear capabilities — the PRC and Russia — creating new stresses on strategic stability.

Making a clear shift from the terror angle to homeland threat, the defence strategy paper, which acts as the guiding principles for the US defence department, said the scope and scale of threats to the homeland (US) have fundamentally changed.

The PRC and Russia now pose more dangerous challenges to safety and security at home, even as terrorist threats persist, it said.

India and its tensions with China along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) figured thrice in the 80-page document which said that the department will advance “our Major Defense Partnership with India to enhance its ability to deter PRC aggression and ensure free and open access to the Indian Ocean region”.

It also noted that the department will also support ally and partner efforts, in accordance with U.S. policy and international law, to address acute forms of gray zone coercion from the PRC’s campaigns to establish control over the East China Sea, Taiwan Strait, South China Sea, and disputed land borders, such as with India.

At the same time, the department will continue to prioritise maintaining open lines of communication with China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and managing competition responsibly, it said.

Noting that the US 2022 National Security Strategy released earlier this month observes that the PRC is “the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order, and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do so”, Austin said China remains our most consequential strategic competitor for the coming decades.

“I have reached this conclusion based on the PRC’s increasingly coercive actions to reshape the Indo-Pacific region and the international system to fit its authoritarian preferences, alongside a keen awareness of the PRC’s clearly stated intentions and the rapid modernisation and expansion of its military,” Austin said.

‘Part of broader destabilising, coercive PRC behavior’

The PRC seeks to undermine U.S. alliances and security partnerships in the Indo-Pacific region, and leverage its growing capabilities, including its economic influence and the the PLA’s growing strength and military footprint, to coerce its neighbors and threaten their interests, stated the defence strategy document.

The PRC’s increasingly provocative rhetoric and coercive activity towards Taiwan are destabilising, risk miscalculation, and threaten the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait, it added.

“This is part of a broader pattern of destabilizing and coercive PRC behavior that stretches across the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and along the Line of Actual Control,” said the document.

Noting that the PRC has expanded and modernised nearly every aspect of the PLA, with a focus on offsetting U.S. military advantages, the document concluded that PRC is therefore the “pacing challenge” for the department.

It added that in addition to expanding its conventional forces, the PLA is rapidly advancing and integrating its space, counterspace, cyber, electronic, and informational warfare capabilities to support its holistic approach to joint warfare.

“The PLA seeks to target the ability of the (US) Joint Force to project power to defend vital U.S. interests and aid our Allies in a crisis or conflict,” said the document.

It added: “The PRC is also expanding the PLA’s global footprint and working to establish a more robust overseas and basing infrastructure to allow it to project military power at greater distances. In parallel, the PRC is accelerating the modernization and expansion of its nuclear capabilities.”

The post China, Russia and ‘India partnership’ focus of US Defense Strategy appeared first on IMR.

If Putin decides to go to war what options does he have? To empirically analyse these options let us take a look at past precedents – namely the invasion of Georgia in 2008 and the capture of Crimea in 2014.

Georgia 2008. The CIA had started its series of colour revolutions In Eastern Europe to spread democracy. Under that pretext anti-Russian regimes were being installed on the Russian borders. Putin was elected in Russia in year 1999. In 2003, a pro-West President Shaakashvilli took power in Georgia. Georgian territory posed serious threat to Russian Muslim underbelly of Chechenya. In April 2008, at the Bucharest Summit, it was announced that NATO would welcome inclusion of Georgia and Ukraine. This was a clear Russian red line. Russia began massing troops on the borders of Georgia. It encouraged Russian separatists in Abkhazia and Ossetia to intensify their actions. Russian separatists in Osettia began to shell Georgian villages. Georgia now made the mistake of launching ground assaults in Osettia and captured the separatist stronghold of Takshanvali. This was the precise pretext the Russians were looking for. Their troops were in position and, on 8 August, they launched a massive counterattack. It began with a major cyber attack and electronic warfare operations to jam communications. The Russian 58th Army attacked across the mountains via the Roki tunnel and cleared all of Osettia and took some more territory ahead. Concurrently, the Russian Black Sea fleet blockaded the coast of Georgia and Russian troops made amphibious landings in Abkhazia. They quickly moved inland and cleared the whole of Abhkazia. They moved beyond that province and seized the cities of Zugdidi, Senaki, Poti and Gori. By 12th August, it was all over and the French negotiated a ceasefire. Russia recognized Osettia and Abhkazia as independent states. They vacated all other Georgian territory. This was the first war in Europe in the 21st century.

Ukraine 2014 – The Capture of Crimea. US persisted with its colour revolutions. In February 2014, as part of the Orange Revolution the pro-Russian President Yankovich of Ukraine was deposed and fled to Russia. His successor once again began to talk of joining NATO. Russia saw a clear violation of its red line in Ukraine. Russian forces were already in the leased naval base of Sevastapole. On 28 February, Russian troops moved in swiftly and occupied the whole of Crimea without a shot being fired. They held a referendum and, by 18 March, had simply incorporated Crimea into Russia. Concurrently, they backed Russian separatists in Donbas region and instigated revolts in the Oblasts of Dontsk and Luhansk. A number of Russian troops in civil clothes but with heavy weapons also moved into these rebel provinces, almost like a repeat of Georgia. What was noteworthy was the speed and decisive nature of this operation. Russia had clearly asserted its red lines in Ukraine and enforced them in a swift coup de main operation. The US and NATO could do nothing.

The Current Crisis

The current crisis stems from Putin’s determination to make the altered military realities count on ground in Europe. As Prof Meershimer says, Putin is seeking to change the entire post Cold War security architecture in Europe and enforce a Monroe doctrine variant. He is seeking written guarantees for non-inclusion of Ukraine in NATO and assurances about non-stationing of offensive weapons in the countries drafted into NATOin the last two decades. Towards this end, he has forward deployed some 1,90,000 troops around Ukraine. Next, he went ahead and recognized the breakaway provinces of Dontesk and Luhansk in a clear escalatory move that underlines his determination. But, were Dontesk and Luhansk his red lines? What are his military options in case diplomacy fails to deliver on what he had demanded? US and NATO have already refused to give written assurances and asserted that Ukraine as a sovereign state has the right to choose its form of government and what treaties it will join.

This amounts to a deadlock and, if talks break down, what will a military invasion of Ukraine look like? There are primarily three options:-

Georgia Redux. The Ukraine scenario today is remarkably similar to the situation in Georgia in 2008. Like Abkhazia and Osetta, the two Russian speaking states of Dontesk and Luhansk have separatists in full scale revolt. Russia has also sent in its troops in muftis inside. Firing incidents have started on the borders of these two provinces. Russia has already recognized their independence and troops have started moving in. In this option Russian troops would move beyond the Line of Contact to the border of these provinces. So a Georgian redux style operation could see occupation of and  escalation in these two  districts . While troops from Donbas are engaging Ukranian troops on the border frontally, Russian forces from Crimea would hit them in the rear. This would consolidate occupation of these two provinces and certain other territories to give tactical depth to these states.

Limited War Option. What next will depend on what Ukraine does militarily. Any military response would provide the pretext/justification of what would follow next. There are two option limited war or full scale offensive. Limited war would see Russian forces from the East making a dash for Kharkiev (former capital of Ukraine). Forces from Crimea would advance upon the port city of Mariopole. Naval landings could be mounted to seize the port city of Odessa. Thus, Ukraine would be cut off from the sea and become a landlocked country dependant on Russia. This option entails fighting in built-up areas to secure cities and capturing and holding ground. This can cause heavy casualties and take a lot of time as cities can be defended street by street.

Fullscale War Option. Prof Meershimer, noted political scientist of the University of Chicago, feels that Russia will not aim to seize and defend territory in Ukraine (as it could get bogged down in an Afghanistan like quagmire). The Russian aim would be simply to wreck Ukraine as a functional state. Towards this end, this could unfold with massive cyber attacks and electronic warfare strikes to paralyse communications. The Russians would rapidly gain air and naval supremacy and commence operations with massive air strikes, cruise missile and tactical ballistic missile strikes. Massive artillery suppressive fires will be used to destroy anti-tank missile and shoulder-fired SAMs. The main attack will come from Belarus and aim straight for Kiev – the capital city. Key command and control centres (presidential palace, Ministry of Defence and Interior, Parliament, etc) would be knocked out. Concurrently, forces from the East would go for Kharkiev and the breakaway provinces of Dontesk and Luhansk. Naval landings would seek to seize the port cities of Odessa and Mariopol. It would be a swift blitzkrieg style operation that will encircle and bypass major centres of resistance and inflict heavy damage by air and missile strikes and heavy fire assaults. The aim would be not to capture and hold Ukranian territory but wreck Ukraine as a functional state. The operation should not last more than one week. At the end of it Russians could declare a unilateral cease fire and withdraw from most of Ukranian territory less the districts of Dontesk and Luhansk, which will now be independent states.

So which option will Russia take? One view is that since whichever option is adopted US and West will impose economic sanctions- Russia might prefer a massive Full scale option to impose regime change in Kiev. That would highlight Russian military power and capacity and would deter any further adventurism against Russia . West has Imposed only the first tranche of graded sanctions yet  and is waiting to see the option Russia will take finally. Will Russia be satisfied with just the breakway provinces of Dontesk and Luhansk (which were never its stated) red lines? Or will it go for limited or full scale invasion? it all depends on  the risk taking  appetite of Putin.

Western Options – Need for a Strategic Response

So far, Western nations have stated that crippling economic sanctions would be imposed and have rushed token forces to other East European states that have earlier joined NATO. Economic sanctions could include:-

•  Close Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline. This incidentally would cause enormous economic losses to Germany also.

•  Impose blocking sanctions on large Russian banks, energy and defence companies and energy projects.

•  Sanctions on Russian Oligarchs and their families.

•  Impose restrictions on secondary markets in Russian bonds.

•  Exclude Russia from Swift global electronic payment system based in Belgium. This would be a last resort option.

Strategic Response

Writing in the 11 February issue of the Foreign Affairs magazine, Michael McFaul has made the eminently reasonable suggestion that USA should not respond knee jerk and tactically by offering defensively minimal concessions to stave off the crisis. Instead, President Biden should seize the diplomatic initiative with a grand strategic and comprehensive bargain for enhancing European security. This would be analogous to the Helsinki Accord of 1975. This would resuscitate and amend defunct arms control agreements and provide the bigger framework of European security of which Ukraine per se, would only be a sub set. USA has low strategic stakes in Ukraine and is playing a losing hand.

A number of respected American pundits of geopolitics (to include Henry Kissinger, Prof Meershimer and Stephen P Cohen) have been advising America to not drive Russia into Chinese arms and not take on these two major powers together. In fact, Kissinger had said, “It should be settled maxim of US foreign policy never to take on more than one major Asian power at a time.” China is the real peer competitor of the USA in the long term. It has almost matching economic power and is fast catching up in military power. It will prove to be far more dangerous than Russia could ever be with its economic constraints. It would be prudent for America to designate its main threat clearly. If it is China, it makes eminent strategic sense to seek détente with one while going full steam to contain the other. Nixon had done that by a détente with Mao’s China when USSR was the main threat. Today, the situation is reversed and a détente with Russia makes eminent sense. It will allow the USA and the West to focus its energies on China. The desire to take on China and Russia together sounds macho, but is highly unrealistic. Given Biden’s disastrous performance against Afghanistan the world would be forgiven for being somewhat skeptical. That, however, is the problem. Only a self-assured and confident leader would refrain from knee jerk, tactical responses and think strategic and long term. Where monthly popularity ratings decide responses it would be overly optimistic to expect such a clear headed response from President Biden. Post Afghanistan he has little room for manoeuvre.

The post RUSSIA-UKRAINE – Wargaming Scenarios: Strategy and Options (Part 2) appeared first on IMR.

The roots of the current military crisis in Ukraine can be traced back to the events surrounding the breakup of the former USSR. The USSR was one of the two superpowers in the bi-polar era. However, it was a wounded giant that had, in fact, not really recovered from the staggering manpower and material losses of World War II. Its economy was highly dependent on export of oil and gas. America engaged it in a geo-economic competition. It started the Star Wars arms race. In the 1980s, the USA made a deliberate effort to bring down the prices of oil globally by engineering an oil glut. Oil prices went into free-fall ($10- 30 a barrel) and severely derailed the Soviet economy. Afghanistan added to the hemorrhaging.

The USSR was an over militarized state. By 1990, it simply collapsed from what Paul Kennedy calls economic overreach and imperial over-stretch. A superpower went down without a shot being fired and the world was shocked. A uni-polar global order, now led by America and the West, came into being. The Soviet Union splintered with many of its republics in Eastern Europe and Central Asia seceding. There was chaos in Russia and it struggled to restore order.

NATO Expansion

The West had initially promised that there would not be even an inch of NATO expansion in Eastern Europe (US Foreign Secretary James Baker’s assurance to Gorbachov). All these verbal assurances, however, were violated with impunity. As a result of Russian military and economic weakness, NATO expanded eastward in four distinct phases:-

Phase One 1990. Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic – three former Warsaw pact countries joined NATO.

Phase Two 2004. Seven countries to include Estonia, Latavia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Rumania, Bulgaria and Slovenia followed suit.

Phase Three 2009. Albania and Croatia joined NATO.

Phase Four 2017-2019. Montenegro and Macedonia followed suit. Thus, by 2019, some 14 countries in Eastern Europe had Joined NATO.

President Vladimir Putin of Russia rapidly started closing the conventional military gap. By 2008, Russia hit back hard in Georgia and then in 2014 it captured Crimea in Ukraine. The present crisis has really been precipitated by the clear change in military-technical capabilities, which have altered the local conventional military power balance in Eastern Europe. Putin is now determined to change the security architecture in Europe to reflect these military realities and has virtually issued demarches to the US and NATO to renegotiate the security equations in Europe. He has mobilized the largest number of troops on the border of Ukraine in a clear coercive deployment, a use of force without war to re-negotiate security terms in Europe. If he can do it without war it would suit him eminently. The danger is that if he does not get the outcomes he seeks, he is fully prepared and ready to go to war.

In a clear escalation, the Russian Duma recommended recognition of Dontesk and Luhansk provinces in Ukraine, where Russian separatists are fighting and, on 21 February, Putin duly announced recognition of these two states. Economic sanctions did not deter him as he feels Russia’s core strategic interests are involved and he has articulated his red lines so publically that there is no chance of him recalling his troops without enforcing his red lines. He would lose great face domestically and internationally and he simply cannot afford that. Putin has acted decisively as he is fully prepared for the next steps in the military escalation ladder.

Military – Technical Factors

It is my contention that these sea-saw in the fortunes of Russia and the West can be traced back to the swings in the conventional military power balance between the two blocks from 1990 to date. These were largely focused on gaining superiority in air power and anti-air defenses. From World War II onwards, air superiority had become a decisive war winning factor. The Korean War saw a stalemate in air power and that shaped the stalemate on the ground. The Vietnam War saw US war planes and helicopters taking huge losses (over 3400 lost) from rudimentary Soviet Air defences and surface-to-air missiles (SAMs). The Americans deeply studied these and learnt major lessons. They began to make a serious bid to regain air superiority. They learnt from Israeli experiences in the 1967 and 1973 Conflicts.

By 1973, low level Russian SAM-6 and SAM-7 missiles had inflicted fearful losses to aircraft flying at the low level to evade radar. Meanwhile, USA had fielded a number of new fourth-generation fighters like F-15, F-16 and F-18 as also the AWACs and AEWs. Then came the precision guided munitions (PGMs) by 1990, which created a significant military technical revolution (Revolution in Military Affairs) with far reaching impact. These enabled aircraft to bomb from mid and high altitude without losing accuracy. Thus, they could stay out of the low firing SAM envelopes. The US demonstrated this in the first war against Iraq, when Soviet-era weapons were decimated and air power paved the way for a decisive victory.

The USSR had imploded as a result of economic decline and these military technical factors added to Russian weakness. Thereafter, it was a uni-polar world with USA as the sole superpower based on its conventional military superiority in air power. Things began to stabilize in Russia only when Putin took charge around the turn of the century. Slowly, the Russians began to close the air power gap with their Su-27, Su-30 and Su-35 jet fighters along with MiG-29s and their own AWACs and PGMs. Thus, by 2008, we once again saw the Russians asserting themselves in Georgia. The Americans had sought to regain superiority by investing heavily in stealth technology and fielded stealth aircraft like F-22, F-35 fighters and B-2 bombers and beyond-visual-range (BVR) missiles for air-to-air combat. The problem was this technology was frightfully expensive and stealth aircraft could not be fielded in large numbers because of cost factor.

Thus, in 2014, we saw Russia again capturing Crimea and seizing parts of Donbas. Today, we are seeing the Impact of the Russian S-400 and S-500 Triumf missile systems upon the Eastern European battlefield. These air defence (AD) missile systems have radars that can look out to 600 kms and pick up stealth aircraft. They have multiple missiles that can engage enemy aircraft from 40 out to 400 kms. They can achieve Anti Access & Area Denial (A2AD) capabilities and totally deny the airspace over the combat area. This, and a whole host of other weapons, which Russia had tested in Syria have today given it the confidence to decisively challenge the USA and NATO enforced status quo in Eastern Europe and seek a radical re-structuring of the security architecture in Europe. This is a decisive inflexion point and the crisis in Ukraine is a direct outgrowth of the shift in military-technical factors in favour of Russia.

The simple fact is that the USA and NATO have ruled out military retaliationand are relying primarily on economic sanctions to deter Russia. The implications are clear – USA is in no position now to take on Russia militarily in its own backyard. This is what has clearly emboldened Russia to exploit the military–technical advantage it has gained in recent years. It has now gone ahead despite threat of economic sanctions and recognized the Russian majority states of Dontesk and Luhansk giving a fait accompli to US and NATO. However, the crisis is far from over.

Russian redlines were not Dontesk and Luhansk but non-inclusion of Ukraine in NATO and no stationing of offensive weapons in the 14 East European nations recently incorporated into NATO. These have not been met and Russia, to my mind, will pursue them doggedly. Are we seeing the multi-polar moment?

Use of Force Without War: Op Parakram Anology

To back his demands Putin had deployed some 1,50,000 Russian troops around Ukraine. To cite an anology – it was like Operation Parakram, India’s massive deployment on Pakistan’s border after the terror attack on its parliament. This is using military deployment for coercion. The aim is to clearly threaten the use of force to achieve tangible results. This is the use of force without war. That is what Russia is doing currently. Will it work? Only if the use of force threat is credible. India lacked a clear military edge over Pakistan then and our political will to wage war was very tenuous. In Russia’s case, they have the military edge locally and their intent to Invade if their demands are not met is deadly serious. The USA and NATO have already thrown in the towel by clearly stating they will put no boots on the ground and restrict themselves to economic sanctions. Russia has now moved troops into Dontesk and Luhansk provinces of Ukraine. Should Ukraine retaliate, Russia will escalate dramatically as its military is fully poised to do so.

Stake Analysis

It is simply a case of stake analysis. Russia has crucial strategic stakes in Ukraine. It is the direct historical invasion route and abuts Russian borders. It has vital mineral reserves like Uranium, Titanium and natural gas, etc. Russia simply cannot afford to let it become part of NATO. It now has the military capability to stop NATO and can wreck Ukraine whenever it wants to. US and NATO can do little more than enforcing economic sanctions. Conversely, America has few strategic stakes in Ukraine except to needle Russia and stop the Nord 2 gas pipeline as part of the famed economic sanctions. Real economics now comes in significantly. The Nord 2 Russian gas will cost Germany $270 per 1000 cubic feet, whereas the American gas will cost them a $1000 per 1000 cubic feet. The US, perhaps, would be happy to see a war in Ukraine, which stops the Nord 2 gas and forces Germany to buy from USA. France and Germany have major economic linkages with Russia and are already very uneasy with the US resolve to push Russia to invade Ukraine for American profit in gas. That is why President Macron of France is making the most energetic efforts to stop the war.

What about Russia? Its stakes in Ukraine are simply crucial. Putin has clearly announced Russian red lines. He cannot backtrack. With Chinese help he can deal with western sanctions which will hurt Germany and France equally. The simple fact is that Putin cannot afford a military pull back with no concrete security outcomes. Initially, he seemed inclined to give negotiations a chance. He had written a letter to Joe Biden, in December 2021, spelling out his demands for security restructuring in Europe. In January, he got a reply that seemed rational to the Russian foreign minister Lavrov. Putin decided to give the negotiators a chance. Immediately, the US hardened its stance and began to boast that they had coerced Russia into backing down and that Ukraine had the right to choose its form of government and alliances. Russia simply stopped the withdrawal and increased the number of troops around Ukraine to some 1,90,000. In fact, out of Russia’s 12 Combined Arms Armies (corps) 11 are now deployed around Ukraine. They have staged forward their tanks, self propelled artillery and S-400 and S-500 missile systems. The Su-35 fighter bombers, attack helicopters and Iskander missiles have been deployed. The Russians were carrying out a major military exercise in Belarus with their 41st Army. This was to end on 20 February but Belarus has announced that Russian troops will stay on till NATO forces are in Poland, etc. The forces in Belarus are directly poised to strike at the Ukranian capital of Kiev and destroy the main command and control node. Stepping on the escalatory ladder the Russian Duma recommended that Russia recognise Dontesk and Luhansk. Putin announced that on 21 February, throwing down the gauntlet. Should Ukraine respond militarily it will be the pretext that Russia needs for a limited or partial invasion of Ukraine.

Simply stated, Putin will try his best to get without war the realignment of the security architecture in Europe by his coercive military deployment. If it works, well and good. The point to note is that if it does not, he is determined to go ahead and use major military force to underline his intent. That military reality force is now fully poised on ground.

The post RUSSIA-UKRAINE – Wargaming Scenarios: Military-Technical Factors (Part 1) appeared first on IMR.

At UN Security Council, India has abstained on two resolutions on Ukraine in the 15-nation UN Security Council and one in the 193-member UN General Assembly.

In its first statement on the crisis between Russia and the West led by the US over Ukraine, India called for a “peaceful resolution” of the situation through “sustained diplomatic efforts” for “long-term peace and stability” in the region and beyond.

India maintained neutrality during the Russian takeover of Crimea in 2014. Alongside 57 nations, India had abstained from the UN Resolution in response to the Russian annexation of Crimea.

The Indian decision to stay neutral has no doubt irked the US, which is seeking to muster global support for its actions. The US has still to announce its decision on sanctions against India for procuring the S-400 missile system from Russia. It continues to keep the sword dangling.

With key strategic partners on both sides, India could not afford any hasty moves hurting its vital stakes.

Almost 60 per cent of India’s military supplies are Russian manufactured, which means it cannot afford to alienate Moscow, particularly at a time when Indian and Chinese troops continue to be in a stand-off on the eastern border.

India has close defence ties with Ukraine. Ukraine is currently involved in upgrading India’s AN-32 fleet as also providing gas turbine engines for naval vessels.

At the same time, the US and Europe, which are pushing back against Russia over Ukraine, are both important partners from India’s strategic calculus. Many American platforms have been used for reconnaissance and surveillance along the India-China border. Winter clothing for 50,000 troops has been sourced from these western strategic partners.

Another concern for Delhi is the small Indian community in Ukraine, of which 18,000 are students in medical colleges.

Imposition of sanctions on Russia will be a headache as Indian procurement of defence equipment and spares continue, apart from other economic activities. Russia is the world’s third largest producer of oil and second largest of natural gas. Most of its supplies are sent to Europe through oil pipelines, some transiting through Ukraine. Currently it supplies one third of Europe’s natural gas and one fourth of its oil. In case of escalation, these would be impacted, enhancing oil prices.

While India has been increasing its parleys with the US and entering into various pacts and alliances with it, Russia has been cementing its ties with China in a bid to be able to better counter US aggressiveness, should the need for doing so arise. For India, the China threat is perceived to be managed well through a strengthening alliance with the US.

Ties between India and Russia would have to navigate through the tortuous ways of the present scenario, seemingly tempestuous dynamics of international politics.

The primary objective of the China-Russia alignment is and will be undermining American power. The US is essential to anchor any effort to balance China. Without this anchor, there is little hope that China’s domination over Asia can be countered. Anything that diminishes the US strengthens China and vice-versa. Russian interests are thus directly contradictory to India’s because the weakening of the American power that Russia desires will strengthen China, much to India’s detriment.

Formal diplomatic positions with China have not shown much difference. Even on the Quad, India still appears the laggard — it refused to even name Quad in public until after the 2020 Galwan clash.

A China-dominated Asian order, which will be the consequence of Moscow’s efforts to undermine the US, can hardly be conducive to India’s strategic autonomy.

All in all, Indian involvement in any form would not yield any positive result. Neutrality is the best option for the current.

The post Editorial: Russia & Ukraine: India’s Interests at Stake appeared first on IMR.

Russia is ready to deliver Sukhoi Su-30 MKI and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29 fighter jets to India in the shortest possible time frame. In a government to government deal which comes amidst the India-China border tension, the Indian Air Force (IAF) plans to order and induct 33 fighters – 12 Sukhoi Su-30 MKIs and 21 MiG-29s – from Russia.

WION has learnt that Russia is ready to assess the issue of early delivery even as the country is already helping the IAF in the MiG-29 modernisation programme. IAF got its first MiG-29 in 1985 and the modernisation will help increase combat capabilities of the MiG-29 fighters to a level comparable to the 4th Generation jets.

Post-modernisation MiG-29s will allow integration of Russian and foreign origin weapons including tracking of aerial targets in a wide range of flight speeds and altitudes, tracking of heat-contrasting air objects & perform “hidden” (without the use of radar) attacks on them. Modern materials and technologies for corrosion protection will increase the service life of MiG-29 fighters by up to 40 years.

The IAF commissioned its first squadron of Su-30MKIs armed with the supersonic BrahMos-A cruise missile in January 2020 at Thanjavur Air Force Station. The Su-30MKI based at Thanjavur are part of the 222 Squadron ‘Tigersharks’.

In fact, the importance of Sukhoi jets can be gauged from the fact that it is the only IAF combat aircraft capable of launching BrahMos supersonic missiles.

At DefExpo India 2020 BrahMos Aerospace’s representative told Russian RIA Novosti news agency that in two years IAF’s Su-30MKIs would receive new missiles for use against airborne early warning aircraft. Thus the highly successful India-Russia joint venture which produced BrahMos, could enter the air-to-air missile domain.

The first contract to deliver Su-30MKI jets to the IAF was signed on November 30, 1996, in Irkutsk, Russia, between Rosvooruzhenie state intermediary company and the Indian Defence Ministry. It envisaged the delivery of 32 Su-30s, all of which were produced in 2002-2004.

Satisfied with the performance of the aircraft, the Indian Defence Ministry placed additional orders. In December 2000, both countries signed a contract for organising the licensed production of Su-30MKIs in India at the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited facilities. Then in 2012, another contract for technological kits of Su-30MKIs was signed as the Sukhois have proved to be a reliable and effective multirole heavy aerial combat platform for the IAF.

The Su-30MKI project has become one of the largest in the history of military cooperation of India with a foreign country and also has contributed to the sales of Su-30MK family aircraft to other countries.

Moreover, the programme has directly influenced the development of Su-30SM fighter jet, which is currently being delivered to the Russian Air Force and is also being offered at the international arms market as Su-30SME.

Source link

The post Russia to deliver Su-30MKIs, MiG-29s to IAF on Fast Track appeared first on IMR.

The same LCA also successfully took off from the from the “ski-jump” deck of the aircraft carrier for the first time next day. The ski-jump is the upwardly curved ramp on the deck of aircraft carriers designed to provide sufficient take-off lift for fighter jets.

Further landings and take-offs followed for a week. The second prototype, NP-1, piloted by Capt Shivnath Dahiya did a number of approaches, including a few Bolters (when a approaching aircraft misses the catching wire and get back airborne right away with full throttle).

The naval Tejas had earlier completed extensive trials on the shore-based test facility (SBTF) at Goa on 13 September. The Navy has created the SBTF as an aircraft carrier setting on the ground at its air base in Goa to operate these deck-based fighters, which use ski jump to take off and are recovered by arrestor wires on a carrier or STOBAR (short takeoff but arrested recovery) in navy parlance.

This was the first time an indigenous fighter, which has been designed and developed by DRDO, made arrested landing on an aircraft carrier in India.

Much more will be required for the naval Tejas prototype to become operational on the 44,400-tonne carrier INS Vikramaditya, as also the under-construction 40,000-tonne INS Vikrant. At present, the Navy operates 45 MiG-29K fighters, acquired from Russia for $2 billion, from INS Vikramaditya.

The Navy, in the past, has rejected the single-engine Tejas, stressing the “overweight” fighter cannot optimally operate from aircraft carriers. In December 2016, for instance, the then Navy chief Admiral Sunil Lanba had said it did not meet the “thrust-to-weight requirement to take off with a full fuel and arms load” from an aircraft carrier’s deck.

Only the US, the UK, Russia, France and China have built fighter jets that have carried out arrested landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier. Carrier strike groups help a country project maritime power thousands of miles away from its shores. Such groups are escorted by destroyers, frigates, submarines and supply vessels.

Difficulty in Landing

Landing on an aircraft carrier deck is the ultimate and most daunting challenge for a fighter pilot. He is required to slam down his fighter on a precise spot, so that the aircraft’s tail hook catches on a series of three wires laid across the landing deck. These wires unspool under resistance, dragging the fighter to a halt. Catching this so-called “arrestor gear” requires the fighter to descend much more sharply than in a regular landing. That requires a sturdy landing gear that can withstand the impact of what naval pilots often describe as a “controlled crash”.

To complicate matters further, the pilot approaching the carrier at at 230 km per hour is required to land with the throttle at “maximum power” so that, in case the tail hook does not catch the arrestor wires, the fighter can accelerate to take-off speed in the 200 metres of deck available to him.

The plane was carrying a full load of fuel so as to allow the pilot to land back at naval air station in Goa in case the landing on deck was to be aborted.

Carrier deck landings and take-offs can be greatly assisted by well-tuned flight computers.

Twin-Engined Naval Fighter

With this feat, the indigenously developed niche technologies specific to deck-based fighter operations have been proven. These will pave the way to develop and manufacture the twin-engine deck-based fighter for the IndianNavy.

The single-engine LCA Navy Mark I that landed, on 12 January, will not be inducted into naval service, being short on power and, therefore, fuel and weapons carriage capacity. The Navy is waiting for a twin-engine LCA Navy Mark 2, with the engine power to get airborne with more fuel and weapons, which will provide greater punch and a longer operating range. The current Mark 1 is a test bed for developing the aviation systems that will go into the Mark 2.

The Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) refers to the Mark 2 version as the Twin Engine Deck Based Fighter (TED-BF). ADA says it is targeting the first flight by 2025-26 and induction into service by 2031, when it will start to replace the Russian-origin MiG-29K/KUB fighters that currently fly off INS Vikramaditya.

With the current LCA Navy Mark 1’s single General Electric (GE) F-404 engine replaced by two, more powerful, GE F-414 engines, the TED-BF will be a bigger and more heavily armed fighter.

The ADA will now carry out more test landings on INS Vikramaditya to generate inputs to finetune the controlling software.

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) is involved in development of the naval variant of Tejas along with ADA, Aircraft Research and Design Centre of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, Centre for Military Airworthiness and Certification (CEMILAC) and CSIR among others.

The Indian Air Force (IAF) has already inducted a batch of Tejas aircraft. Initially, the IAF had placed an order with the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) for 40 Tejas aircraft.

In 2018, the IAF issued the request for proposal (RFP) to HAL for the procurement of another batch of 83 Tejas at a cost of over Rs 50,000 crore.

HAL’s Contribution

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd eyes the prospect of fully designing and developing a twin-engine fighter plane for the Navy if or when an occasion comes up. HAL has been deeply involved in the deck trials of the two naval prototypes produced for the DRDO.

The DRDO’s special arm ADA or the ADA is tasked with designing and developing the Tejas versions and future indigenous fighter planes.

HAL said many critical paraphernalia and support staff for the naval prototype were its contributions, both before and during the recent trials on the ship. It contributed the arrestor hook system, a redesigned landing gear, a speed controlling device for landings, a drooped nose to give the pilot a good view, a stronger fuselage and the fuel dump.

The two Navy prototypes – NP1 and Np2 – seen as potential trainers, were derived from the IAF version of the indigenous light fighter. A production standard version called NP5 has also been considered.

All these are single-engine while the Navy indicated in 2016 that it needed only two-engined aircraft. With a double-engine Tejas being some time away, more so for the Navy, it is an area of interest for its stakeholders.

The current fleet of Russian origin MiG-29Ks are expected to go obsolete around 2028-32. Another opportunity to replenish naval aircraft could arise if the country goes in for a third aircraft carrier around the year 2040 as envisioned for the long term.

The post Navy Modernisation : Tejas Lands and Takes-off From Carrier Deck appeared first on IMR.

Four precision missiles were fired from a deadly remote-controlled 4,900-pound U.S. drone, decimating a convoy that Soleimani was traveling in and tore his body ‘to shreds’.  

The strike, regarded as perhaps the riskiest American move in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, threatened to inflame hostilities across the region.

Muhandis, who was killed with Soleimani, oversaw Iraq´s Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF), an umbrella grouping of paramilitary groups mostly consisting of Iran-backed Shi´ite militias that was formally integrated into Iraqi armed forces.

While American forces did not make it clear how they had tracked Soleimani’s location, he was thought to be under near-constant surveillance by US, Saudi and Israeli security forces. The attack drew upon a combination of highly classified information from informants, electronic intercepts, reconnaissance aircraft and other surveillance techniques. Soleimani survived several assassination attempts against him by Western, Israeli and Arab agencies over the past two decades.

The strike probably ended any prospect of negotiations to save the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the landmark nuclear agreement Iran signed in 2015 with the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany. The escalation in tensions between the United States and Iran began with the 2018 decision by US President Donald Trump to withdraw from the deal.

Quds Force

The US Defense Department said that the air strike was justified to protect American lives. ‘General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,’ a Pentagon statement said. The statement added that Soleimani ‘orchestrated attacks on coalition bases in Iraq over the last several months’ including the embassy assault.

Quds Force, along with its stable of paramilitary proxies from Lebanon’s Hezbollah to the PMF in Iraq, has ample means to launch a multi-barrelled response against its enemies.

Quds Force, tasked with carrying out operations beyond Iran’s borders, shored up support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad when he looked close to defeat in the civil war raging since 2011 and also helped militiamen defeat Islamic State in Iraq.

Soleimani became head of the Quds Force in 1998, a position in which he kept a low profile for years while he strengthened Iran’s ties with Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria’s government and Shi´ite militia groups in Iraq.

Soleimani, who has led the foreign arm of the Revolutionary Guards and has had a key role in fighting in Syria and Iraq, acquired celebrity status at home and abroad.

Trump’s Justification

The strike on 3 January was the latest escalation between the two nations after a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base, believed to have been carried out by an Iran-backed militia, killed an American contractor on 27 December.

The United States hit back with air strikes on an Iranian-backed militia that killed 24 and prompted outrage among some who saw that attack as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty. Pro-Iranian demonstrators broke into the United States Embassy compound on 31 December. The breach prompted Trump to order roughly 750 additional American troops to be deployed to the region. The Pentagon was also ready to deploy 4,000 troops based at Fort Bragg for a similar security mission to Kuwait. 

“Suleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him,” Trump said, speaking to reporters from his resort in West Palm Beach, Florida. “We took action last night to stop a war, we did not take action to start a war.”

Trump said the United States was not seeking regime change in Iran, but called for Tehran’s “aggression in the region” to immediately end. He also warned Iran against retaliating, saying, “If Americans anywhere are threatened, we have all of those targets already fully identified, and I am ready and prepared to take whatever action is necessary.”

In September, US officials blamed Iran for a devastating missiles and drones attack on oil installations of Saudi Aramco, the Saudi state energy giant and world’s largest oil exporter. The Trump administration did not respond, beyond heated rhetoric and threats.

Reactions of Iran’s Proxies

Iranian allies across the Arab world condemned the United States, reflecting the strength of the regional network Gen Suleimani spent much of his life building, including links to the government of Syria and militant groups in Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen and elsewhere.

The leader of Hezbollah vowed in a statement that his group would continue on the path the general set and “work night and day to achieve his goals.”

In Yemen, the administration run by the Houthi rebels condemned the United States strike as a “cowardly attack” that “makes clear the increasing American spite against all who are in favor of justice for the Islamic world.”

In Syria, a foreign ministry official condemned the “treacherous, criminal American aggression” that led to his killing.

Hamas condemned what it called “U.S. bullying” that it said served the interests of Israel.

World Powers’ Reaction

António Guterres, the United Nations’ secretary general, voiced his deep concern over the rise in tensions in the Middle East. “The world cannot afford another war in the Gulf,” spokesman Farhan Haq said in a statement. “This is a moment in which leaders must exercise maximum restraint,” it said.

China, Russia, the UK and France, all permanent members of the UN Security Council, took a dim view of the US air strike.

The Russian Foreign Ministry called the killing of General Suleimani “an adventurist step that will increase tensions throughout the region,” according to local news agencies.

A spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry called for restraint on all sides, “especially the United States.” “China has always opposed the use of force in international relations,” the spokesman, Geng Shuang, said at a daily news briefing.

Britain’s foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, called for a de-escalation in tensions and said that further conflict in the region was not in his country’s interest. “We have always recognized the aggressive threat posed by the Iranian Quds force led by Qassim Suleimani,” Raab said in a statement. “Following his death, we urge all parties to de-escalate.”

In France,  the country’s junior minister for European affairs, Amélie de Montchalin, said that she would soon consult with countries in the region. “We have woken up to a more dangerous world,” Ms. de Montchalin told French radio, calling for “stability and de-escalation.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel praised Trump for the strikes for “acting swiftly, forcefully and decisively.” Netanyahu cut short an official visit to Greece to return to Israel.

Congress was divided over the killing. The strike immediately spurred debate among American lawmakers about President Trump’s war powers and left congressional leaders sharply divided along party lines.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi demanded that the administration brief the full Congress on the strike and the next steps under consideration, noting that the move was made without lawmakers’ consultation or an authorization of military force.

The strike, Pelosi said in a statement, “risks provoking further dangerous escalation of violence. America – and the world – cannot afford to have tensions escalate to the point of no return.”

In stark contrast, Republican lawmakers – including both Iran hawks and those who have frequently clashed with Trump over his foreign policy – almost uniformly praised the move.

Iran’s Response

Soleimani’s death is a considerable blow to Tehran, and Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called for retaliation and for three days of national mourning. Iran’s security body also pledged to avenge Gen Suleimani’s killing in the “right place and time,” saying it had reached a decision on how to do so.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Soleimani’s assassination would strengthen resistance against the United States and Israel in the region and the world. ‘The brutality and stupidity of American terrorist forces in assassinating Commander Soleimani…will undoubtedly make the tree of resistance in the region and the world more prosperous,’ Zarif said in a statement.

In the hours after the American strike, thousands of pro-Iranian social media accounts went to work.

Whether from actual accounts or state-backed bots, pro-Iranian and anti-American content was tweeted at a rate of 3,000 tweets every 45 minutes, according to New York Times data.

Iran may begin a digital campaign of cyber attacks and disinformation in retaliation for Gen Suleimani’s death. Over the past year, Iranian hackers have taken aim at Trump’s presidential campaign. They have also targeted telecom companies, infrastructure systems and more than 200 oil, gas and heavy machinery companies around the world.

Over the past five years, American officials and cyber security experts have tracked Iranian hackers as they have significantly advanced their capabilities beyond wiping data to sophisticated attacks on financial networks, internet infrastructure and energy companies.

==============

Where The Drone Struck

Gen Qassen Suleimani landed at Baghdad airport on a plane from either Syria or Lebanon around 12.30am. He was met on the tarmac by Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of the pro-Iran Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq.  

Soleimani and Mohammed Ridha Jabri, public relations chief for the PMF were driven away.

As the cars passed through a cargo area, the convoy was struck by missiles fired by an MQ-9 Reaper drone.

Both vehicles were instantly reduced to smoldering wrecks – killing Soleimani, Muhandis, Jabri and two others.

===================

MQ-9 Reaper

The unmanned drone that rains Hellfire from 50,000ft and can tear bodies ‘to shreds’

The devastating US drone has a range of 1,150 miles and is able to to fly at altitudes of 50,000 feet. It is an ‘armed, multi-mission, medium-altitude, long-endurance’ remotely piloted aircraft.

It is primarily used to execute targets – such as Soleimani – and secondarily to collect intelligence, according to the U.S. Air Force.

The drone is capable of annihilating targets with AGM-114 Hellfire missiles which provide ‘highly accurate’ and ‘low-collateral damage’ capabilities. 

AGM-114 Hellfire missiles – which are laser guided and subsonic – are so powerful that they are used to take out tanks. They can also be used as an air-to-air weapon against helicopters and other aircraft.

The 4,900-pound drone has a wingspan of 66 feet and a cruising speed of roughly 230mph.

The post US-IRAN Rivalry : US Drone Kills Iranian General; Raises The Ante appeared first on IMR.