Janine Davidson

Defense in Depth

Janine Davidson examines the art, politics, and business of American military power.

Print Print Email Email Share Share Cite Cite
Style: MLA APA Chicago Close

loading...

Weekend Reader: Defense Budget, an Unexpected Farewell, and More Ukraine

by Janine Davidson
May 2, 2014

ukraine protestor in street A pro-Russian activist runs during clashes with supporters of the Kiev government in the streets of Odessa, May 2, 2014. (Yevgeny Volokin/Courtesy Reuters)

Locking down the facts on the FY15 defense budget—before Congress wades into the fight. Russ Rumbaugh and John Cappell, of the Stimson Center, have released a superb analysis of the Budget Control Act’s (“sequestration”) real impact on defense planning through FY21. Among Stimson’s findings: even the lowest projected budget ($492 billion dollars in FY16) would still fall slightly above the average of all non-war defense budgets since 1951. This would mean 27 percent more funding than in past post-war downturns.  These numbers help contextualize the Pentagon’s own grim assessment released in mid-April. They also bring clarity to the likely contentious budgetary mark up and debate process now unfolding in the House Armed Services Committee.

A-10 Warthog debate: heated and getting hotter. Although Congressional opposition to the Air Force’s retirement of its fleet of 300 A-10 “Warthog” Thunderbolts has never been a secret, the debate grew more contentious this week at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, which was supposed to be focused on the findings of the Air Force Commission (of which I was a member). Senator John McCain expressed (serious) skepticism at the Air Force’s explanation that the close air support mission can be absorbed by high-altitude guided munitions. Unless the Air Force makes this argument more clearly, it will become a major flash point in upcoming Congressional debate. They can also consider releasing an updated version of the 1970s coloring book for A-10 pilots.  Stay tuned for my own assessment on the Air Force’s A-10 decision.

And speaking of flash points…what about the compensation battle? Less news on this front (for now), but as Congress turns to questions of military compensation, the A-10 may end up looking like a warm-up act. If last month’s testimony by Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps Michael Barrett that Marines aren’t focused on “compensation, benefits or retirement modernization” is any indication, there are many more headline-grabbing fights to come.

General Michael Flynn bids a sudden farewell at the Defense Intelligence Agency. An unexpected shake-up: General Flynn is out at the DIA, a year earlier than planned, as well as his ranking deputy. Flynn was the source of a disruptive report (some might say “heretical”) to aggressively push defense intelligence gathering out of Washington, DC, and into theater. The move is likely to spark renewed debate about the relationship between DIA and civilian intelligence services. Why was Flynn ousted? In Tom Ricks’ assessment, he was simply “Done in by the Deadwood.”

Elsewhere, in Ukraine. Not good. Ukrainian forces lose two helicopters; the interim Ukrainian government reinstates conscription. A bloody offensive into the pro-Russian city of Sloviansk is ongoing, and Russia warns of “catastrophic consequences” if Ukrainian forces do not withdraw from east Ukraine. The Washington Post has published a superb map of Russian-Ukrainian mobilizations. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s hybrid strategy has worked so well, however, that some now question whether Russia will even need its conventional troops.

Post a Comment 1 Comment

  • Posted by Bradford

    Excellent piece that I”ve copied and pasted below:

    How Putin Is Reinventing Warfare

    Though some deride Russia for backward thinking, Putin’s strategy in Ukraine betrays a nuanced understanding of 21st century geopolitics.

    BY Peter Pomerantsev
    MAY 5, 2014

    The Kremlin, according to Barack Obama, is stuck in the “old ways,” trapped in Cold War or even 19th century mindsets. But look closer at the Kremlin’s actions during the crisis in Ukraine and you begin to see a very 21st century mentality, manipulating transnational financial interconnections, spinning global media, and reconfiguring geo-political alliances. Could it be that the West is the one caught up in the “old ways,” while the Kremlin is the geopolitical avant-garde, informed by a dark, subversive reading of globalization?

    The Kremlin’s approach might be called “non-linear war,” a term used in a short story written by one of Putin’s closest political advisors, Vladislav Surkov, which was published under his pseudonym, Nathan Dubovitsky, just a few days before the annexation of Crimea. Surkov is credited with inventing the system of “managed democracy” that has dominated Russia in the 21st century, and his new portfolio focuses on foreign policy. This time, he sets his new story in a dystopian future, after the “fifth world war.”

    Surkov writes: “It was the first non-linear war. In the primitive wars of the 19th and 20th centuries it was common for just two sides to fight. Two countries, two blocks of allies. Now four coalitions collided. Not two against two, or three against one. All against all.”

    This is a world where the old geo-political paradigms no longer hold. As the Kremlin faces down the West, it is indeed gambling that old alliances like the EU and NATO mean less in the 21st century than the new commercial ties it has established with nominally “Western” companies, such as BP, Exxon, Mercedes, and BASF. Meanwhile, many Western countries welcome corrupt financial flows from the post-Soviet space; it is part of their economic models, and not one many want disturbed. So far, the Kremlin’s gamble seems to be paying off, with financial considerations helping to curb sanctions. Part of the rationale for fast-tracking Russia’s inclusion into the global economy was that interconnection would be a check on aggression. But the Kremlin has figured out that this can be flipped:

    Interconnection also means that Russia can get away with aggression.

    “A few provinces would join one side,” Surkov continues, “a few others a different one. One town or generation or gender would join yet another. Then they could switch sides, sometimes mid-battle. Their aims were quite different. Most understood the war to be part of a process. Not necessarily its most important part.”

    We can see a similar thinking informing the Kremlin as it toys with Eastern Ukraine, using indirect intervention through local gangs, with a thorough understanding of the interests of such local power brokers such as Donetsk billionaire Rinat Akhmetov (Ukraine’s richest man) or Mikhail Dobkin, the former head of the Kharkiv Regional Administration and now presidential candidate. Though these local magnates make occasional public pronouncements supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity, their previous support of Yanukovych makes them wary of the new government in Kiev. Just the right degree of separatism could help guarantee their security while ensuring that their vast financial global interests are not harmed. “Think global, act local” is a favorite cliché of corporations — it could almost be the Kremlin’s motto in the Donbass.

    And the Kremlin’s “non-linear” sensibility is evident as it manipulates Western media and policy discourse. If in the 20th century the Kremlin could only lobby through Soviet sympathizers on the left, it now uses a contradictory kaleidoscope of messages to build alliances with quite different groups. European right-nationalists such as Hungary’s Jobbik or France’s Front National are seduced by the anti-EU message; the far-left are brought in by tales of fighting U.S. hegemony; U.S. religious conservatives are convinced by the Kremlin’s stance against homosexuality. The result is an array of voices, all working away at Western audiences from different angles, producing a cumulative echo chamber of Kremlin support. Influencers often appear in Western media and policy circles without reference to their Kremlin connections: whether it’s PR company Ketchum placing pro-Kremlin op-eds in the Huffington Post; anti-Maidan articles by British historian John Laughland in the Spectator that make no mention of how the think tank he was director of was set up in association with Kremlin-allied figures; or media appearances by influential German political consultant Alexander Rahr that fail to note his paid position as an advisor for the German energy company Wintershall, a partner of Gazprom, Moscow’s massive natural gas company (Rahr denies a conflict of interest).

    Combatting non-linear war requires non-linear measures. International networks of anti-corruption NGOs could help squeeze corrupt flows from Russia. At the moment, this sector is underdeveloped, underfunded, and poorly internationally coordinated: In the U.K., for example, NGOs such as Global Witness or Tax Justice rarely engage with Russian counterparts. Anti-corruption NGOs need to have the backing to put painful pressure on corrupt networks on a daily basis, naming and shaming corrupt networks and pressuring western governments to shut them down and enact their own money laundering laws. This would squeeze the Kremlin’s model even in the absence of further sanctions, ultimately playing a role as important as human rights organizations did in the 70s and 80s, when groups like Amnesty and the Helsinki Committee helped change the Cold War by supporting dissidents in the Communist block and shaming their governments.

    Meanwhile capacity building is needed for both Ukraine and the West to deal with Kremlin disinformation and to formally track the role of Kremlin-connected influencers. So far, this work is happening ad-hoc as intrepid journalists reveal Kremlin lobbyists and triple-check leaks. To be effective, this work needs to be institutionalized, whether in think tanks or via public broadcasters such as Radio Free Europe, so every sound bite from a Kremlin-funded “expert” is properly contextualized, every Kremlin meme deconstructed, and every British peer on Russian state company boards held accountable for their connections. And this needs to happen in both Western countries and Russia’s “near abroad,” where the Kremlin projects its non-linear influence through a variety of institutions, from the Orthodox Church, to entertainment television and business groups. Georgia, Moldova, and Latvia are particularly vulnerable, and their security services need to be prepared for the sort of indirect intervention we are seeing in eastern Ukraine.

    But aside from such concrete measures, it’s also important to appreciate that the Kremlin is throwing down the gauntlet to the Western-inspired vision of globalization, to the kitsch “global village” vision on the covers of World Bank annual reports and in Microsoft advertisements. It is better to understand the Kremlin’s view of globalization as “corporate reiding” (with an “e”), the ultra-violent, post-Soviet cousin of western corporate “raiders,” and the way many in Russia made and make their money. “Reiding” involves buying a minority share in a company, and then using any means at your disposal (false arrests, mafia threats, kidnapping, disinformation, blackmail) to acquire control. Russian elites sometimes refer to the country as a “minority shareholder in globalization,” which, given Russia’s experience with capitalism, implies it is the world’s great “corporate raider.” Non-linear war is the means through which a geo-political raider can leverage his relative weakness. And this vision appeals to a very broad constituency across the world, to those full of resentment for the West and infused by the sense that the “global village” model is a priori rigged. For all the talk of Russia’s isolation, the BRIC economies have actually been subdued in their criticism of the annexation of Crimea, with the Kremlin thanking both China and India for being understanding.

    Perhaps, despite what Obama says, there is a battle of ideas going on. Not between communism and capitalism, or even conservatives and progressives, but between competing visions of globalization, between the “global village” — which feels at once nice, naff, and unreal — and “non-linear war.”

    It is naïve to assume the West will win with this new battle with the same formula it used in the Cold War.

    It is naïve to assume the West will win with this new battle with the same formula it used in the Cold War. Back then, the West united free market economics, popular culture, and democratic politics into one package: Parliaments, investment banks, and pop music fused to defeat the politburo, planned economics, and social realism. But the new Russia (and the new China) has torn that formula apart: Russian popular culture is Westernised, and people drive BMWs, play the stock market, and listen to Taylor Swift all while cheering anti-Western rhetoric and celebrating American downfall.

    “The only things that interest me in the U.S. are Tupac Shakur, Allen Ginsberg, and Jackson Pollock,” said Surkov when he was one of the first Russian officials to be put on the U.S. sanctions list as “punishment” for Russia’s actions in Crimea. “I don’t need a visa to access their work. I lose nothing.”

    We live in a truly non-linear age. And the future might just belong to the reiders.

Post a Comment

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

* Required