Belarus defense minister slides from MCIS 2016

Today’s installment of the MCIS 2016 slides brings us to Andrei Ravkov, the Minister of Defense of Belarus, who spoke at the European security plenary session near the end of the conference. Video of his speech is available in Russian and in English.

IMG_2379IMG_2380IMG_2381IMG_2382IMG_2383IMG_2384IMG_2386IMG_2388IMG_2389IMG_2390IMG_2391IMG_2392IMG_2393IMG_2394IMG_2395

Sergey Makarov slides from MCIS 2016

Here’s another set of slides, this one from a presentation by Col. General Sergey Makarov, Commandant of the Military Academy of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff. He spoke at the final plenary panel, on problems of war and peace in Europe. Unfortunately, the MCIS website has provided neither the text of his remarks, nor a video.

I took notes on his remarks, so here are the highlights, followed by the slides.

The European security system was created after World War II and institutionalized with the Helsinki Final Act. The main problem in recent years has been the result of double standards and other countries’ inability to convince the U.S. to reject its backward policies.

Russia is concerned about the ties between terrorist activities in the Middle East and European security, including the threat posed by uncontrolled migration. Russia is also concerned about the return of Nazism and the falsification of history in the Baltics and Ukraine.

Russia can not be separated from Europe, as they are part of a single economic and political space. We need to create a new common security structure that includes the United States but does not exaggerate its role. There’s a need for mutually respectful cooperation on many areas, including counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, opposing Nazism, and cyber crime.

European values are being diluted. For the first time in centuries, Europe is no longer the center of the international system. Power is moving eastward.

Existing European agreements need to be transferred from a political to a legal basis. Russia would like to see a new treaty, but this is a long and difficult process. For now, would be satisfied if existing agreements were followed and perhaps expanded.

IMG_2396IMG_2397IMG_2399IMG_2400IMG_2402IMG_2403IMG_2404IMG_2405IMG_2406

Slides from MCIS 2016 panel on Color Revolutions

Two more sets of slides today, both from the panel on Color Revolutions and Regional Security. The first set goes with the speech by Major General Sergei Afanasyev, Deputy Chief of the Main Directorate of the Russian General Staff. While the text of the speech is not available, there is a video with English translation (starts at approximately 3 minute mark).

(Scroll down for slides provided by President Putin’s internet advisor.)

IMG_2354IMG_2355IMG_2357IMG_2358IMG_2360IMG_2361IMG_2363IMG_2367

The second set of slides goes with the speech by German Klimenko, the advisor to President Putin on the internet. Unfortunately, I haven’t found a video or text of his speech online. If anyone has a link, please email it to me or point to it in the comments.IMG_2368IMG_2369IMG_2370IMG_2371IMG_2372IMG_2373IMG_2374

Gerasimov slides from MCIS 2016

A number of people have asked me to post the slides from the MCIS conference. I have a number of sets. First up is Valery Gerasimov’s presentation. These slides can be usefully combined with the Russian text of his speech or the translated English language video of his remarks.

IMG_2326IMG_2329IMG_2330IMG_2331IMG_2333IMG_2334IMG_2336IMG_2337IMG_2339IMG_2340IMG_2341IMG_2342IMG_2344IMG_2346IMG_2347IMG_2351IMG_2352

Moscow International Security Conference 2016 edition

Last week, I was once again in attendance at the Russian MOD’s Moscow Conference on International Security (MCIS). This was the fifth such conference and the third that I’ve attended. In the past, I’ve summarized all the key speeches by Russian participants. That seems less necessary this year as video from the entire conference has been posted online, both in Russian and in English.  I do have the slides from most of the speeches, which have not been posted online by the organizers, and will post them over the next few days. Other than that, it seems more valuable to write up my general impressions, rather than focusing on the specifics of what was said.

The overall tone was less hostile toward the United States than last year. Last year, the speakers were quite open in declaring that the United States was creating threats to international security by undermining governments of states that refused to go along with U.S. “diktat.” This year, the formulations were much more indirect, along the lines of “some [unnamed] states are continuing to have a negative impact on international security by promoting exclusive military blocs, establishing military bases around the world, and dictating their will through the use of their military superiority.” While the target of such formulations is of course entirely transparent, the mere fact that the United States is not being mentioned by name is a sign that the Russian government is at least making an effort to shift its rhetoric to a less hostile stance.

The desire to reestablish a relationship with the United States was made clear when the topic turned to the threat of terrorism, the primary theme of this year’s conference. Here, the Russian officials made sure to argue that the ability of the United States and Russia to cooperate in Syria shows that the two countries can work together and stated that they hoped that such cooperation could be expanded to a broader range of issues. This line was prominent in all the speeches, and particularly in those of Nikolai Patrushev, Sergei Shoigu, and Valery Gerasimov.

Of course, the unspoken subtext underlying this call for cooperation was predicated on the notion that Russia and the United States could solve all the world’s security problems if only the United States followed Russia’s prescriptions on how to act. This was most openly stated by Sergei Lavrov, who said that what the West needs to do is to drop its anti-Russian policies.

While Russia’s relationship with the West was still one of the primary topics for discussion, it was certainly less central than at any of the past conferences. The majority of the non-Russian plenary speakers were from Asian states, and one of the two initial substantive plenary sessions was on military cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region. After the usual opening lineup of Russian government heavy-hitters (Patrushev, Shoigu, Lavrov, Bortnikov), the first plenary on the threat of terrorism included the defense ministers of China, Pakistan, and Iran, as well as Hamid Karzai. The Asia-Pacific panel included more Asian defense ministers, this time from India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Singapore, and Laos. The most striking thing about this panel was the lack of any participation by Russian officials. Unlike the first panel, where Valery Gerasimov presented the Russian government’s view on the threat posed by international terrorism, the Russian government chose not to present its view on Asian security issues. The only Russian on the dais for this session was conference host and panel moderator Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov, who said little of substance on the topic at hand.

It seems to me that the Russian government’s lack of participation in the Asia-Pacific discussion was quite deliberate. Russia is in a bit of a bind in the region. One the one hand, it is dependent on its “strategic partnership” with China, especially since the deterioration of relations with the West. On the other hand, it is looking to develop security and especially economic ties with a number of Southeast Asian states — most particularly Vietnam and Indonesia — and to deepen its existing relationship with South Korea. The disputes between China and its Asian neighbors, particularly the maritime border dispute in the South China Sea, places Russia in a difficult position. I would not be surprised if the absence of a Russian speaker on the Asia-Pacific panel was a deliberate decision taken so as to avoid having to make the hard choices about how to thread the needle on the sensitive issue of China’s security relations with its neighbors.

Finally, a few words about the general atmosphere. The conference was much better organized than last year, when panels repeatedly ran over time and the agenda had to be modified on the fly. Shoigu was not visibly unhappy, as he was last year. The conference was also much larger than in the past. The plenary sessions took place in the large Congress Hall, rather than in the meeting rooms of the Radisson Ukraina hotel as in the past. The increase in size was also notable in the addition of breakout sessions and the expansion to a second day of panels.

While in the previous two years, one had a sense of being at a conference that was an opportunity for a wide range of representatives of rogue (and quasi-rogue) states to get together, this was largely absent this year. Sure, the Iranian Defense Minister took the opportunity to go on about “Zionist terrorism,” but this was the exception, rather than the rule. The 2016 list of speakers notably excluded senior officials from countries such as North Korea and Cuba, who had prominently featured in past years. They were replaced by representatives of countries such as Argentina, the Phillippines, and Chile. In addition, the presence of senior officials from South Africa and most major Asian and Middle Eastern states highlights the global nature of the event. The absence of Western officials, which looks set to continue as long as military cooperation between Russia and NATO remains frozen, prevents MCIS from becoming a truly global conference. But even absent the West, the high level of representation from a wide range of countries from around the world is a clear indication that the MCIS has become a regular stop on the global international security conference circuit.

 

Moscow Conference on International Security 2015 Part 5: International cooperation in combating terrorism

With apologies for the long delay, today I’m posting the final installment of my notes from the 2015 Moscow Conference on International Security, covering the panel on combating terrorism and extremism. Speakers included Mohamed Atmar, the National Security Advisor to the President of Afghanistan, Amb. Zamir Kabulov, the Russian special representative for Afghanistan; Maj. Gen. Walid Salman, the Chief of Staff of the Lebanese Army; General Ngoga, the head of the military police of Cameroon; and Richard Weitz, the Director of the Center for Political-Military Analyses at the Hudson Institute.

The keynote speech was delivered by Igor Sergun, the Head of the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) of the Russian Armed Forces. Unfortunately, the text of his speech is not available, so I all I have is my incomplete notes and photos of the slides Sergun presented. He argued that terrorism is increasing a global force that is advancing around the world. The characteristics of modern terrorism includes fanaticism and intolerance, global goals, secure financing sources, access to modern weapons and advanced technology, and close ties to criminal networks.

IMG_0929

Efforts by groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS to restore the Great Caliphate pose a critical threat to a wide swath of the world, from Libya to Afghanistan, and especially including Iraq and Syria.

IMG_0932

The expansion of terrorist and radical activity has claimed many lives.

IMG_0933

ISIS is a particularly grave threat to the region.

IMG_0937

Groups such as Boko Haram, al-Shabaab, IMU, and Hizb-ut Tahrir are active on the periphery of this core region. The Taliban continues to have access to training camps in remote areas of Pakistan. Even farther away, Jamaa Islamiya poses a threat in Southeast Asia. Experienced fighters are returning to Europe and even starting to act in South America.

IMG_0939

Western countries don’t realize that the controlled chaos strategy they have implemented around the world has led to the growth of terrorism. US assistance to Afghan mujahedeen fighting against the Soviet Union in the 1980s led to the emergence of al-Qaeda. More recently, Western efforts to remove the Qaddafi regime in Libya have resulted in the spread of radical ideologies and Libyan weapons to groups throughout northern Africa. Similarly, US support for rebels opposing the Syrian government have directly led to the formation of ISIS and other radical groups in Syria and Iraq. US actions lead to the growth of extremism around the world. Then the US tries to mobilize the international community to stop terrorism, not recognizing that it played a key role in the origin of the threat in the first place.

IMG_0942

I thought it was interesting that the entire speech did not mention the threat posed by terrorists and radical Islamists to Russia itself, and specifically to the North Caucasus. In past speeches on this topic, Russian leaders always made sure to note that danger and how it tied Russia and other countries together against a common threat. Now, it almost seems like the discussion of radical Islam and terrorism is being used as a pretext to condemn Western countries (and especially the US).

This sense was highlighted for me by an intervention during the discussion after the speakers. The chair, Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov, recognized Russian Middle East expert Yevgeny Satanovsky. He called on Satanovsky in such a way as to make it appear that the intervention was pre-arranged. Satanovsky, in turn, started by arguing that it was time to stop thinking that the US is part of the solution to the problem of terrorism, and to start thinking that it is part of the problem. He noted that the US supports Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which both have supported terrorist organizations in the Middle East. He then went on to talk about the risk posed by a Central Asian Spring and the need for Russia, China and Iran to work together to guarantee Central Asian security. Support for Iran’s role was also expressed by Kabulov, who argued that Iran does not export terrorism and should be included in the SCO once sanctions are lifted.

Moscow Conference on International Security 2015 Part 4: Russian views of NATO

In addition, to the plenary session, there were two panels at this year’s MCIS conference. The second, on the role of military and political instruments in ensuring regional and global stability was the more interesting of the two. The main speaker was Andrey Kartopolov, the head of the Main Operations Directorate of the Russian military’s General Staff. Kartapolov focused on the threats posed to Russia by NATO.

He started by reminding the audience that NATO was founded to stop the spread of Communism in Europe. But after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1991, the new Russia sought to become close to the West. The Russian government made unprecedented concessions to the West, including removing its troops from Europe and handing over its military bases to the countries of Eastern Europe. The west took this as a demonstration of Russian weakness, rather than an offer of peace and partnership. The US wanted to be the sole superpower and chose to ignore Russian interests. Washington saw Russia as a source of cheap resources that it would like to control. In order to achieve these goals, the US has consistently sought to weaken Russia’s influence in the international system and in the post-Soviet space.

NATO has brought its military infrastructure up to Russia’s borders. As a result, the entire territory of European Russia is under the threat of NATO air attack, with the time it would take NATO assets to reach critical Russian infrastructure having been cut in half. This is why a number of military facilities in the Baltic States, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria have been modernized to NATO standard since 2008. Furthermore, NATO is organizing military equipment storage bases on the territory of a number of East European states. This will allow NATO to rapidly deploy its first response forces near our borders and also decrease the amount of time it will take for additional forces to be transferred from the continental US and from Britain. Support agreements signed with Finland and Sweden have legitimized the presence of NATO forces on the territory of these countries and will allow the use of their infrastructure for the transfer of coalition forces to northern Europe.

Picture2

NATO has increased its military strength in recent years, as the US has provided modern arms to its East European allies, including JASSM LRCMs. This will allow NATO to attack targets deep in Russian territory while avoiding Russian air defenses.

Picture3

At the same time, the US is still trying to convince Russia that its strategic missile defense systems do not present a threat to Russia while refusing to take into account that Standard-3 missiles could in the future be capable of intercepting Russian ICBMs. Furthermore, the vertical launchers used by missile defense systems could also be used to launch Tomahawk missiles.

Picture4

Since the start of the crisis in Ukraine, NATO activity has become strongly anti-Russian in its nature. Under the banner of countering Russian expansion, the alliance has systematically expanded its military presence on Russia’s borders. At the present time, NATO has instituted a constant rotational presence of military forces in Eastern Europe, including up to 30 combat aircraft, at least 300 pieces of armor, and more than 1500 US military personnel. US and other NATO navies have almost constant ship presence in the Black Sea, while the frequency of reconnaissance aircraft flights have doubled compared to 2013. Since January 2015, there have been regular flights by Global Hawk UAVs over the Black Sea and in March they were expanded to include flights over Ukrainian airspace.

Picture5

NATO exercise activity increased by 80% in 2014. Exercises such as Baltops and Sabre Strike were carried out next to Russia’s borders and were openly anti-Russian in their nature. During these exercises, the NATO forces group in the Baltic region included 10,000 personnel, 1500 pieces of armor, up to 80 aircraft, and around 50 combat ships. Five US strategic bombers were also involved, deploying from airfields in the UK.

In the aftermath of the Wales summit, NATO is planning additional increases in force structure for next year, including a rapid response force of 30,000 personnel and a spearhead force of 5,000 personnel that can be ready to deploy in 2-7 days. AThe deployment of these forces will be organized by six command centers that will be established in the Baltic States, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria.

Picture6

Kartapolov’s conclusions regarding NATO’s activity and intentions highlighted US efforts to turn NATO into an instrument designed to contain Russia and ensure US global dominance. He also highlighted that bringing NATO infrastructure to Russia’s borders will allow its air attack forces to penetrate deep into Russian territory, while reducing their response time, and in the future may allow the US to counter Russian strategic deterrence forces.

Kartapolov noted that Russia will have to take measures in response and argued that instead of mindlessly expanding NATO to include new members that were not ready for membership and placing members’ armed forces next to Russia’s borders, NATO should have been focusing on more significant threats (such as Islamic extremism and terrorism).

Picture7

In good Soviet tradition, Kartapolov concluded his speech with a slide showing a citation from a speech by President Putin, in which he states that “Russia is not looking to start a military standoff with the West or to threaten anyone. But we will not allow anyone to use the language of force against us and will stand up for our national interests using all of the means at our disposal.”

Picture8

In addition to General Kartapolov, there were several other speakers on the panel. Here are highlights from some of their remarks:

Jean Pierre Chevenement — French Special Representative on relations with Russia

  • The crisis in Ukraine could have been avoided. Maintaining a frozen conflict is not in anyone’s interest, but will only help extremists.
  • Need to declare Ukraine’s neutrality.
  • Need to follow UNSC rules in order to avoid a new Cold War.

General Rivera — Head of Cuban military intelligence

  • Color revolutions and hybrid warfare have become state policy for some countries.
  • The US is still fighting against Cuba through subversion.
  • Other Latin American states don’t interfere in each other’s affairs.

General Yao Yunzhu — Director of China-US Defense Relations Center

  • Cold War legacies are still with us.
  • New security mechanisms are needed to maintain stability in the world.
  • US alliance networks in Asia-Pacific have become a de facto security architecture in the region.
  • Asia needs a security architecture that includes China. China wants an inclusive security partnership, rather than alliances.
  • The balance of nuclear forces prevented an active war during the Cold War period.
  • The desire for absolute security on the part of any state will upset strategic stability.
  • Missile defense upsets the balance of deterrence and could lead to future arms races.