U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock met in Washington on Wednesday to discuss various issues between the two countries. One critical issue was that of the increase of Russian troops along the border of its former Soviet neighbor Ukraine. The build-up is said to be caused by Ukraine’s attempts to join NATO, which the U.S. and Germany are both members of. The two representatives agreed that this military presence can be dangerous.

“Both Germany and the United States see Russia’s actions toward Ukraine as an immediate and urgent challenge to peace and stability in Europe,” said Blinken. “We condemn Russia’s military buildup on Ukraine’s borders, as well as Russia’s increasingly harsh rhetoric as it continues to push the false narrative that Ukraine seeks to provoke them. That’s a little bit like the fox saying it had no choice but to attack the henhouse because somehow the hens presented a threat.”

Without using analogies like her American counterpart, Baerbock agreed that Russia’s actions are a form of intimidation.

NEWSWEEK NEWSLETTER SIGN-UP

“We jointly reiterated that Russian actions and activities come with a clear price tag,” she explained, “and a renewed violation of Ukrainian sovereignty by Russia would have severe consequences.”

The Blinken-Baerbock meeting followed a telephone call last week between President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin, a conversation Sunday between Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and a group discussion Tuesday among Biden’s national security adviser Jake Sullivan and his counterparts from the five Nordic nations.

It also preceded a flurry of meetings involving NATO foreign ministers, senior U.S. and Russian officials, the NATO-Russia Council and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe set for next week.

NEWSWEEK SUBSCRIPTION OFFERS >
“The real question is whether Russia is serious about diplomacy, serious about de-escalation,” Blinken said. “Let’s see where this goes over the next weeks.”

Western officials have hinted at any number of economically crippling sanctions that could be imposed should Russia act. Those include near-total cutoff from the international financial system and steps toward greater NATO integration with non-allied European nations.

But, there have been very few specifics and Blinken again declined to discuss them. “I’m not going to telegraph them publicly, but I can tell you with great confidence that a tremendous amount of work has been done already. There is very strong coordination and collaboration and very strong agreement on measures that would be taken in the event of renewed Russian aggression against Ukraine.”

As the Biden administration moves to build international consensus around a set of possible punitive measures, Germany is clearly the linchpin. Securing the support of Europe’s biggest economy will be key to both messaging and implementation of whatever is decided.

Baerbock is the top diplomat in the first German government in 16 years not headed by Angela Merkel. She has struck a tougher tone on Russia than her predecessor. But Germany has adopted a less confrontational stance toward Russia compared with many other European nations.

Germany’s business ties with Russia could provide leverage, but they could also prove a hindrance for forging a united front toward Moscow. Despite strong criticism from the U.S., the center-left government of new Chancellor Olaf Scholz hasn’t shown itself willing to block the start of natural gas deliveries through a newly built pipeline linking Russia and Germany—a move that would hurt both countries.

Under Merkel, Germany persuaded the Biden administration last year not to impose sanctions on the company building the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which many believe will leave Europe beholden to Russia for energy and Ukraine more vulnerable.

Blinken noted that the pipeline, while completed, has yet to go into operation and said gas flows through it would be unlikely if Russia invades Ukraine.

“If Russia renews its aggression toward Ukraine, it would certainly be difficult to see gas flowing through it in the future,” he said. This actually gives the EU leverage over Russia, he said, rather than the other way around.

Baerbock sidestepped the question of whether the pipeline would be operationalized in the event of a Russian intervention. However, she said the new German government would abide by an agreement signed last summer with Washington that says Russia will not be allowed to use energy as a political weapon against Europe.

“We agreed on this, together with our European partners, that we would take effective measures together with our European partners, should Russia use energy as a weapon or should it continue its aggressive acts against Ukraine,” Baerbock said.

Blinken did not directly address her response but said the U.S. would press ahead with joint measures on the pipeline if necessary.

“We will continue to work in a way that I hope can be effective in dealing with energy issues and challenges, including those posed in our judgment by Nord Stream 2, and also in a way that preserves what is so vital, and that is strong trans-Atlantic solidarity. That is the most effective response and most effective tool that we have in countering Russian aggression,” he said.

Nord Stream 2 is a topic of major concern in Washington, and Congress is expected to take up two bills related to it and other Russia sanctions next week, just as the meetings in Europe are happening. A GOP bill would automatically impose Nord Stream sanctions, while a Democratic version would impose a wider range of penalties on Russia should it invade Ukraine.

Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Washington have blamed Nord Stream 2 for increasing Russia’s leverage over Germany and limiting what Berlin would be willing to do in response to a new invasion. Germany, like much of the European Union, is heavily reliant on Russian natural gas.

Blinken said the U.S. has delivered weapons to Ukraine and would continue to do so in the event of a further Russian military assault on the country.

Echoing concerns by some in Germany that this could stoke military tensions with Russia, Baerbock said “we have a different position on arms supply to Ukraine,” but noted that Berlin has provided a military hospital to the Ukrainian army and support in treating wounded soldiers.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: https://www.newsweek.com/us-germany-say-russia-military-buildup-ukraine-poses-immediate-urgent-challenge-1666076

The post U.S., Germany Say Russia Military Buildup at Ukraine Poses ‘Immediate and Urgent Challenge’ first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

One reason the Soviet Union collapsed was that Moscow went broke trying to keep up with the United States in the Cold War arms race.

So, with today’s Russia embarking on an ambitious military modernization program, perhaps Moscow will go broke again?

Not likely. “On a most basic level, by 2027 the Russian armed forces should be considerably better equipped than they are today,” according to a new study by British thinktank Chatham House , which suggests that Moscow has devised a sustainable defense buildup.

The study examined GPV 2027, a decade-long weapons procurement program that  will run until 2027. It is a successor to the current GPV 2020 program, which concludes two years from now.

GPV 2027 will cost 19 billion rubles, or about US$300 billion, a not inconsiderable sum for a nation that ranks below Canada in GDP (the U.S. defense budget in 2017 alone was $524 billion). But it is affordable.

“Even if the Russian economy grows at a modest annual average rate of only 2 per cent over the next decade, and even if the burden of defense spending is reduced to the historic post-Soviet average of 4 per cent of GDP, the authorities should at least come close to allocating the R19 trillion earmarked for GPV 2027,” Chatham House concluded.

GPV 2027’s 19 trillion rubles is actually less than it seems. Its predecessor, GPV 2020, was funded to the tune of 20.7 trillion ruble, equivalent to about US$700 billion in 2011 before the ruble plunged. Factor in inflation, and the 2027 plan will buy even less.

GPV 2020 had some success in upgrading Soviet-era weapons, including Su-34 fighters and T-72 and T-90 tanks. But still reeling from the lean years of defense spending in the 1990s, Russian industry proved less successful in developing new designs, such as the Su-57 fighters, Lada-class diesel submarines and Admiral Gorshkov -class frigates.

The newest defense plan should fare better. “New capital stock has been installed, higher wages have attracted younger and better-qualified workers, and production lines have been reorganized to enable a shift towards serial production for the first time in the post-Soviet era,” the study noted. “This bodes well for GPV 2027 because some of the initial problems Russia encountered in developing and introducing weapons systems under the previous program are likely to be overcome by 2020. As a result, Russia’s defense industry embarks on GPV 2027 from a much better position compared with where it was at the start of GPV 2020.”

But what arms will the new defense plan buy? Chatham House suggests there will be priorities. “Systems that enhance force mobility and deployability, especially within Russia’s Airborne Assault Troops (VDV) and Special Operations Forces (SSO), are expected to be emphasized, as are systems that improve logistics and the integration of different branches of the armed forces. GPV 2027 will probably set a priority of strengthening command-and-control (C2) systems for the armed forces – including, notably, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities – in order to achieve potential network-centric warfare capabilities.”

The ground and airborne troops are likely to grab a larger share of the defense pie, while the navy’s budget allocations will decrease.

But particularly noteworthy is that GPV 2027 may stick the final nail into the coffin of the Soviet way of war. “Procurement is likely to reflect what could arguably be described as a shift away from the Soviet-era logic of mass production, towards an emphasis on ‘quality over quantity’ for certain systems (for instance with Iskander missile systems or T-90 tanks). This is a shift that has been taking place in the Russian armed forces since the 2010s. As a result, procurement of higher-quality, upgraded and modernized systems is expected to dominate the new GPV. It is also rumored that there will be an additional emphasis on the standardization and optimization of existing systems.”

Recommended: Why No Commander Wants to Take On a Spike Missile

Recommended: What Will the Sixth-Generation Jet Fighter Look Like?

Recommended: Imagine a U.S. Air Force That Never Built the B-52 Bomber

The Russian military still must overcome several hurdles. Lots of old Soviet systems must be modernized or replaced, which means that Russia’s defense-industrial base must struggle to maintain Cold War equipment while developing 21st Century hardware. Russian industry will emphasize meeting military requirements, but won’t push the technological envelope. “The effect will generally be a move towards advanced, but not truly modern, standards,” Chatham House predicts.

Despite Putin’s constant boasts of advanced weapons, such as nuclear super-torpedoes and hypersonic missiles, the GPV 2027 plan will achieve much more modest goals. “While Russia is likely to feel more confident in its ability to defend itself, to assert its interests near its own borders, and to deploy relatively small-scale forces abroad, it will remain a long way from possessing the ability to overwhelm larger, better-equipped peer competitors.”

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.

Source: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-russia-wont-go-bankrupt-paying-its-military-buildup-28092

The post Why Russia Won’t Go Bankrupt Paying for Its Military Buildup first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.