WASHINGTON — The Cold War may be over, but relations between
the United States and Russia are slowly begging to freeze over once
again. Nowhere has this become more evident than in our dealings
with the Islamic Republic of Iran. While the United States and its
European allies remain committed to ensuring that Tehran will not
acquire the capability to produce a nuclear weapon, Russia
maintains its opposition — along with China — against any use of
sanctions or the threat of force. This has damaged efforts to
convince the Iranian regime that serious consequences can result
from noncompliance. However, the current situation in Iran is only
one element in a comprehensive Russian strategy that seeks to boost
its defense industry and undermine its geopolitical rivals.
The Russian economy remains largely dependent on weapons sales.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia’s vital defense industry
faced an enormous crisis. Not only would domestic spending be
decreased, but exports to friendly regimes would no longer be
necessary in many cases. As a result, even after enormous
downsizing in the Russian defense industry — an estimated 2.5 to
6.1 million lost their jobs between 1991 and 1995 — by 1996, the
sector was working at a capacity of only about 10 percent of its
potential. Thus, to maintain the country’s military industrial
complex the Kremlin has taken on the role of the world’s weapons
supplier. From Algeria and Venezuela to Syria and Iran, Moscow
displays few reservations to arming any regime that can help fuel
its defense industry.
The well-publicized sale of 29 Tor-M1 missile systems to Iran
provides a glimpse into the vast arena of advanced weapons being
transferred to the world’s most dangerous rogue regimes. These
mobile air defense systems are capable of destroying both aircraft
and cruise missiles and were only one part of a reported $1 billion
package that also included MIG fighter jets and patrol boats. The
delivery is scheduled to be fully completed by 2008, and these
purchases would undoubtedly be used in any future conflict with the
United States.
Equally disturbing have been the further reports of additional
Iranian weapons purchases from Russia. According to the Indian
national daily the Hindu, “Russian sources said talks were
under way to sell Iran long range air-defence systems codenamed
S-300PMU1, radar stations, and T-90S tanks.” This, however, may
turn out to be one area where the Russians decide to use their
leverage for a constructive manner. Agence France Presse reports
that Moscow has used the potential sale of the S-300 long-range air
defense missile system as a means to convince Tehran to suspend the
enrichment of uranium. This has largely been ineffective as Iran
appears determined to continue its uranium enrichment process.
However, this by no means indicates that Russia will be greatly
helpful in pressuring the Iranian regime. After criticisms from the
United States on Russia’s sale of the Tor-M1 missiles to Tehran,
Nikolai Spassky, the deputy head of the Security Council of the
Kremlin, emphasized: “There are no circumstances that would
obstruct the fulfillment of our obligations in military-technical
cooperation with Iran.” Moscow holds that its arms sales are not
only legitimate, but are being unfairly criticized by countries
such as the United States because those states want to undermine
their competition in the global weapons market. Russian defense
minister Sergey Ivanov revealed his frustrations at a March 28 news
conference in Moscow as he noted the following:
As far as our relations with any state are concerned,
not just with Syria or Iran, we act on the basis of international
law. I often hear criticism that Russia sells arms to countries and
regimes which it ought not to. If you follow this logic, we ought
not to sell anything to anyone. The USA sells twice as many arms as
Russia, and, believe me, it sells these arms not just to democratic
countries which are purer than the driven snow, far from that. Some
of them have nothing at all to do with democracy.
The United States does indeed provide weapons to undemocratic
regimes, but none of these threatens its neighbors or openly
supports terrorism. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, and other
authoritarian governments have entered into defense contracts with
the United States. Defense agreements with Saudi Arabia totaled
$1.6 billion in 2004 alone. Yet, while economic considerations are
certainly a factor in American arms sales, strategic calculations
remain unrivaled. In Russia this does not hold true.
WHILE ARMS SALES ARE AN essential element in the Russian economy,
does this indicate that strategic calculations are absent from
Moscow’s decisions? The evidence does not indicate that this is so.
In February 2005 Israel backed out of an arms deal with Georgia due
to Russian concerns that the weapons would fall into the hands of
terrorists on their way to Chechnya. Similar apprehension has
eluded Moscow with respect to state purchasers that are not
considered to be unfriendly. To the strong rejection of the United
States and Israel, Russia agreed to sell Syria the SA-18
short-range anti-aircraft system.
On April 27, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin
noted that an expansion of NATO to include Ukraine and Georgia
would result in a “major military-political shift affecting
Russia’s interests, which would call for significant finances to
allow for the appropriate re-orientation of military potential and
the reorganization of the system of military-industrial links.” The
foreign ministry spokesman than added: “This could affect
agreements in the area of arms control.”
In response to the perceived threat of NATO forces based near
the border of Belarus, Russia has provided Minsk with the advanced
S-300PS surface-to-air missiles capable of destroying targets 90
miles away. General Vladimir Mikhailov, the commander of the
Russian Air Force, revealed the political nature of the transaction
when he explained the sales in light of NATO activities as he
noted: “To each action, there must be a counter action.” The
General added, “It’s important enough that those missiles will be
put on combat alert duty, and besides, we have other opportunities,
too.”
Of further concern, however, was a recent report by the British
defense journal Jane’s Intelligence Digest that Belarus
intends to forward the S-300PS missiles to Iran. Iranian Commerce
Minister Masud Mir-Kazemi and Russian Defense Minister Sergei
Ivanov were both in Minsk on April 21, but deny meeting with each
other. The Iranian commerce minister has sought to quell further
speculation and offered the following: “From the viewpoint of
military technology, we are self-sufficient and there is no need
for us to consider buying weapons from abroad.” This explanation is
rather unconvincing as the purchase of the Russian Tor-M1 missile
system is just one example of imported military hardware.
As noted, the extent of Russian arms exports has had
consequences well beyond its periphery and the Middle East. In
Africa, Russia has supplied Sudan with MiG-29 fighter-jets and
Mi-24 attack helicopters, helping the genocidal regime in Khartoum
and their Janjaweed militias kill hundreds of thousands in Darfur.
Algeria has recently purchased $7.5 billion worth of arms from
Russia, drawing concerns that this might upset the balance of power
with Morocco over the disputed Western Sahara. Defense Minister
Ivanov explained: “No one is preventing Morocco from buying our
arms and we are ready to consider such proposals, all the more so,
since we already have military and technical cooperation with
Morocco.”
And while the largest recipients of Russian military equipment
are India and China, the latter is of far greater concern as Moscow
has essentially been the enabler of Beijing’s rise as principal
long-term threat to American military primacy in Asia. Moscow’s
provisions of military hardware and technology to the Chinese —
about 45 percent of Russia’s total arms exports — have done much
to alter the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait and the region.
While economic factors are certainly the primary motivation for
this promiscuity, the Kremlin sees strategic benefits as well. The
Beijing-Moscow alliance not only is about preserving peace and
economic benefits for the two countries, but also contains a
powerful element aimed at balancing the United States and
establishing a “multi-polar world.”
VENEZUELA HAS ALSO WITNESSED the benefits of Russia’s export
regime. Hugo Chavez and his “Bolivarian Revolution” have received
100,000 Kalashnikov rifles and 30 combat helicopters. The United
States had been able to convince Brazil and Spain away from making
similar sales, but Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Kislyak held that
the deal was “a sovereign decision by the Russian Federation and
Venezuela.” As for the implications the influx of weapons could
have on the region, Kislyak proclaimed that the delivery “is not
having a destabilizing effect.” Washington, meanwhile, is
rightfully worried that these weapons could end up in the hands of
rebels in Colombia and elsewhere in Latin America where Chavez
hopes to export his revolution.
Russia is using the export of arms to its benefit both
domestically and internationally. Unfortunately, this revitalized
influence from Moscow has produced few benefits for the rest of the
world. Many of the world’s rogue regimes must be pleased with this
development, but international security is being severely
undermined. Russia now finds itself at a crossroads where it will
continue to drift east towards China and towards Cold War strategic
competition with the United States, or it will continue to
democratize and become a responsible world actor engaged in genuine
cooperation with the West.
The 2008 presidential elections to determine the successor of
Vladimir Putin will be essential in this progression. Will Putin
select a successor with similar Soviet era tendencies, or will a
democrat seeking to strengthen ties with the West emerge? This will
have monumental consequences in Russia’s future strategic relations
and determine the future direction of Russia’s arms exports. As the
cases of Iran, Sudan, Venezuela, and numerous others have
illustrated, a secure and stable world can ill afford the continued
consequences of a Russian effort to improve its economy and
undermine its strategic competitors through the export of arms to
tyrants in every corner of the globe.
