Russia' military riddles with weakness

A member of a Russian tank crew surveys the terrain last month during the Russian invasion of Georgia. The Soviet-designed T-72 tanks that rolled into Georgia were prone to breaking down and are considered several rungs below American battle tanks.

Russia's military is riddled with weakness. Its equipment is outdated. Its technology is decades behind the West. And its capacity for battlefield...

By Tom Lasseter

McClatchy Newspapers

BELA SZANDELSZKY / AP
Related

Russian economy isn't in great shape, either

MOSCOW — Russia's military is riddled with weakness. Its equipment is outdated. Its technology is decades behind the West. And its capacity for battlefield communications and intelligence gathering is terrible.

In short, Russia has a mid- to late-20th century military in a 21st-century world.



That and more were revealed during Russia's war with U.S.-backed Georgia last month, when its troops routed the small Georgian army but looked woefully short of the fighting power of nations like the United States.

And to top things off, Russia's economy has recently been slammed by the double whammy of a plummeting stock market and falling currency as the effects of the global economic crunch were compounded by worried Western investors withdrawing billions of dollars in the aftermath of the Georgian war.

Instead of pausing, the Kremlin has charged ahead, warning and threatening the United States and its allies at every turn. Brushing aside American predictions that Moscow would isolate itself from the world by invading Georgia, the Kremlin last week announced joint training exercises with Venezuela — where President Hugo Chávez is an avowed foe of U.S. policy abroad.

News on Wednesday that two nuclear-capable Russian bombers, reportedly without nuclear weapons, had landed in Venezuela punctuated both the uncertainty and the gravity of the situation: Was this just a posturing by Moscow leaders, or is the Kremlin signaling it is willing to risk a fight despite its obvious weaknesses?

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has publicly said he has no desire for conflict. Russian generals under his government's command, meanwhile, have said they might target U.S. missile defense shield sites in Europe with ballistic missiles.

Russia observers differ on the implications of the standoff.

Vladimir Dvorkin, a retired Russian major general who ran a premier military think tank from 1993 to 2001, said the maneuvers by the United States and Russia after the Georgian war have been political posturing, and the idea that Russia and the West would get into an armed confrontation is "absurd."

Some pro-Western analysts, however, say Russian leadership is testing how far it can go in reclaiming parts of the former Soviet Union, or at least weakening Western influence in the region, at a time when the United States is perceived as being weak and Europe divided.

During the fighting in Georgia, Russian officers in the field frequently relied on cellphones or old radios, and they were unable to establish tactical command centers close to the front. The air force and ground forces were badly out of sync, and some soldiers complained to reporters that they hadn't eaten in a few days.

Their American counterparts would have been able to quickly establish satellite uplinks, visual feeds from unmanned aerial drones — which the Russians weren't able to use at all — and real-time communications among all branches of the military.



The Soviet-designed T-72 tanks that rolled into Georgia were prone to breaking down and are considered several rungs below American battle tanks.

"Military equipment is very old, and at the same time it's absolutely clear that Russia has no resources to change it," said Alexander Goltz, a military analyst in Moscow. "For all of the '90s, we had no money to produce new military equipment ... the whole chain of subcontractors was destroyed."

But former military officers, and officials connected with the Kremlin, emphasize that Russia is in the same league as America when it comes to nuclear missile stockpiles.

Pavel Zolotarev, a retired Russian major general and deputy director of a government-funded institute that studies the United States and Canada, reminded a reporter of nuclear realities.

"An army is made up of different kinds of forces," Zolotarev said. "If we compare the nuclear forces of these two sides, then we have parity. We can destroy each other five or six times."

Amid the heated words, it's important to step back and see Russia for what it really is, said Robert Hunter, the U.S. ambassador to NATO under President Clinton and now a senior adviser at the RAND Corp.

"I don't believe that Russia is a great power again. ... Russia is Saudi Arabia with trees," Hunter said. "In reality, Russia is a second-rate military power and will be for some time."

Russian forces leave

Georgian port city

TBILISI, Georgia — Russian forces pulled out of the Black Sea port of Poti today and appeared to be preparing to withdraw from other positions in western Georgia weeks, eyewitnesses and officials said.

An Associated Press television crew saw Russian soldiers packing military trucks at a post by the Black Sea shore near the Abkhazia region before dawn.

Russian forces left the two posts they had maintained on the outskirts of Poti, one by a bridge on a main road leading into the city and one a few miles from Georgia's main port, Interior Ministry official Shota Utiashvili said.

"Russian forces have withdrawn completely from Poti," Utiashvili said.

The Associated Press

Copyright © 2008 The Seattle Times Company