Does Russia really need the Ukrainian military-industrial complex?

I really like the Asia Times, but the article I saw in it today left me wondering how it could have gotten past the editors. The article in question is Ukraine: A military-industrial complex to die for by Gregory J Moore. While I most definitely encourage you to read the article in its entirety, its thesis is simple: the Ukrainian military-industrial complex is, if not vital, then at least crucial for Russia. Moore gives several examples which I want to quote here:

1) Antonov is not a Russian aircraft manufacturer, its Ukrainian
2) The Ukraine builds many aircraft and helicopter engines
3) The Ukraine builds missiles, rockets and the SS18
4) The Ukraine accounts for 30% of the USSR's shipbuilding industry
5) The Ukraine builds APCs and tanks including the T-84
6) The Ukraine builds air-to-air, surface-to-air and cruise missiles
 
And all this is true.  So what is the problem here?

The problem is that all the examples Moore gives are Soviet-era systems.  Even the T-84 is nothing but an upgraded T-80.  The Ukraine, just like Russia, has inherited a lot of top-quality Soviet technologies.  These technologies were, in fact, so good, that both the Ukraine and Russia could literally "coast" for almost 20 years on that technological basis without really developing any truly new systems.  A good example of that is the SS-18 missile which is still one of the most powerful ones on the planet.  But it's design is really late 1950s early 1960s technology and it runs on liquid fuel.  And yet the Russian Ministry of Defense recently wanted to purchase more of these missile.  Why?  Money: the Ukrainians were willing to sell them cheap.  Now the deal appears dead, much to the delight of the Russian military which did not want that missile to begin with, but which had been told that it was the cheaper solution to a more expensive but also more modern purely Russian alternative.

And here is the key issue here: Russia does not need the Ukrainian MIC, Russia could produce all it needs indigenously, but that would be more expensive.  So why spend more when you can spend less and use the difference in developing other sectors?

When the Soviet Union broke apart Russia lost not only the Ukraine but another 13 republics many of which had Soviet MIC resources and many have wondered whether Russia could go by without them.  The test of that proposition is simple: can Russia produce completely new weapon systems or not?  And the clear answer is yes - Russia can and Russia has.

Take, for example, the new Russian submarines (Borei-class or Yasen-class), new combat aircraft (Su-34 of PAKFA), new tanks (Armata), new ICBMs (SS-27) or SLBMs (SS-N-32).  Now, of course, since the weapons-design cycle is very long, all these systems have their origins in Soviet designs, and some might even have part purchased from the Ukraine (or other ex-Soviet states).  But the fact that Russia assembled, tested and deployed these systems proves that Russia has the technological know-how to control all the technologies used in them.  This is especially true of very complex systems like submarines or advanced combat aircraft.  For the general military, the goal is to have the Russian armed forces equipped with new military systems for 70% of all its equipment by 2020.  That is ambitious but doable.

At least two top Russian weapons experts (Dmitri Rogozin and Igor Korotchenko) have addressed the issue of the importance of the Ukrainian MIC and, on one occasion, even Putin himself.  All three were categorical: a possible "loss" of the Ukrainian MIC for Russia is not a problem for Russia at all, but the perfect opportunity to allocate the funds needed to develop indigenous and much more modern capabilities in Russia.  This is exactly the same situation as with the western credit card companies: the US sanctions provided Russia with a much needed pretext and opportunity to develop a Russian credit card system which, as it has been announced in Shanghai, will be compatible with the Chinese one.

Speaking of China: China is the *perfect* partner for Russia in nearly all economic terms, especially in the military-industrial cooperation.  And, unlike the Ukrainian technologies, the Chinese technologies are far more modern, if probably more expensive.

Putin and Medvedev have already set as a strategic goal for Russia to become fully independent from foreign suppliers for all its strategic needs. Dumping the Ukrainian MIC is just a logical step towards this goal. It is an opportunity for Russia, not a problem.

Moore concludes by saying that "The value and importance of Ukraine's military industrial complex to Russia is an important reason Moscow will not let go of eastern and southern Ukraine, and consequently it may be that sanctions alone will not be enough to make Putin back down."  I completely disagree.  Not only does Russia not "want" the Ukraine or even the Donbass, it is going out of its way to avoid having to "own" it (following a hypothetical intervention).  The very last thing Russia needs is to have to support a huge population working on 20-year old technologies which nobody wants and which Russia does not really need.  By the way, and for the very same reasons, neither does the EU or US need to Ukrainain MIC: they have their own which is much more modern and which they control.

I will say it again and again and again.  Russia does not need the Ukraine, not its lands, not its MIC, not its coal and not its people.  What was true in 1991 is not true any more in 2014.  Furthermore, the Ukrainian oligarchs have truly destroyed the whole country and laid waste to its MIC: did you know that the top 50 Ukrainian oligarchs own 50% of the Ukraine's GDP?  It is mind boggling, really.  Or why do you think that the Ukrainians are still using (old) Mi-24s used in Africa by the UN instead of their own helicopters?  Because that is all that they have left, literally!  Recently, when the Russians took control of Crimea they found out that even the most prestigious youth camp (Artek) was in a state of total abandonment. The oligarchs neglected even that jewel.

For years Russia had tried to make some kind of deal with the Ukrainians to develop a very interesting advanced transport aircraft: the AN-70.  But the Ukrainian politicians were making such ridiculous demands that the Russians eventually walked away in disgust (they ended up making a deep upgrade the IL-76 and they are now developing a wide-body long range transport aircraft with China which will probably have civilian and military variants).  So even if Yanukovich was still in power, how could Russia trust such completely unreliable partners?

The sad reality is that the Russians cannot trust the Ukrainians with anything. Not even paying their bills, nevermind participating in strategic military-industrial projects.  For that Russia now has China.  Let the EU "enjoy" its new found partnership with the Ukraine.  Good luck to them!

The Saker

Hillary is the candidate of the military-industrial complex

Clinton bucks the trend and rakes in cash from the US weapons industry

By Leonard Doyle in Washington

The US arms industry is backing Hillary Clinton for President and has all but abandoned its traditional allies in the Republican party. Mrs Clinton has also emerged as Wall Street's favourite. Investment bankers have opened their wallets in unprecedented numbers for the New York senator over the past three months and, in the process, dumped their earlier favourite, Barack Obama.

Mrs Clinton's wooing of the defence industry is all the more remarkable given the frosty relations between Bill Clinton and the military during his presidency. An analysis of campaign contributions shows senior defence industry employees are pouring money into her war chest in the belief that their generosity will be repaid many times over with future defence contracts.

Employees of the top five US arms manufacturers – Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon – gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to the Republicans. "The contributions clearly suggest the arms industry has reached the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed," said Thomas Edsall, an academic at Columbia University in New York.

Republican administrations are by tradition much stronger supporters of US armaments programmes and Pentagon spending plans than Democratic governments. Relations between the arms industry and Bill Clinton soured when he slimmed down the military after the end of the Cold War. His wife, however, has been careful not to make the same mistake.

After her election to the Senate, she became the first New York senator on the armed services committee, where she revealed her hawkish tendencies by supporting the invasion of Iraq. Although she now favours a withdrawal of US troops, her position on Iran is among the most warlike of all the candidates – Democrat or Republican.

This week, she said that, if elected president, she would not rule out military strikes to destroy Tehran's nuclear weapons facilities. While on the armed services committee, Mrs Clinton has befriended key generals and has won the endorsement of General Wesley Clarke, who ran Nato's war in Kosovo. A former presidential candidate himself, he is spoken of as a potential vice-presidential running mate.

Mrs Clinton has been a regular visitor to Iraq and Afghanistan and is careful to focus her criticisms of the Iraq war on President Bush, rather than the military. The arms industry has duly taken note.

So far, Mrs Clinton has received $52,600 in contributions from individual arms industry employees. That is more than half the sum given to all Democrats and 60 per cent of the total going to Republican candidates. Election fundraising laws ban individuals from donating more than $4,600 but contributions are often "bundled" to obtain influence over a candidate.

The arms industry has even deserted the biggest supporter of the Iraq war, Senator John McCain, who is also a member of the armed services committee and a decorated Vietnam War veteran. He has been only $19,200. Weapons-makers are equally unimpressed by the former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani. Despite a campaign built largely around the need for an aggressive US military and a determination to stay the course in Iraq, he is behind Mrs Clinton in the affections of arms executives. Mr Giuliani may be suffering because of his strong association with the failed policies of President Bush and the fact he is he is known as a social liberal.

Mrs Clinton's closest competitor in raising cash from the arms industry is the former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who raised just $32,000.

"Arms industry profits are so heavily dependent on government contracts that companies in this field want to be sure they do not have hostile relations with the White House," added Mr Edsall.

The industry's strong support for Mrs Clinton indicates that she is their firm favourite to win the Democratic nomination in the spring and the presidential election in November 2008. In the last presidential race, George Bush raised more than $800,000 – twice the sum collected by his Democratic rival John Kerry.

Mr Edsall's analysis of the figures reveals that, over the past 10 years, the defence industry has favoured Republicans over Democrats by a 3-2 margin, making Mrs Clinton's position even more remarkable.