Russia Prepares An Adequate Answer To Potential American And Israeli Strikes At Iran

This problem is one of the items on the agenda of the Russian-EU summit in Brussels today. Russian Representative to the EU Vladimir Chizhov warned the other day that the Israeli or American strike at Iran would result in "catastrophic consequences" and pointed out that these consequences would affect more than the region in question alone, WPS: What the Papers Say writes.  (It was actually recently that Russia started putting Europe and the international community in general under diplomatic pressure on the subject of a possible war in Iran and its corollaries. It all started with publication of a report on the Iranian nuclear program by the IAEA in November.)

Military preparations for minimization of the damage expected from the hostilities against Iran began in Russia more than a year ago. Fortunately, nearly everything has been done already. Sources within the Defense Ministry claim that the 102nd Military Base in Armenia was optimized in October and November 2011. Families of servicemen were flown to Russia, the garrison posted near Yerevan was reduced and moved to Gyumri closer to the Turkish border. It is from the territory of Turkey that the Americans might pounce. Exactly what tasks the 102nd Base will have to tackle in connection with it is not clear at this point. The Russian troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazia have been on an alert since December 1. Surface combatants of the Black Sea Fleet are on station not far from the coast of Georgia that might side up with the anti-Iranian forces in this conflict.

A battery of Bal-E coast defense missile complexes (their range is 130 kilometers) was put on an alert in Izberbash, Dagestan, right near the Azerbaijani border. All missile boats of the Caspian Flotilla were moved from Astrakhan to Makhachkala and Kaspiisk. It is known that the missiles they carry have the range of up to 200 kilometers.

Ships of the Northern Fleet under the command of the flagship Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia's only aircraft-carrier, are already steaming to the Mediterranean. At least the flagship is scheduled to make a stop in Tartus, Syria. Sources within the Defense Ministry neither confirm nor deny the rumors that nuclear submarine accompany the group of ships on this sortie. No official information is given on the tasks the Army and Navy will have to perform in the event of a war on Iran. The impression is that the Defense Ministry is worried about the 102nd Base in Armenia, Russia's bulwark in the Caucasus. The Kremlin apparently fears that the base might stop being a geopolitical asset. Should the Americans and their Israeli allies go to war on Iran, this loss of a geopolitical asset in the Caucasus will spell a catastrophe for Russia.

This April, Georgia annulled the treaty that permitted Russian military transit to Armenia.  The Russian-Armenian military group in the Caucasus is as good as isolated at this point.  Fuel, food, and whatever else the Russian contingent needs have to be airlifted there. A war in Iran will make this route unavailable.

Formerly second-in-command of the Russian army group in the Caucasus, Lieutenant General Yuri Netkachev said that a war in Iran would force Russia to start looking for a supply route to its contingent in Armenia via Georgia. "We may even find it necessary to break through the Georgian blockade and have the transport corridors connecting us and Armenia protected by the military," said Netkachev.

The head of the Center of Political forecasts Anatoly Tsyganok said, "Russia is quite suspicious and wary of Azerbaijan these days. This country doubled its military budget in the last three years. It never gives a thought to the concerns of Iran and Armenia that are clearly upset by the Azerbaijani penchant for buying unmanned reconnaissance craft and other sophisticated weapons from Israel... Baku even put Russia under additional pressure insisting on a higher pay for the use of the Gabala radar. And yet, I would not go so far as to suggest with any degree of certainty that Baku will necessarily back a military campaign against Iran... even despite the disputes between Iran and Azerbaijan over oil fields in the southern part of the Caspian Sea. That Azerbaijan will go to war on Armenia is unlikely as well."

Military expert Colonel Vladimir Popov disagreed with Tsyganok. (An expert on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in 1991-1993, Popov is also an authority of the military reforms carried out by President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev.) Popov said, "The Nagorno- Karabakh conflict resolution talks are taking way too long. Revanchist statements are openly made in Baku. I reckon that the Azerbaijanis might strike at Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh in an attempt to reclaim the runaway province and finally settle the territorial dispute." The expert said that a good deal would depend on Russia's behavior.  "Should Azerbaijan backed by Turkey use the war on Iran as a distraction for its own little war on Armenia, Russia and the Armenian antiaircraft forces will provide air cover for all of Armenia. There is no saying at this point whether or not it might be regarded as participation in the hostilities. That the Russian army is not going to participate in the hostilities on the territory of Karabakh need not be said. Still, the Russian military will probably have to fight in Armenia itself, whenever they themselves are threatened."

As a matter of fact, Popov even allowed for the possibility of Russian participation in the conflict in Iran. "Should it come to that... should the fall of the Iranian regime become imminent, Russia will offer it military aid. At least on the military-technical level," said Popov.

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

Key European countries back Denmark in the face of Trump's continuing insistence on taking over Greenland

 Six major European countries have declared their support to Denmark following renewed insistence by the US that it must have control over Greenland. "Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations," said the leaders of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain, in a joint statement, issued on Tuesday (6 January), together with Denmark. On Sunday, Donald Trump said the US "needed" Greenland - a semi-autonomous region of fellow Nato member Denmark - for security reasons. He has refused to rule out the use of force to take control of the territory, and Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned on Monday that an attack by the US would spell the end of Nato. The issue of Greenland's future resurfaced in the wake of the US military intervention in Venezuela, during which elite troops went in to seize the country's President Nicolás Maduro and take him to face drugs and weapons charges in New York. Following the raid, Trump said the US would "run" Venezuela for an unspecified period of time. He also said the US was returning to an 1823 policy of US supremacy in its sphere of influence in the Western hemisphere - and he warned a number of countries the US could turn its attention to them. The US military raid in Venezuela has reignited fears that the US may consider using force to secure control of Greenland. A day after the raid, Katie Miller - the wife of one of Trump's senior aides - posted on social media a map of Greenland in the colours of the American flag, alongside the word "SOON". On Monday, her husband Stephen Miller said it was "the formal position of the US government that Greenland should be part of the US". In an interview with CNN, he also said the US "is the power of Nato. For the US to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend Nato and Nato interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the US." Asked repeatedly whether the US would rule out using force to annex it, Miller responded: "Nobody's going to fight the US over the future of Greenland." Stressing they were as keen as the US in Arctic security, the seven European signatories of Tuesday's joint statement said this must be achieved by Nato allies, including the US "collectively" - whilst "upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders". Greenland's Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen welcomed the statement and called for "respectful dialogue". "The dialogue must take place with respect for the fact that Greenland's status is rooted in international law and the principle of territorial integrity," Nielsen said. Trump has claimed that making Greenland part of the US would serve American security interests due to its strategic location and its abundance of minerals critical to high-tech sectors. Greenland, which has a population of 57,000 people, has had extensive self-government since 1979, though defence and foreign policy remain in Danish hands. While most Greenlanders favour eventual independence from Denmark, opinion polls show overwhelming opposition to becoming part of the US.

Popular