Salesman in Chief - An unsurprising Development in Arms Transfers

One of the most fascinating pieces of news about arms sales came out in a Reuters story a few days ago. The gist of the plan is that the Trump administration has a plan for the diplomatic and military apparatus to make the sale of arms a priority.  It's part of the "buy American" plan to increase manufacturing capability within the US.

President Donald Trump is expected to announce a “whole of government” approach that will also ease export rules on U.S. military exports and give greater weight to the economic benefits for American manufacturers in a decision-making process that has long focused heavily on human rights considerations, according to people familiar with the plan.

This is a real shift in the recent policies of the United States in terms of seeking to be more limited about which states received US arms.  Richard Johnson and I have a paper coming out in ISQ soon that looks at whether or not this rhetoric on human rights has any real substantive effects on arms sales by major democratic suppliers (hint: it does not - with a few caveats).  Our study is a follow up and expansion of Lindsay Blanton's 2005 work that looked at US arms sales only [1].

I am not surprised by this development. In my 2013 PhD thesis[2] I examined US and Russian decision-making on arms sales.  I found that both states were reliant on foreign sales to some degree. Russia has had - and this increased under Putin - a strategy of arms promotion at all levels of the state for a long time.  It is surprising how often Putin's name comes up when new arms deals are announced.  He is Russia's salesman in chief when it comes to arms sales.

The US move to an open policy of arms sales promotion makes sense under two common assumptions about arms sales.  The first assumption is about economics - and apparently that is the argument that is being made to justify this shift in foreign policy.  It is expensive to develop new weapons systems.  It is expensive to maintain manufacturing for spare parts.  Having external customers keeps production going, and provides partial relief for development costs.  It provides employment (which is particularly important in defense industries that can affect Congressional races where they are concentrated), and it ensures domestic manufacturing capability into the future. 

During the Cold War both the US and the Soviets could sustain their arms development because of the large internal market for weapons and the sizes of their military economies in general.  The end of the Cold war changed the imperatives for both states.  Russia felt this need first, and more acutely.  The United States needed arms sales more after the contraction of the armed forces during the 1990s.

The second assumption about arms sales that supports this development is the idea that arms purchases and sales are part of relationship building between states. This is a connection that has not been explored too deeply by arms scholarship. My current book project, which adapts and expands my dissertation examines these relationships more closely. Trump is a businessman in a business that is dominated by personal relationships. It seems natural that he would want to have a policy that reflects those preferences.  The fact that he is focusing on the sale of arms highlights to me the importance of arms sales to state identity. Arms sales are still not "sexy" like conflict and other types of security studies, but the more we see such fascinating real-world examples of their importance, the more likely that academics will pay more attention.
_______
[1]  Blanton, Shannon Lindsey. 2005. "Foreign Policy in Transition? Human Rights, Democracy, and U.S. Arms Exports." International Studies Quarterly 49: 647–668.

[2] Willardson, Spencer L. 2013. "Under the Influence of Arms: The Causes and Consequences of Arms Transfers." PhD Thesis. University of Iowa. Link

Ukraine Crisis News Roundup

Background

I have been working on a paper about covert action.  The paper relies on an extended case study of Russia's various actions in Ukraine since the crisis began in November 2013.  I lived in Ukraine from April 1998 through February 2000 and spent most of my time (12 months) in Donetsk.  I spent another three months in Gorlovka and the remainder of my time in Zaporozhye.  The war in Ukraine is one that has touched the lives of people that I know and love.  My wife is from Russia and my mother-in-law still lives in Russia.  I get a lot of different views on the war living in Kazakhstan and watching Russian news and hearing my students' views of the events.

I won't outline my paper here in full, but the main argument is that states will react to revelations of their covert actions in different ways depending on whether the action was covert to protect the regime from internal pressures, or covert to avoid problems with external states.  I believe that the events in the Donbass have followed a pattern of deliberate misinformation by the Russian state to its own people primarily because Russian involvement in a ground war, civil war, was unpopular to begin with.  The reaction of the government to revelations of Russian involvement have been completely different than reactions to the events in Crimea - which has become a celebrated accomplishment of the regime.

I am collating a collection of information about the conflict that I can use in my own writing.  Maybe it will be useful to others that are looking for more information about what is happening in Ukraine this summer.

Links

Russia Annexing Donbass De facto?

This fascinating article discusses the consequences of Europe supporting Ukraine's position in the Donbass, specifically the need for special status for the Donbass territories to come only after Russia has removed its troops, the rebels have disarmed, and some semblance of order has been restored to the territories. 

Kyiv is insisting that the pro-Moscow rebels disarm, Russia withdraw its troops from Donbas, and that separatist-controlled areas of the border be returned to Ukraine's control before there can be any discussion about the territories' status. 

This puts Moscow in a tough position, which is being called a soft annexation.  

The moves to formally introduce the ruble in the separatist regions, the threats to hold a referendum on joining Russia, and the noise about issuing Russian passports are a last-ditch effort to pressure Kyiv. And Kyiv isn't budging.

Which leaves Moscow stuck taking its least worst option: call it a soft annexation.
And this removes the last bit of leverage Russia has over Kyiv.

"Ukraine will never now be a gray neutral territory between East and West," Ukrainian political analyst Serhiy Taran told Nezavisimaya Gazeta. "Either we won't emerge alive from this hell or else we will emerge very strong. I am convinced it will be the latter, if only because this is what everyone except Russia wants." 

Intelligence in the Conflict

Russia is said to be reactivating Soviet Area European spy networks. 

The Czech Republic's counterintelligence agency says the number of Russian spies remains high and the Kremlin is building a spy network in Europe similar to the Soviet network before World War II.

Link

Russia's Internal Arms Consumption

Russia is trying to re-equip its own army (LINK).  This has been going on for awhile.  P.M. Medvedev announced recently that the goal for new equipment in the Russian military is being raised to 75 percent new equipment by 2020.

There are a few implications for this, both internally and externally.  The first is that this is a move that is both about the military and about the militarized economy.  One of my favorite books about the subject of Russia's military economy is by Gaddy and Ickes (2002) [1].  This book talks about the distortions caused by the Soviet Union's militarized economy.  Russia's economy is still riding the oil and gas boom, but employment in those sectors is still small.  There are numerous factory towns (large and larger) whose existence and employment base was dependent on the militarized economy.

Vladimir Putin has elevated arms sales to the same level of state enterprise as the oil and gas industries.  The reasons for this are plentiful. One reason is that arms still are symbolically important.  The more states that use Russia's weapons, the greater Russia's perception of its own uniqueness and importance.  A second reason is hinted at above - Putin needs to employ individuals.  One way to do that is to continue to ride the distortions of the Soviet economy (to a lesser scale) by emphasizing the military industrial complex.

There have been some reports that Russian firms are unable to produce arms sufficiently to meet their obligations to external customers, let alone to fulfill such an ambitious rearmament agenda.  However, by emphasizing internal purchasing of weapons the Kremlin is sending a strong signal that these industries will have the continued support of the state - and that may goad them into ramping up production through hiring, streamlining processes, etc.

This will be an interesting phenomenon to keep an eye on.  To what degree will the Russian military re-arm itself in the coming years?[2]
____________________________________
[1] Gaddy, Clifford G., and Barry W. Ickes. 2002. Russia’s Virtual Economy. Washington  D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

[2] I did not tackle the issue of corruption in this post. I have addressed it earlier (here and here). That will be an even bigger issue as more funds are funneled into the defense sector.

Note: It has been a while since I've posted anything here.  This is not a widely-read forum in general (and for now I'm okay with that), and has been more of a way for me to keep my thoughts together and to have a little fun doing side projects.  I have finished my dissertation and am in the process of moving to a visiting professor position at UNLV.  I may not be writing much over the summer either.

Russia and India Arms Relations Redux

Vladimir Putin spent some time in India this past week.  One of the primary deals struck between the two states during the visit, was the sale of $3 Billion worth of Russian helicopters - a tender, which was rumored to be going to the United States earlier in the month.

The Russian Ambassador to India had this to say about plans for further cooperation between the two states: (source)

...the deals that have been struck as part of the ten-year programme of military and technical cooperation between India and Russia are estimated at $30 billion. 

On Monday, during the Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to India, several important agreements in the military area were signed in New Delhi.

The helicopter and other aircraft deal looks like this:

Under one contract, India will buy 71 Mi-17B-5 Hip helicopters worth $1.3 billion, while the other provides for the delivery of assembly kits for 42 Su-30MKI Flanker fighters, worth $1.6 billion. 

The two countries also signed a number of cooperation agreements in the defense and technology sector, notably between Russian Helicopters and Elcom Systems Pvt Ltd.

Here is the blurb from a BBC story that really highlights the personal role that Putin is playing in getting these deals signed:

In an article in India's Hindu newspaper, Mr Putin described as a "historic step" the declaration of strategic partnership between the two countries signed in 2000. 

The Russian leader also said that the military co-operation between the two nations has reached an "unprecedented level". 

Russia's currently accounts for some 70% of India's arms purchases, the BBC's Sanjoy Majumder in Delhi reports. 

But India has recently signed a number of big defence contracts with the US and other countries, including France and Israel, our correspondent says. 

Russia is concerned, he adds, that its traditional position as India's main arms supplier could be under threat.

And that's the rub.  As I have already pointed out on this blog (11/30/2012 "Are they Related?"), India is one of Russia's primary partners.  China has gained ground recently, but India is still number one or two in all years since the early 1990s - and essentially helped keep Russia afloat in the arms export world in the 1990s.  The fact that Putin is soliciting arms deals and spending his time indicates that to the Russian government (in the form of Putin), arms sales are an important aspect of foreign policy.  This is mostly likely due to the domestic implications of losing the ability to produce arms and shutting down the factories that produce Russia's most sophisticated export materials.

Corruption investigations in the MoD - Filed under: Speculation

This is just a kind of tidbit - a nugget of joy - along with some wild speculation.  For what it's worth.

There has been a story developing about corruption among Russia's Defense Ministry's property department.  That has led to what appears to be a full investigation with documents and other items being seized today in Moscow.

From the article in RIA:

Oboronservis was set up in 2008 and carries out repair and services for Defense Ministry properties as well as repair and maintenance of military equipment and provision of services to military garrison towns. 

A law enforcement source told RIA Novosti that no detentions are planned in the near future as part of the ongoing investigation. 

Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov was informed of the investigation and arrived at one of the locations being searched, law enforcement sources said on Thursday morning. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Putin met with Serdyukov and instructed him to ensure interaction with investigators on the Oboroneservis case. 

Presidential administration head Sergei Ivanov said it will be up to the court to rule who is guilty. 

“Only the court may determine whether a person is guilty or not. All the rest is vibrating air and propaganda,” Ivanov told journalists.

More details about the latest seizure and ongoing investigation can be found here.

Speculations

Now for the wild speculation.  It does not seem that any large and visible investigation such as this one is every done without the knowledge/approval of the Kremlin.  This investigation, and its timing, may indicate the model of having civilians as a part of the ministry of defense, and part of the defense and security structures within Russia, is under attack.  Many in the military have been unhappy with the civilian head of the Defense Ministry.  A good bio can be found at Wikipedia.

This may be more "Clan" maneuvering among Russia's elites, especially given the fact that Ivanov's held the position of Defense Minister prior to moving over to be head of the the Presidential administration in 2007.  If Kremlin watching is back in vogue, this makes for compelling television.

Why arms control is hard...

This item has been sitting in my reader for a few days.  This statement, made by Vladimir Putin, touches on so many aspects of international relations that I didn't quite know what direction I wanted to take in examining it.  First, the statement:

"Only sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council can serve as a basis for restricting weapons supplies to any particular country. In all other cases, nobody can use any pretext to dictate to Russia or any other country on how they should trade and with whom."

I would like to address two interesting points from the standpoint of my own research on arms transfer that this statement evinces.

1. Arms control is inherently difficult to begin if the two states that have the largest stake in the arms transfer game have an effective veto on limitations of their right to sell weapons.  This is a highly rational position for Russia to take if it sees arms sales as a vital part of its economic, military, or foreign policy portfolio. The built-in veto of the security council turns this international organization into a forum for state to state diplomacy rather than international action in the case of arms transfers.  What I mean by this is that in the case of the US and Russia having disputes over arms transfers to Syria, for example, the veto on the security council by each state means that either state can effectively get what they want in the absence of all but the most spirited international consensus.  
2. The second point is that Putin seems to put arms sales in the same category as other trade.  Nobody can dictate how they trade and with whom.  This is a very interesting sentiment for a state which recently was accepted into the WTO to have.  

The question about arms transfers being a different type of trade is one that I'll leave to another time.  However, Russia continues to hold firm to its position of autonomy in foreign policy.  Its leaders are unwilling to allow the state to be constrained by other states (i.e. the United States) or even by the international community more broadly.  

Russian Domestic Politics

Understanding Russian politics has always required a touch of second sight.  We had a talk on campus by John Zaller yesterday.  His talk was about American political parties. He noted that there is a lack of data about party nominations for most races - even Congressional races - in most years.  This is in a pretty open society.  The problem of data availability in Russia often leads to speculation - Kremlin watching - and inferences from the visible acts of the administration.

None of this is news to anyone who follows Russian politics.  I hadn't fully appreciated the issues associated with this issue until I began trying to understand Russian foreign policy.  Brian Whitmore over at Radio Free Europe has written a column detailing the schism between the elites in the Kremlin. He writes that this split is over the degree to which the Kremlin is willing to compromise with the middle class, continue its economic reforms, and tolerate media and popular dissent with the regime.  In this struggle in the Kremlin it is Putin v. Medvedev and their respective camps.  This particular conflict has likely been brewing behind the scenes for some time, but the position swapping of Putin and Medvedev in the most recent election seems to have exacerbated the tensions.

All of this serves as the backdrop for Russia's latest foreign policy moves vis-a-vis the United States.  According to Konstantin Von Eggert:

Russia became an irrelevant second-tier policy issue for the Americans quite some time ago. Until fairly recently, the Russian leadership had responded by using the so-called nuisance factor – i.e. making life difficult for the U.S. without crossing any red lines that might prompt an unpredictable U.S. reaction. No more. 

First by openly challenging the U.S. and the EU over Syria, and now by booting out an American government agency, Vladimir Putin has shown that he intends to turn this irrelevance to his regime's advantage and draw the red lines himself. 

He also demonstrated that his main policy concern is in fact domestic. Priority number one for Putin and his entourage is keeping his regime firmly in power and preventing development of the so-called Orange Scenario, along the lines of the peaceful 2004 revolution in Ukraine, which is widely perceived in Moscow to have been a Western plot to change the pro-Moscow regime there.

These domestic concerns also bear directly on the military and the military industrial complex in Russia.  One of the first items on Putin's agenda is the overhaul of Russia's defense sector.  This week he met with the Deputy Prime Minister in charge of the Defense industry, Dmitry Rozgin to push for modernization of the defense sector in Russia.

“This program must be tailored so that enterprises are modernized in parallel with the resolution of these social issues,” Putin said during a meeting with Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin.
Rogozin, who oversees the Russian defense industry, now faces the formidable task of streamlining weaponry development and production in the country. 

“This is an acute problem and you must take the appropriate steps in line with the state defense order,” Putin said. 

The president stressed the importance of direct support for the defense industry from both the state and the private sector. 

Russia’s defense industry brings together 1,353 organizations and companies in 64 regions of the country, and employs over 2 million people. 

The government has allocated 20 trillion rubles ($641 billion) to the comprehensive rearmament of Russia's Armed Forces. It is hoped this will see the share of modern weaponry reach 30% by 2015, with this figure rising to 70% by 2020. 

An additional 3 trillion rubles (approximately $100 bln) in public funds and about the same amount in private investment have been allocated to modernize the defense industry over the next decade.

These internal changes to Russia's defense industry will likely also affect Russia's foreign arms sales capabilities and priorities.