Russia Unveiled New 5th Generation Fighter Jet

 

By News Desk

Russia has unveiled a new 5th generation fighter jet earlier in this week. It is a single engine fighter just like American F-35 Lightening II. 

Russia is planning to showcase the fighter on 26th July 2021 during MAKS 2021 military hardware exhibition in Moscow.

It is believed that this new stealth fighter carries the same power plant which powers first Russian 5th gen fighter jet SU-57 Felon. 

Single engine 5th generation fighter jet of Russia would enable Russian air force to compete with NATO in next generation fighter era as it is going to play a critical role in overall balance of air power in Europe and Asia.

China is already in the race of producing 5th generation fighters. It has produced heavy J-20 Mighty Dragon and medium weight J-31. Both of these are though twin engine unlike American F-35 or this new Russian fighter. 

Inching Towards Showdown

By Tariq Niaz Bhatti

Recent elimination of Mullah Akhtar Mohammad Mansour, Amir of Afghan Taliban in a Drone strike speaks of US administration frustration in the ongoing protracted war in Afghanistan. Reportedly it was daylight Drone attack but a close look at the scattered evidence on the site of incident, tells a different story, a mismatch to the official version. But alleged drone strike vindicates the US unilateralism; the reluctance to be bound by rules made for others. The New World Order and its enforcement requires Imperial US power to be used to secure economic, political and military gains and ward off security threat to its economic and military interests all over the globe. Hence, the US forces are found operating in Syria and Iraq to recapture the areas lost to self-proclaimed Jihadist groups like ISIS and are planning to send troops in Libya to stabilize the security situation there.

Russia: Intensive Weapon Testing of PAK-FA

By News Desk
 
Russian latest 5th generation fighter Sukhoi T-50 PAK-FA 'fifth-generation' has conducted trials of munitions launched from its internal weapons bays for the first time, the former commander-in-chief of the Russian Aerospace Forces (VKS) General Vladimir Mikhailov told state TV.

Despite the announcement, the claim could not be confirmed by any other sources, and neither has it been disclosed which weapon types were launched during the trials.

According to IHS Janes, there are total 5 prototypes of PAK-FA out of which 3 prototypes (T-50-3, T-50-4, and T-50-5R)  have necessary avionics and radars installed required for weapon testing. These three prototypes are currently in the Ministry of Defence's test centre in Akhtubinsk, which specializes in the testing of mission systems and airborne weapons.

At the same time, the T-50-1 and T-50-2 are undergoing captive-carry tests in Zhukovsky near Moscow with various configurations of external loads. Among the noticed configurations there are two air-to-surface Kh-31 and two air-to-air R-73 missiles, and also six 250-kg free-fall bombs.

According to unofficial information, a sixth prototype will depart the production facility in Komsomolsk-on-Amur at the end of April. It will be the first aircraft of the second test batch, reportedly fitted with significant changes in the airframe structure.

PAKFA project has direct relevance to Indo-Pak military balance as well. India's next generation fighter program (FGFA) is based on PAKFA fighter. Though there are certain issues where both the countries are yet to settle their differences like amount of Indian investment and Russian cooperation in terms of transfer of technology to India along with the aircraft. 

IAF is planning to induct FGFA by mid of next decade and once inducted, this would pose a serious challenge to PAF which has not yet announced any plans to induct any next generation fighter aircraft and is contended with modernizing its 4th generation fighter fleet comprising on F-16s and JF-17 Thunders.

Pakistan reveals interest in Russian dual-control Mi-28NEs

BY News Desk

(IHS Janes)Pakistan has shown interest in acquiring the latest Russian Mil Mi-28NE Night Hunter dual-control variant of the Mil Mi-28 attack helicopter.  IHS Jane's reported on 24 March citing a Pakistani diplomatic source .

Due to its ballistic and radio-electronic protection,  dual-control variant of Mi-28NE meets the Pakistani armed forces' requirements for a platform in counter-terrorism operations. The dual-control Mi-28NE's advanced ballistic protection kit allows the helicopter to withstand several hits from 23 mm (airframe) and 30 mm (composite rotor blades) shells. Apart from it, its combat effectiveness has been improved over the basic Mi-28NE as both the pilot and gunner can control the aircraft.

Such features can significantly enhance the level of a helicopter's survivability on the modern battlefield, where adversaries frequently have anti-aircraft guns and man-portable air-defence systems (MANPADS).

Russia has previously offered Pakistan four Mi-28NEs without dual controls to support Islamabad's counter-terrorism operations: an offer that fostered resentment from India. The source noted that, although that offer was not furthered, when Rostvertol, Mil's parent company, launched serial production of the dual-control Mi-28NE, "Pakistan showed its intention to take the issue from the table".

In 2015 Islamabad signed a contract with Russian defence export agency Rosoboronexport for four Mi-35M ('Hind-J') attack helicopters, the deliveries of which are scheduled for 2016.

Understanding Russian Withdrawal From Syria

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

 What forced Putin to announce a withdrawal of Russian forces from Syria? This is perhaps the most debated issue, currently, in global strategic community.

Considering Putin's seemingly abrupt announcement of intervention in Syria in September 2015 and even more abrupt announcement of withdrawal, which in reality is a major draw down, leaves no doubt that Putin wants to keep his cards hidden till the very last. This is good strategy towards denying other players the ability to anticipate his next move. Once again, he has succeeded in retaining the element of strategic surprise to himself. 

Super Aircraft Carrier & New Destroyers: Resurgence of Russian Maritime Power

Shahzad Masood Roomi

Maritime developments in Eastern Europe and Baltic states carry all the signs of beginning of a new Cold War in 21st century which would usher a new era of arms race in the region. As the NATO and the US are supplying weapons to the Eastern European and Baltic States' naval forces, Russian response has also been a swift one in mitigating the threat and keeping the balance of power in its favor. 

Poland is looking for anti-ship cruise missiles (ideally US Harpoon) for its submarines while new submarines are also on order. US would gladly supply Poland with these missiles and new submarines as it will serve US interests in the region and would also help to extend the political control by establishing Poland defenses as close NATO ally under a constant Russian threat. US diplomacy in the close proximity of Russia revolves around a containment policy. 

Russian response is a more aggressive posturing in the region. New Russian maritime projects indicate a renewal of Russian Navy's 4 battle commands with 4 carrier groups. A detailed look on these projects makes it obvious that Russia is not ready to accept the expansion of NATO to its borders. From Russian perspective, the execution of this modernization drive has both political and military dynamics. This Russian modernization is a strong signal to Western Europe and Washington about how Moscow feels about NATO expansion in its backyard but more importantly, it is also an indication that Russia is going to play a more assertive role in future geopolitics of the region and beyond. Russian intervention in Syria to save Asad’s regime there is the indistinct manifestation of this.

Once Russia complete the modernization of its naval forces with multipurpose heavy aircraft carriers, it will certainly begin to play a more assertive role in Arctic Circle, Atlantic Ocean and, many be troubled Pacific Rim of Indian Ocean. Below are the details of Russian Super Carrier program and future destroyer program.

Russian Super Carrier Program:

Project 23000E or Shtorm is the name of a new multipurpose heavy aircraft carrier design for Russian naval forces. The project is going to be executed by Krylovsky State Research Center (KRSC).

The design features a split air wing comprising navalized T-50 PAK/FA and Mig-29Ks, as well as jet powered naval AEW platforms. The ship is going to house Ka-27 helicopters as well. 

Valery Polyakov, the deputy director of KSC informed media about the design goals of this multipurpose carrier;

"The carrier is designed to conduct operations in remote and oceanic areas, engage land-based and sea-borne enemy targets, ensure the operational stability of naval forces, protect landing troops, and provide the anti-aircraft defense," 

The initial specifications show that the ship would be a competitor to USN Nimitz class with its displacement of 90-100,000 tons, and length of 330 meters. Ship will carry 80 - 90 aircraft of various sorts as per mission requirements. The ship would be 40 meters wide with a draft of 11 meters.

Its crusie speed will be 20kt while it will have a top speed of 30 kt. The endurance of carrier in the sea is intended at 4 month time.  The biggest hurdle will be designing of non-conventional propulsion for such a heavy ship.

The project is an ambitious one as it is being designed with provision of dual design angled flight deck with four launch positions: 2 from Ski-Jump and 2 from electromagnetic catapults.

The main design feature which set it apart from conventional carrier design is inclusion of two island concept. It will separate the running of the ship from the flying operations resulting in greater visibility of flying operations and allowing other commander to focus more on maritime maneuvering in the sea.

Russian internet source claims that funds for the project has already been allocated.

Russian Future Destroyer: 

Apart from this heavy duty carrier, a new class of destroyer for the Russian Navy is currently under development by the Krylov State Research Center (KSRC), IHS Jane's was told during a visit to the company.

The new destroyer design called Project 23560E or Shkval (Squall) is being pursued for Russian naval forces by Krylovsky State Research Center (KRSC). A scale model of the design was exhibited for the first time during the International Maritime Defence Show 2015 held earlier in St Petersburg.

By looking at its specifications it can easily be labeled as a Cruiser. At full-load its displacement will be between 15,000-18,000 tons. It has a length of 200 meters, beam of 23 meters. It can cruise at speed of 2o kt while its maximum speed is 32kt. It can operate for 90 days in the sea with a crew of 250-300 on board. Despite its massive displacement and size, it will still be powered by gas turbine engine.

Russian manufacturer has plans to install a battle management system integrated with tactical and operational-tactical ACSs on these destroyers which will provide commander a clear situational awareness during the maritime engagements. This battle management system will get data from multiple on-board sensors multi-functional phased array radar, electronic warfare subsystem, communications suite, underwater reconnaissance system. Each ship will be able to house two ship borne helicopters.

The destroyer carries huge amount of missiles in vertical launching arramgenets. These include 60-70 anti-ship or anti-land cruise missiles, 128 surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and 16-24 anti-submarine missiles. The ship is also equipped with a 130 mm multipurpose naval gun.

Syrian Conflict Enters In Disturbing New Phase

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Just days after the fateful incident of Russian SU-24, Syrian conflict is taking a rather uglier turn as more disturbing events are unfolding. 

In the latest developments, Syrian government has accused US led coalition warplanes of attacking a Syrian Army Camp in Deir ez Zor province. The incident is first of its kind which has taken place amid ongoing allegations and counter-allegations between Turkey and Russia triggered in the aftermath of SU-24 downing row and can very easily trigger a new round of more kinetic confrontation between US and Russian led alliances.

The Syrian government has said that 3 people were dead while 13 got injured and number of military vehicles were destroyed. According to Syrian government, the coalition jets fired nine missiles at an army camp in the Deir ez Zor province, which remains mostly under the control of Islamic State. 

The Syrian Foreign Ministry has filed an official protest with the UN Security Council regarding the US-led coalition’s airstrikes on Syrian troops, Syria’s SANA official news agency reported Monday.

“Syria strongly condemns the act of aggression by the US-led coalition that contradicts the UN Charter on goals and principles. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has sent letters to the UN Secretary General and the UN Security Council,” SANA quoted the foreign ministry as saying.

US and Coalition Rejects Allegations:

The US and allied nations’ coalition has denied the Syrian claims.

Brett McGurk, Obama’s envoy to Syria, on his Twitter account, said that there had been no coalition strikes anywhere within 55 kilometers (35 miles) of the said camp.

"Reports of coalition involvement are false," he wrote in his tweet.

Apart from him, the coalition spokesman Colonel Steve Warren also commented on Syrian allegations saying, ”We’ve seen those Syrian reports but we did not conduct any strikes in that part of Deir ez Zor yesterday. So we see no evidence,” 

The Deir ez Zor province is situated in eastern Syria, and is largely controlled by Islamic State (IS). The region is of significant strategic importance to the terrorist group, as it contains a number of oilfields, which are a major source of revenue for IS.

Syrian government is declaring the US led coalition bombing in Syria against ISIS as illegal. According to some unconfirmed reports, President Putin has reportedly already declared the Syrian crisis a beginning of World War III and forces have been ordered to prepare for a global scale conflict. 

In another related development, Iraq has given Turkey an ultimatum of 48 hours to leave Iraqi territory while Turkey has said that it has right to protect its soldiers. This ultimatum comes after Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu's letter of his Iraqi counterpart Haider Al Abadi in which it is promised and assured that there will be no deployment of Turkish forces in Iraq until Baghdad's concerns are addressed. 

ANALYSIS:

If this string of events prolongs it can easily get out of control and no one will be able to prevent a regional conflict at much larger scale. The region is slowly drifting towards a larger conflict. with UN clearly finding itself irrelevant. These are perilous trends for peace and security. Any regional conflict triggered from Syria, would not only jeopardize global peace but would also destroy UN as global conflict resolution body.

It seems all the major stakeholders fighting against a common threat of IS have a complete diplomatic breakdown and events like Su-24 downing and alleged US coalition strike on an Syrian camp can easily send wrong signals regarding the intentions of opposite alliance. It is time that countries like Pakistan or China who are not involved in this mess take some initiative to salvage the prospects of peace. Any forum can be utilized for such an diplomatic incentive but whatever has to be done it must be done on war footings. Trends in Syria are obviously turning disturbing it not alarming!

Russia Puts Sanctions on Turkey, Blamed It for Protect ISIS Oil Trade: What Next?

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Crisis in Syria is engulfing neighboring states as Russia and Turkey has exchanged accusations and counter-accusations. Russia has claimed that Turkey shot down its SU-24 to protect illegal oil trade of ISIS. Turkey has strongly challenged these allegations and has demanded proofs from Russia for the same. As the temperature is rising over this row of allegations and counter allegations, the world leaders are visibly panicked.  President Obama has urged both Russia and Turkey to reduce tension. 

Two days back, Turkey-Russia bilateral relations hit yet another low as Russia retaliated against Turkey again by imposing economic sanctions on Ankara after severing the military ties over downing of a Russian Su-24 bomber fighter near Syrian border. Russian President has signed the decree.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had earlier announced that Turks will have to apply for visas to visit Russia. 

Russia has described the sanctions “aimed at ensuring national security and that of Russian citizens” and included a ban on charter flights between the two countries and on Russian businesses hiring any new Turkish nationals as well as import restrictions on certain Turkish goods, according to a text of the decree released by the Kremlin.

On its part, Turkish leadership has begun to realize the gravity of situation as Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan earlier expressed “sadness” over the incident which has severely strained relations, saying that “we wish it had never happened.”

After this statement of Turkish President,  it was hoped that the tensions will be lowered but Russia now has accused Turkey to protect illegal oil smuggling by ISIS and has blamed that SU-24 was downed to cover this oil trade of terrorist group. Reacting to this latest allegation, Turkish president Erdogan says ready to resign if claims about Turkey's buying oil from IS are confirmed.  

ANALYSIS:

Stakes are getting higher on both sides with every passing day. Turkey has made it clear that it will not apologies and it seems Russia would not accept anything less. Is it making of a new conflict in the region? Might be and might be not. But certainly this incident is going to play a significant role in shaping future geopolitics in the region. 

Turkey is almost in similar position Pakistan was in 1980's. Pakistan's then strategic mindset was outcome of firm belief that Soviets will continue there southward march towards the hot waters of Arabian Sea. Once they captured Afghanistan, Pakistan will be their natural target. With India as their main ally, there matrix for Pakistan's national security would be complicated further. So, stopping Soviets in Afghan gorges were considered vital national security interest. Pakistan decided to fight against Soviets in Afghanistan. Americans came to help in 1982 when they saw initial success of Pakistan backed elements. It was afterwards of 1983 when Pakistan began to made strategic miscalculations about the intentions of CIA who was there just to defeat oldest global enemy of Uncle Sam. CIA won the war and left the region in late 1980s after turning Afghanistan into a strategic black hole. (World came to know about the reality of Operation Cyclone of CIA in 1998 when former US national security adviser to President Carter, Brzezinski disclosed that it was all along CIA's plan to lure Soviets in Afghanistan. Pakistan has been playing the price of letting CIA run "Jihad" in Afghanistan since that time.

The most ironic aspect of this entire episode is that why Islamabad didn't engage Moscow on diplomatic levels to assess their plans? Global balance of power was disturbed after Soviet collapse.

Today, Turkey is NATO ally just like Pakistan was in 1980's. Russia is in its neighbor, just like it was in Pakistan's neighbor in 1980's. Pakistan was told by the US to prepare its defenses as Soviets will be targeting Pakistan next. Turkey, is also being encouraged to defend itself against Russia.

It is a good sign that Turkish President has expressed his sadness on this issue. Turkish diplomacy must engage Russia constructively. Formation of a join investigation team to prob Su-24 destruction can be proposed as a first measure to clam down enraged Putin. 

Any more aggression from Turkey, even on diplomatic level, would only complicate things for Turkey. Based on its own past experience, Pakistan must also advice the Ankara in this regard. Otherwise, just like World War 1, some 100 years ago, the region is drifting towards a larger conflict or a new Cold War.

US Special Forces in Syria, Implications for Region and Turkey

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Back in 2013, the US president announced that he will never send US troops in any open ended conflict like Afghanistan and Iraq. Irony is, he announced to do the same just a few days back when he told the world that US is to send Special Forces in Syria. Though the US authorities have made it clear more than once that these forces will have no combat role (but only assist and advise) but it is obvious that this move would only escalate the conflict now even more as now the Russian forces have weakened the Syrian rebel groups including ISIS. Any intervention of the US Special Forces to do the same would be strategically a futile practice.  

What does all this mean for the region? but a more important question remains that why the US President had to announce the plans to send troops in Syria after making prior commitment of not sending more troops in open ended conflicts? Another related question is why President Obama announced boot on Syrian ground after Russia has weakened many of the Syrian armed groups and Syrian army is gearing up for a decisive operations to take back important towns from ISIS? What does actually the US is trying to achieve here? All these questions are intriguing for anyone interested in Syrian conflict and Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Regional Implications

There are number of theories circulating in open source domain to answer the question that who actually is pulling the strings in Washington to force Obama to make US fight more wars and to worsen its standing even more among Muslim populace? Few think that it is Israel or Military Industrial Complex ... but all the policy decisions in Washington are not being made by either of these. The fact is Israel and Russia had agreed to coordinate military actions on Syria even before Russia actually started military operations there. For Israel, the more immediate threat is Hizbollah, not Assad. 

Since the onset of Russian military campaign in Syria, the Western media has reported that Russian jets are actually hitting hideouts and strongholds of Syrian rebels which were armed and backed by the US. 

Actually, the US has plans to rearm and regroup all the proxies against Russia in order to maintain the firm grip on the region. This perpetual war in Syria, which is now expanding towards Turkey, is nothing more than extension of geopolitics by other means; both for Russia and the US. Neither is interested in eliminating Islamic State or other groups. They are nothing more than proxies in this brawl between two powers. Perhaps this is why the US rejected the Russian offer to conduct joint ops against ISIS.

This explains why fewer than 50 special forces personnel are being sent to Syria and to be “headquartered” in northeastern Syria with a “wide range of groups,” including Syrian Arabs, Turkmen, and Kurds, according to a senior US defense official. While the forces will be fully equipped to defend themselves, the official said Friday, their mission is “strictly advise and assist.”, reported by Defenseone military intelligence website.
But the most important and relevant passage of the report read something like this:

"A senior Obama administration official told Defense One in a statement earlier Friday that more F-15 strike fighters and A-10 Warthog close-air-support jets are on the way to Incirlik Airbase in Turkey. The senior defense official said a dozen A-10s are already at Incirlik, and they’re finalizing a package of roughly the same number of F-15s. The aircraft will support an effort to “thicken” air operations in northern Syria and to secure the border between Syria and Turkey."

Implications for Turkey:

Clearly, Turkey is already facing a rise in unrest and chaos with fears of further violence within her borders as it has made a similar arrangement with the US as was made by Pakistan on Afghanistan. Now Syrian fighters would be driven into Turkey (may be under the garb of being refugees just like many Afghan terrorists ended inside Pakistani camps for Afghan refugees). Only advantage Turkey has is a completely manned border. But how this can protect Turkey from any chaos or internal security risks, being posed by this perpetual state of war in Middle East, is yet to be seen!

It will be wiser to Turkey to pen and announce the terms of engagements for these US operations from her soil. Pakistani governments maintained duality on this issue (ensuring support to the US on drone strike privately and protesting on the same publicly and in the end, Pakistan had to pay a lots of civilian lives as well), it is hopped that Gen. Raheel told the same to his Turkish counterpart the same during his visit to Turkey!

So, What is fundamentally Wrong in Middle East?

The chaos in the Middle East is nothing new. It is only its present violent incarnation which is being broadcast world over is something making it look like a new phenomenon. Within US, there are strong voices telling President Obama that Diplomacy, not US 'boots on the ground', is still the best option in Syria and in retrospective analysis of Middle East Chaos it is obvious that Washington's choice to solve political issues through military strategy alone has transformed a region, infested with ethnic tensions, into an imbroglio. Sooner the US revisit its approach better it would be not just for the region but for the entire world as well.

Russia: Response to US Missile Defense Shield

In a strategic response to the US Missile Defense Shield (MDS), Russia has announced to resume the production of its strategic bomber plane Tu-160.

According to Airforce Technology website, "The Tu-160 is capable of carrying the strategic cruise missile Kh-55MS, which is known in the West by the Nato designation and codename AS-15 Kent. Up to 12 Kh-55MS missiles can be carried, six in each bay. The Kh-55MS is propelled by a turbofan engine. The maximum range is 3,000km, and it is armed with a 200kt nuclear warhead.

The weapons bays are also fitted with launchers for the Kh-15P, which has the Nato designation and codename AS-16 Kickback. The Kh-15P Kickback has solid rocket fuel propulsion, which gives a range up to 200km. The Kickback can be fitted with a conventional 250kg warhead or a nuclear warhead. The aircraft is also capable of carrying a range of aerial bombs with a total weight up to 40t."

With its more than 7,300 Km combat radius, this platform is nothing short of a nightmare for the NATO. Air launched nuclear missiles would eventually would not give any time to the US MDS to react.

“In light of development of US antiballistic missile defense system the importance of ground-based and submarine-based missiles is decreasing, because the whole defense system is focused on intercepting the ballistic missiles. Thus the importance of strategic bombers increases. That is why we are paying special attention to the aviation. Unfortunately Russia fell behind in 1990s and 2000s. We were developing mobile missile systems instead of long-range aviation; however, the missile systems are vulnerable. Now we are going to focus on the long-range aviation,” president of the Academy of geopolitical problems, Leonid Ivashov, told Sputnik.

Reportedly, the avioincs of the Tu-160 would be upgraded to enhance its operational performance and survival against modern SAM systems. Russian firm, Radioelectronic Technologies Concern (KRET) is ready to start the production of avionics for the strategic bomber.

Rafale or PAK-FA? Debate on Future of Indian Air Force

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

As India and France have been working on MRCA deal for 126 Rafale jets, Indian PM has announced a separate deal of 36 Rafale jets which will be delivered in fly away conditions as soon as possible. This deal would accelerate the modernization of IAF fleet. Along with this deal, if MRCA deals goes through Indian Air Force would have 160+ Rafale fighters in its fleet in the next decade.

According to Indian defense minister Manohar Parrikar, these Rafale fighters would be inducted into IAF within next two years making it clear that this off-the-shelf deal is part of Indian plans to immediately provide IAF two squadrons of state of the art fighters that it desperately need to upgrade its aging fleet. Commenting on this new deal, Dassault CEO, Eric Trappier maintained that there was a  real operational need because India needs combat jets to counter modernization of certain countries hinting towards modernization programs of PLAAF and PAF. China and Pakistan.

But there is a bigger debate going on within Indian defense and strategic community about the future of IAF as it was reported by IHS Janes earlier this week.

"The central difficulty is what analysts in India described to IHS Jane's as a "massive disconnect between the Ministry of Defence [MoD], the IAF, and the political community in India who have to contend with larger diplomatic and industrial issues" on what the future IAF should look like"

According to Janes, the conflict revolves around the views of those who favors Rafale and those who consider Russian T-50/PAK-FA 5th generation fighter. This conflict is part of larger debate regarding the future outlook of Indian front line fighter fleet. IAF is inclined towards more Western platforms but not the US made platforms, describes Janes' report. Apart from this difference of views on future orientation of IAF, financial constraints are also remains important dynamics affecting the overall debate on choosing French or Russian fighter planes.

"If you put your resources into the T-50, then the IAF becomes an almost all-Russian fleet, and you are betting your future force structure on an aeroplane that is almost solely on paper at present. If you decide to go with the Rafale, then you are forgetting about having a fifth-generation aeroplane, but at least you know everything on this platform exists and works pretty much as advertised," Janes quoted an unnamed Indian defense analyst.

It is obvious, that if IAF is not looking for F-35 from the US the PAK-FA program is there and IAF would pursue it for its 5th Gen fighter requirements. India may ended up with slashing MRCA altogether and settled for deal of 36 Rafale while diverting resources to PAK-FA. Though, PAK-FA is still in early phase of development unlike Rafale which enetered in operational service with French air force years ago but this is the only 5th generation joint venture which India can be part of, France does not has any 5th generation fighter development project as advanced as PAK-FA.

Although now many Indian experts are casting doubts on the future of MRCA citing the alleged French refusal for transfer of technology but considering the current procurement trends, it would be prudent to consider a future IAF fleet comprises on US made transporters (C-130, C-17), French and Russian 4++ generation fighters (Rafale. SU-30MKI) and Russian 5th generation fighters (PAK-FA), while Israel providing AWACS platforms.

   

NATO's Response to Russian Hybrid Warfare: Is the Strategy Right?

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

"We need a collective defence where Allied forces are more ready to deploy.

And better able to reinforce each other.

Faster.

Sharper.

And more mobile.

We must be able to deter any threat, from any direction.  Including hybrid warfare, and attacks that are aimed at our infrastructure -- our economies -- and our open societies.

This requires resolve.

And resources.

We have shown the resolve.

We are fundamentally changing NATO’s defence posture. To ensure we have the right forces -- in the right place -- at the right time."

This is an excerpt from speech of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at the 51st Munich Security Conference, held from 6-8 Feb. in Munich, Germany. Complete text of his speech is available on official site on following link:

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_117320.htm?selectedLocale=en

ANALYSIS:

Now when the NATO has officially accepted that age of Hybrid Warfare is here and have announced critical steps to combat the percieved threats from Russian Hybrid strategy. There are two aspects of his speech which demand a critical analysis.

1. As a response strategy, Mr, Stoltenberg has told that NATO has prescribed the  establishment of a "spearhead Force".
2. NATO has decided to established first command and control units in six eastern Allies: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania on war footings these units are ought to provide support to rapid deployment of spearhead force along with regular NATO troops.

Ostensibly, this seems some well devised and coordinated steps in deterring Russian threats which have been classified as 'Hybrid' by NATO's secretary general. But by looking at this NATO's response strategy, which overwhelmingly is Kinetic in nature, it would be prudent to contemplate if these steps are really adequate response to Moscow's aggressive actions in Ukraine, Baltic and other parts of Eastern Europe. Hybrid tactics in their nature are complex and compounded with more focus on Non-Kinetic tactics than Kinetic means. Hybrid strategy includes implementation of multiple conventional, sub conventional. economic, psychological and political tactics simultaneously in order to create more options for own state while at the squeezing the space for opponent in all three decisive battlefields of Hybrid War, as defined by former US Army officer Col. Jack McCuen i.e.

1. Physical Conflict zone & its population; 
2. Home front (Own Population) 
3. International community. 

NATO's strategy, so far, does not cater the delicacies related to dynamics of war which affect directly local and international population. NATO nations just ended one of their longest war in Afghanistan last year and now yet another intense war is lurking around the corner. Most of the troops and member nations are still not clear why they were in Afghanistan and what this prolonged war there has achieved. It can be argued that NATO did respond with non-kinetic measures when economic sanctions were imposed over Russia but in hindsight they, evidently, not only proved ineffective but rather counter-productive.

But question, remains why NATO considers Russian threats as 'Hybrid' in the first place? Latest reference to Russian overtures being Hybrid was made by former NATO secretary general Andres Fogh Rasmussen, who warned that "Russia may use "hybrid war" methods in Baltics to test NATO solidarity" while giving an interview to a UK daily. "There is a high probability that he will intervene in the Baltics to test NATO's Article 5," Rasmussen said during the interview while referring to the solidarity clause of the North Atlantic Treaty that underpins collective security.  Interestingly, the above mentioned speech of current NATO secretary general also contains the reference to Hybrid nature of Russian threat in almost same sense. Intrinsic problem with NATO's kinetic strategy is that it is devoid of any approach to address the real target of Russian hybrid war i.e. "Solidarity" within NATO. Fear of Red Bear may work for sometime, but with a growing Euro-Zone crisis, asking for more defense funds and spending, making more aggressive military oriented strategies and inability to finish ongoing conflicts will eventually damage NATO's solidarity as Putin has in his mind.

In NATO not all the nations have luxury of spending more on defense right now and this new Kinetic strategy is certainly going to put lots of pressure on stable European economies like Germany and France. By looking at this strategy it seems that NATO perceived Russian hybrid threats posed to 'Sovereignty' of EU instead of 'Solidarity' of its defense alliance which guards European sovereignty but once its solidarity compromised, many East European nations will be 'hoping' for peace. Putin's timing of igniting Ukraine is also an intriguing aspect of this whole crisis. Prolonged economic crisis of Europe, shortness of resources due to budgetary cuts on defense in EU and psychological stress of prolonged deployment in war zones of Afghanistan and other parts are being masterly exploited by Putin and NATO's response is more military oriented that is going to exacerbate all of these nuisances within Europe and at the same time provoking Russia even more with deployment of forces in Baltics and Russian neighbors. This is not how an alliance keeps its solidarity intact, this is how an alliance prepare for a war. If NATO is doing so. Someone there must go through history to all the Western invaders who entered the Russia in the past. And this is the point when many of the European states would start to look at their own interest irrespective to what NATO wants. And this is exactly what Putin is striving for!    

India's quest for Permanent UNSC Membership Amid Fluid South Asian Geopolitics

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

"We have made considerable progress in establishing and expanding defence contacts and exchanges, including across our borders. We contribute to the maintenance of peace and tranquility - a pre-requisite for the further development of our relationship - and on the boundary question, my government is committed to exploring an early settlement."

This was stated by Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj as she winds up her four days trip to Beijing where she interacted with her Russian and Chinese counter parts and Chinese President Xi Jinping. The visit was a critical development in the backdrop of the US President Obama's recent visit to India in which both the nations vows to form a strategic partnership in Asia-Pacific in which India is ought to play a major role not only in the region but also at global level. Primarily, the visit was aimed to secure the Chinese and Russian support for Indian bid for a permanent seat in UNSC. Other obvious objective was to preparing grounds for Indian Prime Minister's upcoming visit of Beijing in May later this year.

ANALYSIS:

As far as the primary objective is concerned, there has no substantial development. Chinese are really concerned about new upswing in Indo - US relations particularly the Indian role in Pacific rim of Indian Ocean. Other than that, Indian permanent seat in the UN would also reduce Chinese political influence in the global and regional affairs and that is something not acceptable to Beijing.

Swaraj, during her visit, highlighted areas like economics, trade, tourism, infrastructural developments as way forward to boost bilateral ties. But these issues are trivial in nature and have limited implications for the both when viewed from strategic vantage point and this is what 13th joint communique released at the end of trilateral meeting of foreign ministers of India, China and Russia. "Foreign Ministers of China and Russia reiterated the importance they attached to the status of India in international affairs and supported its aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations." This was the only reference made to the Indian efforts to secure UNSC permanent mandate and it was exactly the same what was stated in the 12th joint communique released last year. Evidently, there have been no concrete progress on this account and owing the fluid regional geopolitics, Chinese will remain very cautious about a veto power India.

It is notice worthy that Chinese foreign minister will be visiting Pakistan on 12th of this month to finalize the upcoming visit of Chinese President Xi jinping that is expected in March this year.

RIC & Global Politics:

The visit and the subsequent meetings and the release of communique at the end of this RIC foreign ministers summit, despite no major development on Indian quest for permanent UNSC seat,  is an important event amid complex geopolitics in South Asia and Asia Pacific regions where India is looking to to play a more assertive role. Being world's largest market, India has become strategically attractive to US, China and Russia. China has emerged a powerful global players in the last ten years and Russia has certainly shown resurgence on global political affairs. China and Russia, both these permanent members of UNSC want UN reforms but not with India being a permanent member state and strategic partner of the US simultaneously. On the other hand, India holds the key for the US to maintain its political and military dominance in the region due to India's geography and close proximity to the Indian Ocean, vast population and one of the world's longest coastlines. With this profile, the fast changing geopolitics has placed India in a position to bargain with all three permanent members of UNSC to secure her strategic interests. Modi government is fully aware of this strategic importance of India and this explains Delhi's very aggressive and exertive foreign policy in the region. But, this foreign policy is about to hit a crossroad where Modi will have to make some harsh choices which can reshape the regional geopolitics and Indian role in it as well. India will have to address Chinese and Russian concerns over American overtures in the region and Indian role in them as a strategic partner particularly Washington's Asian Pivot strategy for 21st century which is going to marginalize the Chinese growing military and economic influence in Asia-Pacific, South Asia and Indian Ocean. 

Washington's policy aims to achieve the similar strategic results with India as it got with Japan and South Korea after World War II. The US is poised to have military footprint in India just like she established in Japan and South Korea. In Beijing, this US strategy is being perceived as an attempt of strategic encirclement of China and reaction is manifestation of  Beijing's won plans like 'String of Perl' New Silk Route,and Pak-China Economic Corridor etc. But in the long run, China will take a very cautious discourse in responding joint Indo-US strategic partnership and letting India go completely in the US camp is not an option for Beijing as well at least not now when China is fully focus on South China Sea. This is why, China wants more engagements with India on trade and business along with other measures of mutual trusts. But how long this Chinese strategy of engagement will work depends upon the various factors which are beyond Beijing's control like India's own ambitions to make Indian Ocean completely "India's Ocean", Indian participation in anti-China Quadrilateral alliance in Asia-Pacific, Indian permission to the US to use Indian military installations, Indian Navy's role in South China Sea as the US partner, Indian aggressive policy in Thailand, escalation of border disputes etc. All these developments are going to decide the outcome of regional geopolitics.

Amid this compounded regional scenario, it will be a daunting challenge for Modi to secure Chinese support on matters such as seeking a permanent UNSC seat. There are too many variables. Even Russian support Indian aspirations in the region but only as a RIC partner not the way Washington envisions India's greater role in the region. It was perceptibly expressed by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at ministerial meeting as he reaffirmed the role of the three countries ' as a key factor in international politics' in a complex period for the world. 

There has been a general agreement since long that 21st century is going to be Asia's century and the prevailing fluid geopolitical landscape of South Asia explains why!

   
  

  

     

Geopolitics of Pipelines and Energy Wars!

By Shahzad Masood Roomi

Many analysts around the world has been caught by surprise when, during his visit to Turkey, Russian President Putin announced to stop South Stream gas pipeline project which was to be built through Black Sea, around Ukraine, to Eastern Europe with multi billion dollar investment by major gas production and distribution firms. According to the Russian gas production giant Gazprom, major investor in the plan, the route of this planned gas pipeline was to run from Eastern Russia to Balkans through beneath the Black Sea, avoiding volatile Ukrainian territory, to Germany after passing through Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungry etc. Major Russian goal through this pipeline was to follow the strategy to diversify the gas supply routes to the Europe.

South Stream pipeline Route ( Soruce: Gazprom)

According to the Western analysts, the ambitious project became the casualty of Ukrainian crisis and its demise shows the limits of Moscow's energy bullying. This analysis stems from the perception that the construction of South Stream pipeline would have given Moscow more leverage to demand concessions from the government in Kiev, which is seeking closer ties with Europe. It is worth noticing that Gazprom was a major investor in the project investing more than 50% of total cost. This was conceived in EU as a Russian attempt to monopolize the gas supply to Eastern rim of Europe.  On the other hand, Russian sources and analysts believe that the project was doomed by EU.

“If Europe does not want to implement the project, then it won’t be implemented. We will refocus our energy resources to other parts of the world,” Putin said on Monday in the Turkish capital, Ankara, after a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

This decision by Preisdent Putin has stirred a heated debate within EU as well. James Henderson of the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, believes that countries on Eastern rim of Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary) are pretty exposed to a energy crisis if Ukrainian conflict escalates. Putin may be trying to fracture the discussion within the EU,” Henderson says.

Andras Deak, an associate fellow at the Hungarian Institute of International Affairs, told Bloomberg News that "the scrapping of South Stream complicates the region’s energy security, making it all the more dependent on the Ukrainian pipeline. The EU and the IMF effectively will have to finance Ukraine’s gas bill now, if they want to make sure that gas keeps flowing through Ukraine to Europe.”

So how does this Russian decision is actually going to affect the regional energy security and geopolitics? Is it really a European win and a Russian lose? Or Russia is playing her cards more wisely on grand chessboard?

ANALYSIS:

This decision of abandoning the gas pipeline project seems inevitable one considering the contentious Russian-EU diplomatic ties over Ukrainian conflict. Ostensibly, it seems that the scrapping of South Stream would haunt Russian interests more than East European states (at least in short to mid term span), but a holistic analysis of this decision in context of bigger geopolitical picture demands a more closer examination of all the factors critical to the regional diplomacy.

European analysts believe that the main reason behind canceling the project is mainly economic and not political. Ruble has slided more than 22% against US Dollars during recent months causing US$90-100 Billions to the Russian economy. This explains why many Western analysts believe that Putin has caught in a perfect geopolitical storm due to its aggressive intervention in Ukraine. Coming out of this situation would not be easy for Moscow without making a compromise on Ukraine. But this Western analysis and narrative does not explains this decision in context of bigger picture of regional geopolitics.

By looking at the Western analyses, it seems that to overcome the financial shock, caused by Western sanctions, Putin is taking some immediate steps. After losing close ally like Germany, it would be difficult for Moscow to compensate the lost ground on economic front in short period of time. To make the matters worse, Russia is in no position to expand its Eurasian energy integration infrastructure towards South through Central Asian States (CAS) as the strategic sand has shifted and one of the major Cold War era Russian ally in South Asia, (India) has become the US strategic partner. Apart from that, CAS want to expand their own energy grid towards South (TAPI pipeline is vivid manifestation) and after that, India and Pakistan would be able to meet their energy demands from this pipeline.


But actually, Putin's decision was not irrational or illogical as Western analysts are trying to paint it.

Russia had already secured the huge Chinese energy market for herself before announcing the abandonment of South Stream. Earlier last month, Russia and China entered into a strategic energy partnership (worth $400 Billion). Apart from that, Russia has announced to built the gas pipeline to Balkans via a new route passing through Turkey.

Apart from that, Putin has outplayed the West on economic front by evading European and American project in Ukraine which was part of encirclement policy of Washington against Moscow. Putin rendered the plans hatched to cage the red bear in Russian mainland using Baltic States and Ukraine into quixotic dreams.

Despite the fact that till the recent deal with China and Turkey manifests into reality, the Russian economy would stay under stress there is no Soviet era like threat to Russian economy. This short term stress explains why National Bank of Russia had to cut its growth forecast for next year to zero sighting the decline in oil prices and Ruble's decline against Dollar. But believing that this stress would dent Russian economy in serious way is nothing more than a fantasy. In order to keep the Russian energy sector alive, the China-Russia deal was secured despite a heavy cost of accepting Chinese influence in Russian energy sector. Due to this deal, Russian oil & gas production company, OAO Rosneft, would sell a 10% stake in a Siberian unit to state-owned China National Petroleum Corp. One can argue that Chinese influence on the Russian policy making is increasing and this compromise by Russia is a manifestation of that. But for Russia, through this arrangement, Chinese would be providing much needed investment to the Russian energy sector. A natural strategic alliance between Beijing and Moscow is in making where former is securing its energy supplies by securing latter's economy.

Lowering the prices of oil failed to work the way it was expected. US-Saudi nexus kept the production of oil  at same oil while dropped the prices to dent the Russian economy but that hasn't work to required extent so far and in future it will not because unlike Iran, apart from oil, Russians are principle suppliers of gas to major part of Europe and the entire hoopla of ending the threat of monopolization of European gas supplies by eliminating the South Stream is a big hoax considering the fact that Russia is still biggest supplier of gas to Europe via Nord Stream pipeline which runs under the Baltic Sea from  Vyborg in the Russian Federation to Greifswald in Germany. 

Nord Stream Pipeline - Major Energy supply route to Germany and Western Europe

This makes it clear that the entire media buzz about the Russian economic and political isolation is nothing more than a well coordinated propaganda. The fact that Russian banks are buying the physical currency like Gold from all over the world which in the long run is going to support Russian currency against US dollars which is rapidly losing its value against gold.

A quiet aspect of this energy war in Eurasia is how Turkish geography would become more relevant in the regional geopolitics. If Russian plans to expand the gas pipeline to Greece via Turkey materializes smoothly, the Bulgarian resistance to South Stream would be another futile European endeavor and by looking at the recent developments, this possibility is not a distinct one!