#1_1-8
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
WWW.DAY.KIEV.UA<br />
TOPIC OF THE DAY No.1 JANUARY 16, 2018 5<br />
VALENTYN BADRAK<br />
By Ivan KAPSAMUN, The Day<br />
Having decided to provide<br />
arms to Ukraine, the US is<br />
worried about the possibility<br />
of US military technology<br />
falling into Russian soldiers’<br />
hands. This is stated in the article<br />
“U.S., Ukraine Try to Ensure Weapons<br />
Don’t Fall to Enemy,” which<br />
appeared in The Wall Street Journal.<br />
The publication notes that for that<br />
reason, the Javelin anti-tank missiles<br />
(ATMs) are supposed to be kept at the<br />
Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF)’s<br />
depots in permanent bases located far<br />
back from the frontlines. Also, American<br />
soldiers, who are now training<br />
Ukrainian servicemen at the Yavoriv<br />
Combat Training Center, could soon<br />
move to training centers in Central<br />
Ukraine as well, to regularly check<br />
and count these arms. So, how<br />
substantiated are the fears of Americans?<br />
Are there reasons for this? We<br />
discussed it with Valentyn Badrak,<br />
who serves as director of the Center<br />
for Army Research, Conversion and<br />
Disarmament.<br />
● “THE U.S. GOVERNMENT<br />
DOES NOT ACCEPT THE<br />
PUTINIST KREMLIN’S<br />
ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE<br />
A REVISION OF<br />
THE SECURITY SYSTEM”<br />
“Yes, the reasons do exist. For the<br />
US, Ukraine remains a country that<br />
did not seize a historic opportunity,<br />
although it had every reason to become<br />
a political and economic regional<br />
leader after the collapse of the USSR.<br />
We did not seize it ‘because of the human<br />
factor.’ Leonid Kuchma’s multivector<br />
approach turned out to be a<br />
case of spinelessness that transformed<br />
into unstable foreign policy of his<br />
pupils and made the situation into a<br />
confirmation of Samuel Huntington’s<br />
conception of civilizational fault<br />
lines. As you know, Huntington drew<br />
one of them between Western and<br />
Eastern Ukraine. Therefore, the US<br />
leadership, by and large, does not<br />
trust our government and is not convinced<br />
that Ukraine has become an asset<br />
to it. Not in the sense of ‘distrusting<br />
Petro Poroshenko,’ but in the<br />
sense of being uncertain whether a<br />
significant disappointment among<br />
Ukrainians in the current government<br />
might not lead to a pro-Russian politician’s<br />
taking lead. Of course, with<br />
support from Russia, whose political<br />
representation in Ukraine remains<br />
strong.<br />
“The US is well aware of the position<br />
of the Ukrainian authorities<br />
and develops its own position accordingly.<br />
President Poroshenko<br />
opted for a strategy of palliative action<br />
in the struggle against the enemy,<br />
and the US is also implementing<br />
a half-hearted action strategy. The<br />
US, and maybe Canada, are the only<br />
Western nations who are really interested<br />
in making Ukraine into a<br />
strong buffer between the West and<br />
Russia. All other NATO countries,<br />
except Poland and the Baltic States,<br />
will do nothing for the real strengthening<br />
of Ukraine.<br />
Not just Javelins<br />
Valentyn BADRAK: “It is important for Ukraine to build on the<br />
American anti-tank missiles deliveries and become an ally of the US”<br />
“Therefore, deliveries of Javelin<br />
ATMs are a symbolic step. They offer<br />
psychological support to Ukraine and<br />
serve as a signal for Russia that the<br />
US government does not accept the<br />
Putinist Kremlin’s attempts to impose<br />
a revision of the security system.<br />
More so given that these weapon systems<br />
cannot strategically influence<br />
the course of the war, it is just that<br />
the word ‘Javelin’ has become a<br />
mantra that everyone repeats and<br />
everyone listens to. It is important for<br />
Ukraine to build on this situation and<br />
become an ally of the US, similar to,<br />
say, Israel or Poland.”<br />
● “THE U.S. IS WELL-<br />
INFORMED ABOUT<br />
NUANCES OF UKRAINE’S<br />
PERSONNEL POLICY<br />
IN THE FIELD OF SECURITY<br />
AND DEFENSE”<br />
Also, WSJ writes that American<br />
weapons falling into enemy hands “is<br />
not a theoretical problem.” It notes<br />
that, after the US delivered shortrange<br />
counter-battery radars to<br />
Ukrainian military in 2014, some<br />
components at least of one of these<br />
radars were captured by combined<br />
Russian and separatist forces during<br />
fierce fighting near Debaltseve. What<br />
do you know about this?<br />
“This is more a ‘technical’ issue,<br />
which depends on many factors. But it<br />
is also a legitimate question. Since the<br />
Ilovaisk debacle, the Ukrainian army has<br />
become stronger by an order of magnitude,<br />
and this is true. But it happened because<br />
our people ceased to be pacifists<br />
and learned to respond quickly to bombardments<br />
and sudden offensive actions<br />
of the enemy. At the same time, the<br />
US government is well-informed about<br />
the nuances of Ukraine’s personnel<br />
policy in the field of security and defense.<br />
Speaking of the UAF, experienced<br />
and talented fighters have been<br />
given brigade-level commands, and in individual<br />
cases combat arm-level commands.<br />
Under conditions where the<br />
automated command and control system<br />
has not been fully created, to say the<br />
least, and Russia has already completed<br />
its cycle of preparations for a largescale<br />
war, no one is immune from<br />
Vladimir Putin embarking on another<br />
military adventure after the presidential<br />
election. Of course, if he succeeds in<br />
maintaining control of the situation.<br />
Were Putin not in the Kremlin, but in<br />
Bankova Street, he would have ceased to<br />
be the head of state a long time ago, but<br />
unfortunately, Russians have an Asianlevel<br />
store of patience. So, we see that a<br />
‘technical’ scenario is possible as well.<br />
Meanwhile, the US government would<br />
justly regard Javelin systems falling into<br />
the hands of Russian terrorists as a defeat<br />
in its symbolic clash with the Krem-<br />
lin in a ‘disputed’ area. However, the US<br />
government needs to supply such<br />
weapons to Ukraine as much as Ukraine<br />
needs to obtain them. Financial expenditures<br />
are small, but they may have an<br />
oversized effect if they strengthen the<br />
anti-Russian sentiments of Ukrainian society,<br />
improve the morale of the military<br />
and eventually turn Ukraine into a powerful<br />
and well-protected player in the<br />
Western camp. In addition, the likely<br />
technological loss on the US’ part in the<br />
event of the FGM-148 Javelin falling into<br />
the hands of Russian troops in the<br />
Donbas is significantly exaggerated, as<br />
this is a late 1980s design, although a<br />
powerful one. US troops have been receiving<br />
these anti-tank systems since the<br />
late 1990s.”<br />
● “TALENTED DESIGNER<br />
OLEH KOROSTELIOV HAS<br />
CREATED A SCHOOL<br />
OF PRECISION WEAPONS<br />
DESIGN RIGHT BEFORE<br />
OUR EYES”<br />
It is known that this year, the<br />
Ukrainian army introduced the Korsar<br />
light man-portable missile system,<br />
which, according to experts, is little<br />
inferior to the American Javelin. I<br />
would like to hear your comparative<br />
assessment of these missiles. If the experts<br />
are right, were the Ukrainian<br />
military-political leadership’s steady<br />
requests for the American side to provide<br />
the aforementioned anti-tank<br />
weapons really justified?<br />
“Despite the fact that many consider<br />
Javelin ATMs to be more technologically<br />
advanced and even say that the<br />
Javelin and the Korsar ATM belong to<br />
different generations, I do not think so.<br />
Technologically, the Korsar is a highprecision<br />
weapon capable of killing any<br />
tank or self-propelled gun with one shot<br />
at a distance of 2.5 km (although it is really<br />
difficult to find such a long line of<br />
sight, and in most real combat cases, it<br />
is sufficient to hit the target from a distance<br />
of one and a half kilometers). By<br />
the way, the Javelin has the same range –<br />
up to 2.5 km. It should be understood<br />
that the key point of the modern battle<br />
REUTERS photo<br />
is the training of soldiers and the willingness<br />
of the government to saturate<br />
the combat zone with domestic ATMs,<br />
which are also not that cheap. In fact, the<br />
media should have started promoting<br />
and broadcasting cases of hostile weapon<br />
platforms being hit by these missiles long<br />
ago. The fact that Javelin systems are capable<br />
of hitting vehicles from the upper<br />
hemisphere is a clear technological advantage.<br />
For guiding and firing missiles,<br />
the Javelin uses an infrared fire-andforget<br />
homing system, while the Korsar<br />
uses semi-automatic laser beam guidance<br />
(that is, after the shot, the operator<br />
needs to keep the target in the crosshairs<br />
for 8 to 12 seconds). One of the technological<br />
advantages of the Javelin ATM<br />
is the availability of a ‘soft’ launch,<br />
which allows a shot to be made even from<br />
closed and confined premises. As an obvious<br />
disadvantage, experts list the fact<br />
that the missile’s homing system needs<br />
to be pre-cooled for not less than 25 to<br />
30 seconds. In addition, experts insist<br />
that the effective use of Javelin systems<br />
is possible only for personnel who have<br />
been through a training course for ATM<br />
operators. But in general, both ATM<br />
types can be seen as comparable, and<br />
looking at the price, the domestic design<br />
costs just a fraction of its counterpart.<br />
The cost of one American ATM can be as<br />
high as 50,000 dollars, and the export<br />
price of one launcher with missile complement<br />
can be as high as 170,000 dollars,<br />
while other sources cite ‘more than<br />
200,000 dollars,’ while the price of a<br />
complete Korsar is estimated at about<br />
130,000 dollars, and a missile costs just<br />
20,000 dollars. In addition, it is important<br />
to take into account a number<br />
of factors, of which the most important<br />
is domestic arms self-sufficiency. When<br />
we buy the Korsar, which was introduced<br />
in August 2017, we invest in the<br />
development of domestic precision<br />
weapons. In fact, talented designer<br />
Oleh Korosteliov has created this school<br />
of design before our eyes; he is the<br />
general designer and general director of<br />
the Luch State Design Bureau in Kyiv.<br />
The support for this school is directly<br />
related to the creation of a cruise missile,<br />
a new powerful multiple rocket<br />
launcher and even a domestic midrange<br />
surface-to-air missile system. It<br />
should be added that the Korsar ATM<br />
can be used as part of combat modules,<br />
that is to say, it can be installed on all<br />
types of armored vehicles operated by<br />
the UAF. So, the importance of the present<br />
moment is in combining American<br />
assistance, technology, support with<br />
Ukrainian consistency in the development<br />
of weapons. Therefore, in fact, the<br />
Javelin and the Korsar systems ideologically<br />
and technologically complement<br />
each other in the UAF.<br />
“I would like to raise another point<br />
to create a full panorama of shortrange<br />
precision weapons being developed<br />
in Ukraine. Besides the Korsar,<br />
Ukraine has other guided ATMs – the<br />
Skif and the Stuhna-P (they have essentially<br />
the same characteristics, but<br />
the Skif uses the PN-S control system<br />
which is produced by the Belarusian<br />
Peleng JSC). So, this ATM is capable<br />
of ‘killing’ enemy targets from a distance<br />
of five kilometers, and remote<br />
control is available as well. By the<br />
way, Skifs are used by a number of<br />
states (thanks to Ukraine’s strong exports),<br />
and in 2017, the Luch Design<br />
Bureau continued to supply Stuhna-<br />
P missile systems, delivering about<br />
300 RK-2 missiles ahead of schedule<br />
‘with the number of launchers specified<br />
by the customer,’ as noted in the<br />
media. Both the Korsar and the Skif<br />
can be used to defeat low-heat targets<br />
as well, that is, pillboxes and other engineering<br />
structures, while the<br />
Javelin cannot do it.”<br />
● “RUSSIA HAS NO ATMS<br />
OF THE JAVELIN’S<br />
TECHNOLOGICAL LEVEL,<br />
THEIR VERSIONS OF THE<br />
KORNET SYSTEM ARE<br />
EQUAL TO OUR SKIF”<br />
Speaking of the American<br />
Javelin or the Ukrainian Korsar, can<br />
Russia counteract them in any way?<br />
What weapons do they have now with<br />
regard to light man-portable missile<br />
systems?<br />
“Russia has no ATMs of the<br />
Javelin’s technological level, their<br />
versions of the Kornet system are<br />
equal to our Skif. The Kornet missile<br />
is also a laser beam rider and is more<br />
versatile, but it still belongs to the<br />
generation 2+, while the Javelin is a<br />
third-generation system. But I want<br />
to emphasize once again: in the current<br />
war, everything depends on the<br />
training of firing teams, the mobility,<br />
the ability of the state to provide<br />
troops with comprehensive logistics,<br />
rather than an individual element.”<br />
After it became known that the<br />
US would deliver lethal weapons to<br />
Ukraine, after all, the Kremlin offered<br />
predictably sharp criticism,<br />
threatening bloodshed in the Donbas.<br />
In your opinion, what can Russia do,<br />
after all, as we remember the Kremlin’s<br />
earlier statements on this issue?<br />
“All sides have long been accustomed<br />
to the Kremlin treating<br />
Ukraine as a battlefield in its rivalry<br />
with the West and a testing laboratory<br />
for its military machine. We know<br />
the limits of Putin’s actions. He has<br />
long crossed multiple ‘red lines’ and<br />
been working to destroy the independent<br />
state of Ukraine. Therefore,<br />
the only way left open for us is to be<br />
unafraid and get stronger, to be prepared<br />
as much as possible to repel the<br />
enemy. For any other approach<br />
amounts to surrender.”