Russia’s Space Challenges

Russia has delayed publication of its state program of space activities for 2021–2030, after letting its previous 2012-2020 plan go partially unfulfilled. Vladimir Putin may be the authoritarian leader of Russia but even he must pay attention to the politics of space.

One decade ago, on the 50^th anniversary of Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin’s inaugural flight into space, 49% of the Russian population said they believed space exploration would improve their lives within the next 20 years, with 63% saying it also would improve the economy, according to the Levada Research Center, a Russian non-governmental organization. A full 45% in the poll believed that Russia was stronger than other developed nations in the field of space exploration. VCIOM News, another Russian publication, found that 91% of Russians in 2021 expect their country to participate in space programs. The only milestone of greater import to modern Russians is the country’s victory in WWII. It presents Putin with a grand challenge. Expectations for the lagging space program far exceed Russia’s capability to meet its goals in a unilateral cosmonautic effort. Yet despite the financial constraints and public statements to the contrary, Putin is proceeding with his plans to modernize and militarize its space program.

While Western sanctions related to the 2014 Crimean annexation reduced the country’s ability to purchase the advanced space electronics produced overseas its needs to move forward in outer space, last year Putin still moved forward with his plans. He signed a presidential decree approving the foundations of new state policy in the field of space activities, according to the Russian publication Kommersant. First Deputy Director General of “Roskomos” Yuri Urlichich, said that Putin’s decree set new goals for the space program that, specifically, affected the development of the orbital constellation of satellites and improved access from the territory of Russia to outer space. By mid-2021 it proved to be an embarrassment and source of anger for the Russian people, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. The program’s decline is evident in the enormous cost overruns for building the space port on Russian territory and numerous failures on the launchpad itself. That hasn’t stopped Putin.

Problems plaguing the space program, according to Goble, translate into declining domestic support for Putin’s regime. He can no longer point to Russia’s superiority over the West or China. The technological advances in the Russian space program once fueled other parts of the economy. Today the civilian economy receives no benefit from it nor does the ideological outlook appear optimistic for future advances. Putin is being forced to play a new hand; trying to ensure his power and that his country doesn’t fall further behind its competitors by weaponizing space.

Pavel Luzin, an expert on the Russian armed forces, says that “It is this consensus that was exploited from the early 1960’s by the Soviet authorities and that has been exploited by the Russian authorities since the early 1990’s to ensure the legitimacy of the distribution of power and wealth within the country and of Russian decision-makers’ actions in the international arena.” The Russian people view the success of the space program as an indicator that Putin’s economic and political policies are on the correct tract.

generic viagra sildenafil With regular exercise, increased amount of blood can stimulate the tissues in those chambers wherefore resulting in a bigger penis. Infact it is the cialis properien learn this here now part of the body where many disease can occur. However, unlike http://djpaulkom.tv/dj-paul-announces-da-mafia-6ix-watch-what-u-wish-album-release-date/ online viagra uk, Maca is all natural and are made from herbal extracts, they are much safer, having absolutely zero side effects, unlike prescription medications like viagra. So, what are you waiting for then? Go ahead and super generic cialis http://djpaulkom.tv/contact/ and show off the power of your manhood.

On July 12 Dmitry Peksov, press secretary to President Putin, announced that the state will continue to take the lead in space “exploration” as private companies in Russia do not have the capital. He then stated that he hopes Russian billionaires will invest in Russia’s program. Dmitry Rogozin, the head of Russia’s federal space agency Roscosmos, earlier in the week had appealed to billionaires to help with the cost of the space program, which is tightly linked to the country’s military complex.

Although Moscow has publicly declared its complete commitment to the demilitarization of space, Putin has overseen the development of space lasers systems designed to “to destroy or damage satellites from Earth or disrupt [the US] ability to use satellites,” according to recent Congressional testimony by US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. The financial cost of the space program to Putin has decreased domestic support for his regime but it has not dulled his intention to build a modern space force capable to taking on the West. To remain in power, he must appease the population, the oligarchs and the Russian military. According to the Annual Threat Assessment by the US Director of National Intelligence, “Despite flat or even declining defense spending, Russia will emphasize new weapons that present increased threats to the United States….[and] will remain a key space competitor, maintaining a large network of reconnaissance, communications, and navigation satellites. It will focus on integrating space services… into its weapons and command-and-control systems.”

While the West must watch developments in China, it cannot overlook that Putin will continue to push his space program despite sanctions and the financial costs. He is continuing to train Russia’s military space elements, field new antisatellite (ASAT) weapons capable of disrupting and degrading US and allied space capabilities, and test its directed energy weapons. It is what he wants and what the Russian population expects of their leader.

DARIA NOVAK served in the United States State Department during the Reagan Administration, and currently is on the Board of the American Analysis of News and Media Inc., which publishes usagovpolicy.com and the New York Analysis of Policy and Government. Each Thursday, she presents key updates on Russia.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.