Tuesday, July 5, 2011

DTN News - SAIC DEFENSE NEWS: SAIC Awarded Contract For $63 Million Task Order To Support MRAP Operations

Defense News: DTN News - SAIC DEFENSE NEWS: SAIC Awarded Contract For $63 Million Task Order To Support MRAP Operations
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - July 5, 2011: The U.S. Department of Defense issued/notification # 578 dated July 5, 2011 released indicates Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, Va., was awarded a $63,231,564 firm-fixed-price level-of-effort contract.


The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to service, augment and sustain Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, and provide Joint Logistics Integrator capability for integrated logistics, engineering and fielding services. Work will be performed in McLean, Va.; Kuwait; and Afghanistan; with an estimated completion date of Sept. 18, 2011.

The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (W56HZV-09-A-0003).

SAIC is playing a key role in rapidly delivering the high-priority, lifesaving Mine-Resistant-Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles to soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

MRAP vehicles support urban combat operations, multi-mission operations, and mine/IED clearance operations and explosive ordnance disposal. Under the task order, SAIC will provide planning, management, and analytical support to all levels of the MRAP JPO team. SAIC will provide logistics services as well as services in support of JPOs oversight and management of original equipment manufacturers during activities associated with fielding, training, and sustainment operations. Additionally, SAIC will enable JPO MRAP to rapidly perform logistic engineering analysis and provide timely insight into fleet readiness and sustainment.


*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News

©

COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News: U.S. Department of Defense Contracts Dated July 5, 2011

Defense News:
DTN News: U.S. Department of Defense Contracts Dated July 5, 2011
(NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON - July 5, 2011: U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) Contracts issued July 5, 2011 are undermentioned;

CONTRACTS

ARMY

The Boeing Company, Defense, Space & Security, Mesa, Ariz., was awarded a $75,204,865 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract for the procurement of 23 remanufactured aircraft for the Army National Guard along with spares and one Longbow Crew Trainer. Work will be performed in Mesa, Ariz., with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2013. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-06-C-0093).

Lakeshore TolTest JV LLC, was awarded a $71,582,951 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the construction of buildings, parking, utilities and other infrastructure for Afghanistan National Army personnel. Work will be performed in Afghanistan, with an estimated completion date of Feb. 14, 2013. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with five bids received. The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Kandahar, Afghanistan, is the contracting activity (W5J9LE-11-C-0034).

Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, Va., was awarded a $63,231,564 firm-fixed-price level-of-effort contract. The award will provide for the modification of an existing contract to service, augment and sustain Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, and provide Joint Logistics Integrator capability for integrated logistics, engineering and fielding services. Work will be performed in McLean, Va.; Kuwait; and Afghanistan; with an estimated completion date of Sept. 18, 2011. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (W56HZV-09-A-0003).

Zieson Construction Company LLC, Topeka, Kan., was awarded a $45,000,000 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the sustainability, renovation and modernization construction and design work on Fort Leonard Wood Army Installation in Missouri and within the surrounding area. Work will be performed in Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., with an estimated completion date of May 11, 2014. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 19 bids received. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas City, Mo., is the contracting activity (W912DQ-11-D-4007).

Contrack International Inc., McLean, Va., was awarded a $44,394,096 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the construction of facilities at Camp Zafar, for the Afghan National Army, composed of barracks, administrative space, training classrooms and other infrastructure. Work will be performed in Herat Province, Afghanistan, with an estimated completion date of Jan. 22, 2013. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 13 bids received. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kandahar, Afghanistan, is the contracting activity (W5J9LE-11-C-0033).

Heckler & Koch Defense, Ashburn, Va., was awarded a $38,557,300 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the procurement of 18,000 M320A1 Grenade Launchers and technical data packages for each. Work will be performed in Ashburn, Va.; Columbus, Ga.; and Oberndorf, Germany; with an estimated completion date of May 31, 2015. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (W56HZV-11-D-0052).

Absher Construction Company Inc., Puyallup, Wash., was awarded a $35,275,888 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the design and construction of an unaccompanied enlisted personnel housing facility at Schofield Barracks, Oahu, Hawaii. Work will be performed in Oahu, Hawaii, with an estimated completion date of Aug. 30, 2014. Twenty bids were solicited, with three bids received. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu, Hawaii, is the contracting activity (W9128A-11-C-0011).

Kellogg Brown and Root Services, Arlington, Va., was awarded a $25,249,114 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the construction of the Lackland Airman Training Center. Work will be performed in Lackland Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas, with an estimated completion date of Feb. 9, 2013. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 17 bids received. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas, is the contracting activity (W9126G-11-C-0027).

Arrow Kinsley JV II, York, Penn., was awarded a $19,869,000 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the construction of a consolidated logistics center at Fort Detrick, Md. Work will be performed in Frederick, Md., with an estimated completion date of Dec. 27, 2013. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 15 bids received. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore, Md., is the contracting activity (W912DR-11-C-0029).

Johnson Roofing & Construction Inc., Ventura, Calif., was awarded a $15,000,000 firm-fixed-price indefinite-delivery / indefinite-quantity contract. The award will provide for the roofing services to the Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division. Work location will be determined with each task order, with an estimated completion date of June 29, 2014. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 11 bids received. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, Calif., is the contracting activity (W91238-11-D-0022).

Charpie-Korte Design-Build J.V. S.B LLC, Chicago, Ill., was awarded an $11,768,165 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the design and construction of an Army Reserve Center at Fort A.P. Hill, Va. Work will be performed in Fort A.P. Hill, Va., with an estimated completion date of Nov. 11, 2012. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 19 bids received. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville, Ky., is the contracting activity (W912QR-11C-0020).

Charles F. Day & Associates LLC, Davenport, Iowa, was awarded a $10,276,412 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the artillery training and field support for the Improved Position Azimuth Determining System. Work will be performed in Fort Sill, Okla.; Yuma, Ariz.; Picatinny Arsenal, N.J.; Hattiesburg, Miss; Afghanistan; Iraq; and Australia; with an estimated completion date of June 30, 2014. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with six bids received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Picatinny Arsenal, N.J., is the contracting activity (W15QKN-11-C-0157).

Mission Essential Personnel LLC, Columbus, Ohio, was awarded a $9,700,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, fixed-price, cost-reimbursable, multiple-award-task-order contract. The award will provide for the procurement of foreign language services in support of the Department of Defense Language Interpretation and Transition Enterprise program. Work location will be determined with each task order, with an estimated completion date of June 27, 2016. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 11 bids received. The U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Alexandria, Va., is the contracting activity (W911W4-11-D-0007).

Northrop Grumman Technical Services Inc., Herndon, Va., was awarded a $9,700,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, fixed-price, cost-reimbursable, multiple-award-task-order contract. The award will provide for the procurement of foreign language services in support of the Department of Defense Language Interpretation and Transition Enterprise program. Work location will be determined with each task order, with an estimated completion date of June 27, 2016. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 11 bids received. The U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Alexandria, Va., is the contracting activity (W911W4-11-D-0008).

Linc Government Services LLC, Hopkinsville, Ky., was awarded a $9,700,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, fixed-price, cost-reimbursable, multiple-award-task-order contract. The award will provide for the procurement of foreign language services in support of the Department of Defense Language Interpretation and Transition Enterprise program. Work location will be determined with each task order, with an estimated completion date of June 27, 2016. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 11 bids received. The U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Alexandria, Va., is the contracting activity (W911W4-11-D-0006).

L3 Services Inc., Reston, Va., Mission Essential Personnel LLC, Columbus, Ohio, was awarded a $9,700,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, fixed-price, cost-reimbursable, multiple-award-task-order contract. The award will provide for the procurement of foreign language services in support of the Department of Defense Language Interpretation and Transition Enterprise program. Work location will be determined with each task order, with an estimated completion date of June 27, 2016. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 11 bids received. The U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Alexandria, Va., is the contracting activity (W911W4-11-D-0005).

Global Linguist Solutions LLC, Falls Church, Va., was awarded a $9,700,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, fixed-price, cost-reimbursable, multiple-award-task-order contract. The award will provide for the procurement of foreign language services in support of the Department of Defense Language Interpretation and Transition Enterprise program. Work location will be determined with each task order, with an estimated completion date of June 27, 2016. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 11 bids received. The U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Alexandria, Va., is the contracting activity (W911W4-11-D-0004).

CACI Premier Technology Inc., Chantilly, Va., was awarded a $9,700,000 indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity, fixed-price, cost-reimbursable, multiple-award-task-order contract. The award will provide for the procurement of foreign language services in support of the Department of Defense Language Interpretation and Transition Enterprise program. Work location will be determined with each task order, with an estimated completion date of June 27, 2016. The bid was solicited through the Internet, with 11 bids received. The U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, Alexandria, Va., is the contracting activity (W911W4-11-D-0003).

Raytheon Company, Andover, Mass., was awarded a $9,142,717 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the procurement of A45 Mark 1 / A22 test station upgrade modification kit and A22 test station power supply upgrade kit for the government of Egypt. Work will be performed in Andover, Mass., with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2012. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Ala., is the contracting activity (W31P4Q-11-C-0182).

Science Applications International Corp., McLean, Va., was awarded an $8,053,647 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for a modification of an existing contract to provide two additional combat outpost surveillance and force protection systems. Work will be performed in Elkridge, Md., with an estimated completion date of Nov. 28, 2011. One bid was solicited, with one bid received. The U.S. Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md., is the contracting activity (W911QY-10-F-0188).

Marco Builders Inc., Southampton, N.J., was awarded a $6,714,000 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for the construction of a new consolidated base operations/command post facility. Work will be performed in Joint Base McGuire-Dix, Lakehurst, N.J., with an estimated completion date of Sept. 25, 2012. Sixty bids were solicited, with 12 bids received. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York, N.Y., is the contracting activity (W912DS-11-C-0010).

AIR FORCE

ITT Systems corporation of Clifton, N.J. is being awarded a not to exceed $49,097,182 firm fixed price contract for the ALQ-211 (v)9 Pod. This will provide systems software and support equipment for the ALQ-211 (v)9 Pod. This award includes 18 pods, 4 pod shells, 2 antenna coupler sets, 2 lab test benches, and data. Work will be performed at Clifton, N.J. This contract is a Foreign Military Sales requirement for Pakistan. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. WR-ALC/GRWKB, Robins Air Force Base, Ga. is the contracting activity (FA8540-11-C-0012).

New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology of Socorro, N.M. is being awarded a maximum $9,200,000 cost reimbursement contract for a partnership intermediary agreement in accordance with 15 USC 3715 to perform services in support of the technology transfer function pursuant to 15 USC 3710(b) that: (a) Increase the likelihood of success in the conduct of its cooperative or joint activities with small business, educational institutions, and other eligible participants; (b) support the office of Research and Technology Applications in implementation of the Technology Transfer Program; and (c) assist in forming and maintaining productive technology partnerships. Work will be performed at Kirtland Air Force Base, N. M. The contracting activity is Air Force Research Laboratory/RVKE, Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. (FA9451-11-3-0001).

NAVY

Lockheed Martin, Mission Systems and Sensors, Moorestown, N.J., is being awarded a $31,235,835 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-09-C-5110) to exercise an option for the production of the DDG 115 Aegis Weapon System including a multi-mission signal processor and the procurement of the Secure Voice System and Digital Video Distribution System for DDG 114 and 115. This modification increases the total funding obligated to $329,801,274. If all options are exercised the total value of the contract will be $332,449,028. Work will be performed in Moorestown, N.J. (87 percent) and Clearwater, Fla. (13 percent), and is expected to be completed by April 2014. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.

Science Applications International, Inc., McLean, Va., is being awarded a maximum value $14,750,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contract for the environment and ship motion forecasting program which seeks to provide sea based ship and cargo system operators with seaway environmental forecasting in order to predict ship motions and determine windows of opportunity for inter-intra-ship material and personnel environment. The total cumulative value of this contract is $14,750,000. The total cumulative value of task order #0001 is $6,738,833 and will be awarded concurrent with contract. The action will be incrementally funded with this initial obligation of $350,000. Work will be performed in McLean, Va., and work is expected to be completed June 2016. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contract was competitively procured under Office of Naval Research Broad Agency Announcement 10-019, with seven proposals received. The Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Va., is the contracting activity (N00014-11-D-0444).

Rockwell Collins, Inc., Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is being awarded a $9,559,558 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-09-C-0069) to exercise an option to provide AN/ARC-210(V) Electronic Radio and Ancillary Equipment for CH-53E CNS/ATM. The contract provides for the following quantities (54) RT-1851A(C)/ARC receiver-transmitters; (54) C-12561A/ARC control, radio sets. The contract will also provide for AN/ARC-210(V) electronic radio and ancillary equipment for the E-6B in the following quantities: (22) C-12561A/ARC control, radio sets; (36) MT-4935/ARC mounting bases; (36) MT-7006/ARC amplifier mounts; (44) AM-7526/ARC high power amplifiers; and (44) RT-1939(C)/ARC receiver-transmitters. The work will be performed in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and is expected to be completed in July 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md. is the contracting activity.

Kalman & Company, Inc., Virginia Beach, Va., is being awarded $7,543,595 for task order #0039 under previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (M67854-03-A-5158) to provide business and analytical support to the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense’s (JPEO-CBD) Transformational Medical Technologies (TMT) Program. Objectives of this initiative include the development of acquisition documentation and providing scientific subject matter expertise supporting the advanced development of medical systems, medical countermeasures, and rapid response-biosurveillance system capabilities. Objectives also include development of acquisition program metrics and objectives and risk analyses that support current and planned acquisition programs and lead to concise business case analyses identifying cost and performance projections, schedule impacts, and sustainment/ lifecycle considerations. Work will be performedin Falls Church, Va., and work is expected to be completed in July 18, 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Marine Corps System Command, Quantico, Va., is the contracting activity.

Correction: Contract awarded June 30, 2011 to Austal USA, Mobile, Ala, for $312,939,336 should have stated one of the places of performance as Henderson, Australia and not as Henderson, Wash.

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

Belleville Shoe Mfg. Co., Belleville, Ill. was issued a modification exercising the fourth option year on the current contract SPM1C1-07-D-1518/P00012. The award is a fixed price with economic price adjustment, indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity contract with a maximum $25,171,113 for Army hot weather combat boots. Other location of performance is Arkansas. Using services are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. The date of performance completion is July 8, 2012. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.

Altama Footwear, Atlanta, Ga. was issued a modification exercising the fourth option year on the current contract SPM1C1-07-D-1519/P00010. The award is a fixed price with economic price adjustment, indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity contract with a maximum $20,209,410 for Army hot weather combat boots. Other locations of performance are Puerto Rico and Tennessee. Using services are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. The date of performance completion is July 8, 2012. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.

Wellco Enterprises, Inc., Waynesville, N.C. was issued a modification exercising the fourth option year on the current contract SPM1C1-07-D-1522/P00014. The award is a fixed price with economic price adjustment, indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity contract with a maximum $15,017,636 for Army hot weather combat boots. Other location of performance is Puerto Rico. Using services are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. The date of performance completion is July 8, 2012. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.

Rocky Shoes & Boots, Inc., Nelsonville, Ohio was issued a modification exercising the fourth option year on the current contract SPM1C1-07-D-1523/P00010. The award is a fixed price with economic price adjustment, indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity contract with a maximum $6,260,021 for Army hot weather combat boots. Other location of performance is Puerto Rico. Using services are Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. The date of performance completion is July 8, 2012. The contracting activity is the Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support, Philadelphia, Pa.

UNITED STATES TRANSPORTATION COMMAND

Columbia Helicopters, Inc. ofAurora, Ore., is being awarded a $17,065,000.00 task order for rotary wing aircraft, personnel, equipment, tools, material, maintenance and supervision necessary to perform passenger and cargo air transportation services. Work will be performed in Afghanistan and will start July 1, 2011 to be completed by Oct. 31, 2011. This contract was a competitive acquisition with four bids received. The contracting activity is United States Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) Directorate of Acquisition, Scott Air Force Base, IL(HTC711-11-D-R021).



*Link for This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources
U.S. DoD issued No. 578-11 July 5, 2011
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News

©

COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News - KOREAN DEFENSE NEWS: Europe Asks Korea To Join Eurofighter Program

Defense News: DTN News - KOREAN DEFENSE NEWS: Europe Asks Korea To Join Eurofighter Program
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - July 5, 2011: A multination consortium in Europe has invited Korea to join its high-end jet production project in an apparent attempt to win what would be Korea’s biggest arms-procurement deal.

The move came following Seoul’s announcement that it would purchase 60 advanced fighter aircraft in line with its push to shift the country’s military posture from passive defense to proactive deterrence with a projected budget of up to 10 trillion wo
n ($8.96 billion).

“We welcome the Korean industry to participate as EADS’s full member,” Erwin Obermeier, a senior advisor of export projects at EADS, said at the International Conference for Air and Space Power held downtown Seoul last week.

“It’ll share all the benefits, knowledge and technologies of Eurofighters.”

EADS, or European Aeronautic Defense and Space, is a multi-national consortium from Germany, UK, Spain and Italy.

The largest aerospace and defense contractor in Europe reportedly offered a better deal in Korea’s last jet acquisition project in 2008 than its American competitor Boeing, but lost the bid due largely to political decisions.

Obermeier underlined that EADS’s Eurofighter program will offer a unique potential for the Korean industry to access the global market.

“The Eurofighter program is jointly owned, developed, produced, and delivered by all four European companies,” he said, suggesting that Korea will also have much to benefit by joining the consortium.

He said if Korea chooses EADS’s Eurofighter Typhoon, which can fly at a maximum supercruise speed of Mach 2, his company will offer Korea the chance to assemble and partly manufacture the advanced jets in Korea.

“The first 10 deliveries will be assembled in Europe, but the next 24 will be built with components manufactured in Korea,” he said, adding that the remainder will be assembled here.

He also downplayed concerns over compatibility, saying all Korean fighters and Eurofighters are built to be inter-operable in the NATO environment.

Korea has purchased 60 of the F-15s from Boeing, which won both the FX-I and II projects in 2002 and 2008.

Boeing claims that it offers the most cost-effective solution and a close partnership with Korean firms.

Roger L. Besancenez, vice president of the F-15 program for Boeing Defense, Space and Security, says his company has worked with 22 Korean companies, including Korea Airspace Industries, Korean Air, LIG Nex1 and Huneed Technologies.

Boeing has announced that it will enter the FX race in Korea with F-15 Silent Eagle, a semi-stealth fighter.

“The F-15 infrastructure already exists in Korea so supply chains for SE would be more affordable,” Besancenez said. “It is also proven to be very inter-operable with the latest Peace Eye.”

He also noted that Boeing’s SE can carry the heaviest payloads and widest variety of integrated weapons of the aircraft available in the market.

During the forum, Lockheed Martin dispelled growing criticism that it is trying to dump the first batch of F-35s fitted with only the bare minimum capabilities on Korea at an exorbitant price.

It claimed that the U.S. Air Force, which has the highest level of classified data about all high-end aircraft have chosen its F-35 over the F-15, F-16 and other jets because it judged the fourth generation fighters have reached their peak performance and they need another level of capabilities.


The Korean Air Force is seeking to purchase up to 60 advanced combat fighters.

The F-35A Lighting II is known as the only fifth-generation stealth fighter available on the market, but critics say that it has yet to prove its capabilities and may pose a risk, requiring high maintenance costs.


*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News

©

COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS

DTN News - RUSSIA TODAY: Russia's Evolving Leadership

Defense News: DTN News - RUSSIA TODAY: Russia's Evolving Leadership
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - July 5, 2011:
Russia has entered election season, with parliamentary elections in December and presidential elections in March 2012. Typically, this is not an issue of concern, as most Russian elections have been designed to usher a chosen candidate and political party into office since 2000. Interesting shifts are under way this election season, however. While on the surface they may resemble political squabbles and instability, they actually represent the next step in the Russian leadership’s consolidation of the state.

In the past decade, one person has consolidated and run Russia’s political system: former president and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Putin’s ascension to the leadership of the Kremlin marked the start of the reconsolidation of the Russian state after the decade of chaos that followed the fall of the Soviet Union. Under Putin’s presidential predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, Russia’s strategic economic assets were pillaged, the core strength of the country — the KGB, now known as the Federal Security Service (FSB), and the military — fell into decay, and the political system was in disarray. Though Russia was considered a democracy and a new friend to the West, this was only because Russia had no other option — it was a broken country.

Perceptions of Putin

Putin’s goal was to fix the country, which meant restoring state control (politically, socially and economically), strengthening the FSB and military and re-establishing Russia’s influence and international reputation — especially in the former Soviet sphere of influence. To do so, Putin had to carry Russia through a complex evolution that involved shifting the country from accommodating to aggressive at specific moments. This led to a shift in global perceptions of Putin, with many beginning to see the former KGB agent as a hard-nosed autocrat set upon rekindling hostilities and renewing militarization.

This perception of Putin is not quite correct. While an autocrat and KGB agent (we use the present tense, as Putin has said that no one is a former KGB or FSB agent), he hails from St. Petersburg, Russia’s most pro-Western city, and during his Soviet-era KGB service he was tasked with stealing Western technology. Putin fully understands the strength of the West and what Western expertise is needed to keep Russia relatively modern and strong. At the same time, his time with the KGB convinced him that Russia can never truly be integrated into the West and that it can be strong only with a consolidated government, economy and security service and a single, autocratic leader.

Putin’s understanding of Russia’s two great weaknesses informs this worldview. The first weakness is that Russia was dealt a poor geographic hand. It is inherently vulnerable because it is surrounded by great powers from which it is not insulated by geographic barriers. The second is that its population is comprised of numerous ethnic groups, not all of which are happy with centralized Kremlin rule. A strong hand is the only means to consolidate the country internally while repelling outsiders.

Another major challenge is that Russia essentially lacks an economic base aside from energy. Its grossly underdeveloped transportation system hampers it from moving basic necessities between the country’s widely dispersed economic centers. This has led Moscow to rely on revenue from one source, energy, while the rest of the country’s economy has lagged decades behind in technology.

These geographic, demographic and economic challenges have led Russia to shift between being aggressive to keep the country secure and being accommodating toward foreign powers in a bid to modernize Russia.

Being from groups that understood these challenges, Putin knew a balance between these two strategies was necessary. However, Russia cannot go down the two paths of accommodating and connecting with the West and a consolidated authoritarian Russia at the same time unless Russia is first strong and secure as a country, something that has only happened recently. Until then, Russia must switch between each path to build the country up — which explains shifting public perceptions of Putin over the past decade from pro-Western president to an aggressive authoritarian. It also explains the recent view of Putin’s successor as president, Dmitri Medvedev, as democratic and agreeable when compared to Putin.

Neither leader is one or the other, however: Both have had their times of being aggressive and accommodating in their domestic and foreign policies. Which face they show does not depend upon personalities but rather upon the status of Russia’s strength.

Putin’s Shifts

Putin, who had no choice but to appeal to the West to help keep the country afloat when he took office in 2000, initially was hailed as a trusted partner by the West. But even while former U.S. President George W. Bush was praising Putin’s soul, behind the scenes, Putin already was reorganizing one of his greatest tools — theFSB — in order to start implementing a full state consolidation in the coming years.

After 9/11, Putin was the first foreign leader to phone Bush and offer any assistance from Russia. The date marked anopportunity for both Putin and Russia. The attacks on the United States shifted Washington’s focus, tying it down in the Islamic world for the next decade. This gave Russia a window of opportunity with which to accelerate its crackdown inside (and later outside) Russia without fear of a Western response. During this time, the Kremlin ejected foreign firms, nationalized strategic economic assets, shut down nongovernmental organizations, purged anti-Kremlin journalists, banned many anti-Kremlin political parties and launched a second intense war in Chechnya. Western perceptions of Putin’s friendship and standing as a democratic leader simultaneously evaporated.

Russia was already solidifying its strength by 2003, by which time the West had noticed its former enemy’s resurgence. The West subsequently initiated a series of moves not to weaken Russia internally (as this was too difficult by now) but to contain Russian power inside its own borders. This spawned a highly contentious period between both sides during which the West supported pro-Western color revolutions in several of the former Soviet states while Russia initiated social unrest and political chaos campaigns in, and energy cutoffs against, several of the same states. The two sides were once again seriously at odds, with the former Soviet sphere now the battlefield. As it is easier for Russia to maneuver within the former Soviet states and with the West pre-occupied in the Islamic world, Moscow began to gain the upper hand. By 2008, the Kremlin was ready to prove to these states that the West would not be able to counter Russian aggression.

By now, however, the Kremlin had a new president, Medvedev. Like Putin, Medvedev is also from the St. Petersburg clan. Unlike Putin, he was lawyer trained to Western standards, not member of the KGB. Medvedev’s entrance into the Kremlin seemed strange at the time, since Putin had groomed other potential successors who shared his KGB background. Putin, however, knew that in just a few years Russia would be shifting again from being solely aggressive to a new stance that would require a different sort of leader.

Medvedev’s New Pragmatism

When Medvedev entered office, his current reputation for compliance and pragmatism did not exist. Instead, he continued on Russia’s roll forward with one of the boldest moves to date — the Russia-Georgia war. Aside from the war, Medvedev also publicly ordered the deployment of short-range ballistic missiles to the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, on the Polish border, and to Belarus to counter U.S. plans for ballistic missile defense. Medvedev also oversaw continued oil disputes with the Baltic states. Despite being starkly different in demeanor and temperament, Medvedev continued Putin’s policies. Much of this was because Putin is still very much in charge of the country, but it is also because Medvedev also understands the order in which Russia operates: security first, pragmatism to the West after.

By 2009, Russia had proven its power in its direct sphere and so began to ease into a new foreign and domestic policy of duality. Only when Russia is strong and consolidated can it drop being wholly aggressive and adopt such a stance of hostility and friendliness. To achieve this, the definition of a “tandem” between Putin and Medvedev became more defined, with Putin as the enforcer and strong hand and Medvedev as the pragmatic negotiator (by Western standards). On the surface, this led to what seemed like a bipolar foreign and domestic policy, with Russia still aggressively moving on countries like Kyrgyzstan while forming a mutually beneficial partnership with Germany .

With elections approaching, the ruling tandem seems even more at odds as Medvedev overturns many policies Putin put into place in the early 2000s, such as the ban on certain political parties, the ability of foreign firms to work in strategic sectors and the role of the FSB elite within the economy. Despite the apparent conflict, the changes are part of an overall strategy shared by Putin and Medvedev to finish consolidating Russian power.

These policy changes show that Putin and Medvedev feel confident enough that they have attained their first imperative that they can look to confront the second inherent problem for the country: Russia’s lack of modern technology and lack of an economic base. Even with Russian energy production at its height, its energy technologies need revamping, as do every other sector, especially transit and telecommunication. Such a massive modernization attempt cannot be made without foreign help. This was seen in past efforts throughout Russian history when other strong leaders from Peter the Great to Josef Stalin were forced to bring in foreign assistance, if not an outright presence, to modernize Russia.

Russia thus has launched a multiyear modernization and privatization plan to bring in tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to leapfrog the country into current technology and diversify the economy. Moscow has also struck deals with select countries — Germany, France, Finland, Norway, South Korea and even the United States — for each sector to use the economic deals for political means.

However, this has created two large problems. First, foreign governments and firms are hesitant to do business in an authoritarian country with a record of kicking foreign firms out. At the same time, the Kremlin knows that it cannot lessen its hold inside of Russia without risking losing control over its first imperative of securing Russia. Therefore, the tandem is instead implementing a complex system to ensure it can keep control while looking as if it were becoming more democratic.

The Appearance of Democracy

The first move is to strengthen the ruling party — United Russia — while allowing more independent political parties. United Russia already has been shifted into having many sub-groups that represent the more conservative factions, liberal factions and youth organizations. Those youth organizations have also been working on training up the new pro-Kremlin generation to take over in the decades to come so that the goals of the current regime are not lost. In the past few months, new political parties have started to emerge in Russia — something rare in recent years. Previously, any political party other than United Russia not loyal to the Kremlin was silenced, for the most part. Beyond United Russia, only three other political parties in Russia have a presence in the government: the Communist Party, Just Russia and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. All are considered either pro-Kremlin or sisters to United Russia.

While these new political parties appear to operate outside the Kremlin’s clutches, this is just for show. The most important new party is Russia’s Right Cause launched by Russian oligarch Mikhail Prokhorov. Right Cause is intended to support foreign business and the modernization efforts. The party at first was designed to be led by Medvedev’s economic aide, Arkadi Dvorkovich, or Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin. However, the Kremlin thought that having a Kremlin member lead a new “independent” political party would defeat the purpose of showing a new democratic side to Russian’s political sphere. Prokhorov has rarely shown political aspirations, but he has a working relationship with the Kremlin. He clearly received orders to help the Kremlin in this new display of democracy, and any oligarch who survives in Russia knows to follow the Kremlin’s orders. The Kremlin now will lower the threshold to win representation in the government in an attempt to move these “independent” parties into the government.

The next part of the new system is an ambiguous organization Putin recently announced, the All Russia’s Popular Front, or “Popular Front” for short. The Popular Front is not exactly a political party but an umbrella organization meant to unite the country. Popular Front members include Russia’s labor unions, prominent social organizations, economic lobbying sectors, big business, individuals and political parties. In short, anything or anyone that wants to be seen as pro-Russian is a part of the Popular Front. On the surface, the Popular Front has attempted to remain vague to avoid revealing how such an organization supersedes political parties and factions. It creates a system in which power in the country does not lie in a political office — such as the presidency or premiership — but with the person overseeing the Popular Front: Putin.

So after a decade of aggression, authoritarianism and nationalism, Russia has become strong once again, both internally and regionally, such that it is confident enough to shift policies and plan for its future. The new system is designed to have a dual foreign policy, to attract non-Russian groups back into the country and to look more democratic overall while all the while being carefully managed behind the scenes. It is managed pluralism underneath not a president or premier, but under a person more like the leader of the nation, not just the leader of the state. In theory, the new system is meant to allow the Kremlin to maintain control of both its grand strategies of needing to reach out abroad to keep Russia modern and strong and trying to ensure that the country is also under firm control and secure for years to come. Whether the tandem or the leader of the nation can balance such a complex system and overcome the permanent struggle that rules Russia remains to be seen.

Read more: Russia's Evolving Leadership | STRATFOR

By Lauren Goodrich - Stratfor
*Speaking Image - Creation of DTN News ~ Defense Technology News
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News

©

COPYRIGHT (C) DTN NEWS DEFENSE-TECHNOLOGY NEWS