The U. S. Threat
Each year on Navy Day, traditionally the fourth Sunday in July, Soviet admirals have the opportunity to summarize their view of the U. S. naval threat for the average Soviet citizen. In a prime-time television interview, the Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Navy, Fleet Admiral Vladimir N. Chernavin, attacked with the following:
"… The crude violation of the territorial waters of the Soviet Union in the Black Sea by U. S. warships; the pirate raid on sovereign Libya; the constant threat of intervention in Nicaragua … and other provocative acts cab be seen as nothing less than a challenge to the entire international community."
In an interview in Izvestiya, the official Soviet Government newspaper, Admiral Konstantin V. Makarov, Chief of the Main Navy Staff and First Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Navy, summarized the U. S. threat:
"… Right now … dozens of nuclear submarines equipped with ballistic missiles are patrolling the seas. Aircraft carriers with nuclear-equipped aircraft and amphibious groups with Marines on board are constantly near the shores of Europe, Asia and the Near and Far East, the Persian Gulf, and the Caribbean. The appearance of U. S. ships off our shores is no longer a rare occurrence. Furthermore, their activity is sometimes overtly provocative. This was the case in March off the Crimean coast.
"The tense situation in sea and ocean theaters is further aggravated by the marked change in the nature of the day-to-day activity of the U. S. and NATO navies. I have in mind the numerous large-scale exercises held by U. S. and NATO naval forces. … They are offensive, aggressive in nature, and have a clearly pronounced anti-Soviet thrust.
"In its pursuit of military superiority at sea, Washington is implementing a further buildup of its naval forces … [and] envisages the maximum deployment of strategic cruise missiles on submarines and surface ships. Essentially a new strategic offensive force is being set up in the U. S. Navy."
Surrounded By U. S. Bases
In mid-August, Red Star, the Soviet military newspaper, carried a three-part series entitled, "The Pentagon's Base Strategy."
Part I was headlined, "West Europe is the Main Springboard for Aggression." It claimed:
"Washington has created a dense network of military bases in Europe and has concentrated the largest part of its armed forces, numbering about 350,000 men, there. The buildup of the latest U. S. and NATO weapons systems there—including nuclear weapons systems—the creation of a first-strike potential, and the nature of operational and combat training quite clearly demonstrate that Washington sees the continent as the main springboard for aggression against the Soviet Union, its allies and the liberated countries of Africa and the Near East."
Part II was subtitled, "Strong Points in Southwest Asia." It claimed that the presence of U. S. bases there was the result of:
"… the desire of U. S. imperialism to establish dominance at all costs over a region which has very great significance economically [energy resources] and strategically [proximity to the Soviet Union's southern borders] . This latter fact is exploited … actively by the Pentagon. American medium range nuclear weapons [especially those launched from carrier aircraft] ... in the Arabian Sea, together with similar weapons in another theater of war—in particular in Japan and Korea—are capable of covering the Asian part of the Soviet Union."
The article quoted Secretary of the Navy John Lehman as saying, "We intend to stay in the Near East and use military force if necessary to defend our interests." The Red Star article went on to point out that, "From the west, the countries of the region are threatened by the ships of the U. S. Sixth Fleet concentrated in the Mediterranean and from the south and east by the American naval armada concentrated in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea."
Part III was under the lead, "Nests of Aggression in the Pacific Ocean Zone." It said that "… the United States is taking extensive measures to build up its armed forces in the Pacific and create a complex system of military bases and fortresses stretching from Japan and South Korea to Australia." The article also noted that:
"Headquarters of the U. S. Seventh Fleet are in Yokosuka and a carrier battle group with nuclear capable aircraft is also based there…. Yokosuka will also be the home port for the second carrier battle group headed by the nuclear aircraft carrier Carl Vinson [CVN-70]. Nuclear submarines call there regularly."
The series concluded:
"Washington is striving to make both its base and bloc strategy truly global in nature. To that end it is attempting to extend the zone of influence of the imperialist NATO bloc that it heads to the entire world, including Asia and the Pacific…. Thus, the United States is striving to turn the military bases—both those being created and those being expanded—into a single strategic military complex encircling the Soviet Union, its allies, and the liberated countries."
Eyes on the Distant East
During August and September, Soviet internal media coverage was focused on U. S. naval activity in the Far East. A speech by Secretary Lehman in Anchorage, Alaska, received coverage, Izvestiya, for example, stated that "the United States has decided to build up its naval presence in the north Pacific," and quoted Lehman as saying that a greater part of the Pacific Fleet would be concentrated farther north and the number and scale of exercises would be increased. In addition, there were frequent and detailed reports on the visit of the USS New Jersey (BB-62) to Sasebo, Japan, as well as on the arrival of the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) battle group for port calls in Japan and Korea. These were followed by extensive coverage of the operations in the Sea of Japan and reports of a planned U.S. movement into the Sea of Okhotsk. This latter intention was called a "blatant military provocation" which "quite clearly has a nuclear bias to it; the same bias that is present in the U. S. so-called new Pacific strategy." In contrast, during the same period, the Soviet media carried only a few brief reports of the much larger NATO exercise, Northern Wedding, which was occurring in the Norwegian and North seas.
By such unbalanced reporting, Soviet propagandists keep the attention of their public and general military audiences directed toward U. S. naval activity in an area distant from the European population centers and economic life of the Soviet Union. That permits free use of hyperbole to maintain a high level of popular awareness concerning the "provocative," "aggressive," and "threatening" nature of the U. S. naval activities, without unduly alarming the nation about the imminence or proximity of a real "threat."
Nevertheless, the worldwide balance of U. S. naval power is obvious both to Soviet reporters and readers, as illustrated in a 12 September article in the mass-circulation newspaper Pravda:
"Let us turn our eye to the boundless expanses of the world's oceans. An armada under the stars and stripes is cutting through the waves of the Sea of Japan. Twenty warships are taking part in the maneuvers that began there recently. These include the aircraft carriers Ranger [CV-61] and Carl Vinson. Our old friend New Jersey is there, too. Such a quantity of U. S. ships has never been concentrated in this region before….
"Leaving aside the naval maneuvers which are being held off the Pacific coast of South America and the U. S.-Egyptian joint exercises designated Sea Wind, which have now ended in the Mediterranean, let us turn our mind's eye northward, to the shores of Scandinavia…. [More than] 150 ships and hundreds of aircraft from ten NATO countries, primarily [from] the United States, are taking part in the transfer of NATO troops to Norway's shores. And Norway, do not forget, has a common border with our country.
"Yes, the U. S. fleet is on maneuvers in the immediate vicinity of the Soviet Union—from the Northern Sea and the Baltic to the Far East. The number of warships taking part is without precedent in the past 30 years. Of course these 'shows of muscle' do not frighten our country. But in this situation, they make it quite legitimate to ask the following question: What would happen if the Warsaw Pact countries mounted similar maneuvers around the United States?"
The Soviet Officer's Fitness Report
The evaluation and rating of the performance and fitness of personnel in the Soviet armed forces are accomplished by a process known as "attestation" or certification. The Soviet Military Encyclopedia describes a certification as "a document characterizing the political and professional qualities and personal abilities of servicemen or military trainees." The primary goal of a certification is "an objective characterization of qualities of the rated person guaranteeing the correct placement and advancement of personnel." In the Soviet armed forces, certification occurs at "defined periods of service and duty," such as in connection with changes of duty station, for promotion, and upon completion of a period of training.
In addition, concurrent certification of all officers occurs on a periodic basis when called for by the party. According to articles in the April issue of the Soviet naval digest Morskoy Sbornik and other military journals, "The periodic certification of Army and Navy officer personnel will occur from 15 May to 15 November 1986." This was directed by the 27th Party Congress, held during February and March 1986. A similar periodic certification occurred from 1 January to 1 July 1982 following the 26th Party Congress and in early 1978 following a party central committee plenum.
According to Vice Admiral Yu. Voronov in Morskoy Sbornik:
"… Certification includes two stages. First, preparation in an organized manner accompanied by politico-educational measures, individual interviews, etc. The second stage is drafting the certification.
"The certification conclusions ought to permit making correct decisions about the further service use of each officer, and define the outlook for his growth and the necessary measures for improving his political knowledge and professional mastery."
According to General I. Shkadov, writing in Communist of the Armed Forces, during certification:
"The level of political maturity, professional training, and command qualities of officers are determined, … and the styles and methods of their work and the dynamics of their service growth are analyzed. Then, … it is determined how to use them most effectively in the future….
"The Communist officer who is being rated must receive a precise Party assessment of his activity. This assessment must definitely be taken into account by the commander when preparing a certification of an officer … [to] avoid subjectivism…."
Following the rating by the commander, General Shkadov said:
"Certification commissions have a large role in ensuring the objectivity of certifications. Their members are, as a rule, immediate superiors who have a good knowledge of those being rated through their practical work. If necessary, the commission has the right to invite both those being rated and their immediate superiors to its sessions to provide information and explanations."
According to Shkadov, chiefs of personnel organizations and secretaries of party committees, party bureaus, and Komsomol organizations are also included in such commissions "… [as] a guarantee that all of an officer's qualities will be assessed comprehensively, profoundly, and objectively."