The time was 0600, 2 July 2004. In Peter the Great Bay outside Vladivostok, Russia, I felt the effects of 25-knot winds, intermittent rain, and 8-foot swells. The USS Harpers Ferry (LSD-49) stood calmly at anchor while a Russian Navy tugboat rubbed violently against the side of the ship. In the dark, three Russian Navy officers and I scrambled up a rope ladder and announced ourselves to the officer of the deck. We were escorted to the bridge, where the Russians assisted the captain and the navigation team in the transit from anchorage intt) the port of Vladivostok. Despite the summer date, we shivered in the damp, cold wind coming off the Sea of Japan. Golden Horn Bay was beautiful: surrounded by small mountains on a rugged coastline that was more pristine than I had imagined.
It was my first of four ship visits to Russia during my tour as an assistant naval attache'. From the deck of the U.S. Navy ship, I surveyed the shore and thought, "This is a cool job!"
Later that morning, another thought passed through my head: "If anybody had told me when I was a midshipman that someday I'd be riding into Vladivostok - formerly a closed military city of the Soviet Union - on board an American warship, I'd have said they'd had too much vodka." After the mooring was complete, I escorted the captains of the Harpers Ferry and Cowpens (CG-63) to a meeting with Admiral Viktor Fedorov, Commander of the Russian Pacific Fleet. A gracious host, Fedorov welcomed the two ships and praised the tradition (now six years running) of marking the U.S. Independence Day with an American ship visit to Vladivostok.
One of my favorite memories of the 2004 Vladivostok visit was going to the Makarov Naval Institute (one of the country's naval academies) for volleyball games between Russian Navy and U.S. Navy teams. In the gymnasium, a large group of Russian midshipmen (kursanti) cheered for their team. I sat next to them at the end of the U.S. bench, wearing my summer whites with an attache loop on my shoulder.
When I spoke Russian to a couple of the mids, a large group quickly congregated and asked questions: "Who are you? How and where did you learn to speak Russian? What's your rank? How long have you been here? What do you do in the U.S. Navy?" Just as American teenagers rarely run out of questions, these 17- to 21 -year-old Russian kids were fascinated to speak with an American Navy officer. And I was just as fascinated.
Serving as an attache' in Russia was the most challenging, interesting, frustrating, and complex job I've ever had. The breadth of tasks was wide. The first week I was in the office, the defense attache' handed me a letter from a former U.S. Navy lieutenant who had survived the ditching of a P-3C patrol plane in the icy waters off Kamchatka Peninsula, in October 1978. Captain Alexander Arbuzov was captain of the Mys Sinyavin. the Soviet fishing trawler that rescued the ten people. The surviving members of the P-3C crew were planning a reunion in Las Vegas and wanted to invite Captain Arbuzov and his family to attend.
My task was to call Arbuzov (who lives in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, eight time zones away from Moscow and a universe removed from the lights of Las Vegas), tell him about the reunion, and find a way to transmit the invitation - all in Russian. After that first call, I talked to Captain Arbuzov ten more times on the phone. He laughed when I made mistakes, but I got the message across and helped him and his wife and daughter get U.S. visas. I wish I could have been there when they arrived in Las Vegas and met the surviving members of the P-3 crew. Reports of the reunion were heartwarming. (For more information on the ditching and rescue of the P-3C crew in 1978, see Andrew C. A. Jampoler's Adak, Naval Institute Press, 2003.)
Preparations
The training track prior to my arrival in Moscow was long but fun. I had ten months of Russian language training at the State Department's Foreign Service Institute in Arlington, Virginia. Five days a week, five hours a day I sat in class with two or three other students (mostly diplomats) and a native Russian instructor. In the afternoons, we had language labs and homework. It was a nice break from the hectic pace of my previous assignment on the Joint Staff in the Pentagon.
After language training, many of my friends and relatives said, "So you must be fluent now?" Hah! Fluency takes many years, of course. But ten months got me to a basic level of competency. I could carry on a conversation, and I had a good foundation in grammar and structure. Some days I spoke well. Other days I'd pick up a newspaper and think, "Is this Russian? I don't know half the words here." Talking on the phone was the hardest linguistic challenge. Fortunately I enjoyed the language, which is rich and beautiful. Success depended greatly on my ability to speak it, especially when traveling outside Moscow.
On the Job
A major task for naval attachés in Russia is arranging U.S. Navy and Coast Guard ship visits. I organized five visits during my tour. The destroyer Cushing (DD-985) visited the Kamchatka Peninsula in May 2005, the first U.S. Navy ship in Petropavlovsk since the end of World War II. One of the highlights for the Cushing's crew, and for me, was the calm, clear weather for our arrival and anchoring in Avacha Bay.
I met the ship ten miles at sea, courtesy of a Russian tugboat that ferried me out at dawn. As day broke, snowcapped volcanoes came into view. We were all agape at the natural beauty of Kamchatka. We sailed past the Three Brothers rock formation at the mouth of the bay, and then straight into the center of Avacha, which must be one of the best protected natural deep-water ports in the world. The commanding officer endeared himself to the local press when he announced that in the ship's homeport of Yokosuka, Japan, "It's a good day when we can see Mount Fuji, but here in Petropavlovsk you have seven Mount Fujis!"
For the following year, the U.S. Defense Attache's Office Moscow organized four successful U.S. Navy ship visits. In July 2006, the 7th Fleet flagship Blue Ridge (LCC- 19) went to Vladivostok with the Fleet commander embarked.
Russians enjoy seeing American ships and Sailors in their ports. Their officers and Sailors seem hungry for interaction with our crews. Ship visits normally include protocol visits to the regional governor's office, mayor's office, and senior local military officials. U.S. and Russian Sailors get together for volleyball or basketball competitions, pier-side barbecues, and tours of each other's ships.
Visits often end with a brief tactical exercise between the U.S. vessels and their Russian host ships upon departure from port. Despite often tense relations between Moscow and Washington, friendly gunboat diplomacy has been on a steady rise for the U.S. Navy in Russia over the past five years.
I learned a great saying from my Russian Navy colleagues: "It is considered very rude for one country to visit another in an [army] tank, but quite acceptable to visit in a warship." They concluded, "So it is much better to be a Navy officer, da?"
Da.
Finding Common Ground
Attaché duty is different in every country of the world because of languages, cultures, and international relationships. The relationship between the United States and Russia - and our militaries - is constantly changing.
During my time in Moscow, it seemed that change was usually for the better. The most rewarding part of my job was finding areas of common interest between the two navies and bringing those areas to life.
Submarine rescue is one of these. On 5 August 2005, I took the initial phone call from a Russian vice admiral asking what assistance the U.S. Navy could render to the AS-28, a seven-man mini-submarine trapped on the ocean floor off the coast of Kamchatka. Shortly after that call, the U.S. air attache' and I flew to Petropavlovsk, on board the Russian defense minister's aircraft, to assist the U.S. Air Force C-5 and C- 17 cargo planes that were arriving with the Navy's Deep Submergence Unit (DSU) personnel and equipment.
I went to the port and helped the DSU load onto a Russian Navy buoy tender. The British Royal Navy also sent a rescue team that arrived slightly ahead of the U.S. team. The Brits rescued the AS-28 using their remotely piloted robot vehicle. But without the U.S. Air Force K-loader that had to be flown in from Japan, the Brits' robot would have been stuck on board their C- 17 at the airport.
One month after the AS-28 crisis, a delegation of U.S. Navy experts came to Moscow to discuss a memorandum of agreement and technical issues for submarine rescue. During the meetings, the Russian Navy graciously hosted the U.S. delegation and thanked us for our efforts in the rescue. In December 2005, a Russian delegation visited the Deep Submergence Unit at North Island, San Diego. Work toward a submarine rescue agreement continues.
Another area of common interest is the global coalition against terrorism. In the past three years, one of the major efforts for U.S. Naval Forces Europe and NATO was to bring Russia into Operation Active Endeavor (OAE), the NATO maritime interdiction operation aimed at terrorist-related activities in the Mediterranean Sea. For several months in 2006, the Russian Federation Navy Ship Pytlivvy, a Krivak II-class frigate from the Black Sea Fleet, participated in OAE.
A precursor to that participation was Northern Eagle, a U. S. -Russian joint exercise in the North Sea in autumn 2004. The exercise wasn't in our original military contact plan for the year; instead, it was directed after an agreement between Presidents Vladimir Putin and George W. Bush when they met at Sea Island, Georgia, in June 2004. As a result, at the end of July, I escorted two Russian admirals and three staff officers to London for the initial planning. In early September, the main planning conference was held in Moscow. The Deputy 6th Fleet Commander and four staff officers from USNAVEUR/6th Fleet came to the Russian capital to finalize the details.
On 28 September, the cruiser USS Hue City (CG-66), RFNS Severomorsk, and RFNS Admiral Levchenko (both Udaloy-class destroyers) rendezvoused in Stavangar, Norway. The crews conducted two days of training in port and four days together under way in the North Sea. The maneuvers culminated in a maritime interdiction operation exercise that exposed the Russian Navy to NATO tactics and procedures.
By all accounts, Northern Eagle was a great success. The U.S. and Russian crews gained important experience working together at sea. My role during the pre-sail conference in Stavangar was to introduce key players from the ships and staffs, break down communications barriers, and solve last-minute problems. The highlight for me was introducing Russian and American junior officers during a reception on board the Hue City. As often happens at receptions, they had congregated in separate groups, so I grabbed some Americans and pulled them over to a group of Russian lieutenants and translated for them. Soon it was one group of JOs sharing experiences, making jokes, and trading warfare pins: military diplomacy at its best.
Two Big Bureaucracies, One Cold War Hangover
Most military-to-military events between the United States and Russia are planned far in advance and formally approved by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and his Russian counterpart in a document called the Military Work Plan. This has been improving and growing steadily in recent years. Without exception, every time U.S. and Russian Navy and Coast Guard personnel have met in recent years - for exercises, professional conferences, port visits, or exchanges - the interaction has been positive and fruitful.
But the road getting there is not always smooth. Foremost among the challenges of being an attaché in Russia is the pervasive sense of suspicion between Washington and Moscow. To me, it felt like a hangover from the Cold War. Both sides respond to initiatives or proposals with skepticism. And the two militaries plan and execute international events - port visits, flag-level delegations, exercises - differently.
I found this difference to be especially marked between our navies. The Russians plan international events a year in advance, and the planning begins and ends in Moscow, with fleet input. In the defense attache office, my colleagues and I found that many things were possible with the Russians, but the key ingredient was a long lead time. We had to telegraph 15 months in the future - in private discussions, planning conferences, and written diplomatic notes - what the U.S. Navy would like to do with the Russian Navy.
On the U.S. side, we wanted to be fluid and plan events much farther to the left on the timeline. Needless to say, the two styles clashed.
One example: A senior U.S. Navy admiral wanted to visit Moscow as part of an international trip through several northern European countries. The admiral's staff e-mailed DAO Moscow and asked us to propose the visit to the Russian Main Navy Staff - a mere three weeks prior to the requested dates. Knowing the Russian planning/acceptance timeline for a four-star-level visit, we advised the admiral's staff that the chances of this happening were all but zero.
Officially we sent a diplomatic note requesting a no-host visit and meeting between the U.S. admiral and Fleet Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov. But another major cultural difference, especially in business, is that Russians would rather say nothing (not respond) to a proposal they dislike or cannot support than say "nyet."
At the action officer level, I told the U.S. admiral's staff that the Russians would probably not respond to the diplomatic note. A week went by, and the admiral's director for plans and policy (N5) called. He was upset and wanted to know why we hadn't received an official reply. I told him the lack of a response was the response.
Cultural differences, two big bureaucracies, and the Cold War hangover created the most job frustration I've ever encountered.
Building for the Future
In our office we were always dealing with the last-minute panic of visa applications for Russian delegations going to the United States and American delegations coming to Russia. I owe a bolshoye spacibo (big thanks) to my U.S. embassy colleagues in the consular section who delivered many a last-minute visa to Russian Navy personnel, keeping alive important contact events that appeared doomed by a detail as "simple" as a visa. I learned that visa is a four-letter word.
There are many areas of foreign policy where the United States and Russia disagree. They are leery of NATO expansion, of the U.S. military presence in the Black Sea and Central Asia, and of our ballistic-missile defense, to name a few hot-button topics. But we have disagreements with our closest allies as well.
The key to peace and stability is to focus not on the disagreements, but on areas of cooperation and mutual interest - while managing the areas of conflict and disagreement. Submarine rescue, global energy trade, the fight against terrorism, and freedom of maritime commerce are areas where U.S. and Russian interests intersect. In these domains and others, the Russian Federation Navy will sail alongside the American Navy.
I left Russia in December 2005 to return to sea duty in Norfolk. Now I look back on Moscow nostalgically. I'm glad I can speak Russian. I'm blessed to have had the amazing opportunity to see the Kremlin, Moscow, Vladivostok, Petropavlovsk, and other places I never dreamed I'd see.
I don't miss the traffic, or the frustration of trying to get two huge bureaucracies with very different cultures to talk to each other and agree to work together. But I feel a sense of accomplishment at having helped build the relationship and raise the level of trust between our nations and our navies. It was an absolute honor, and a fascinating experience, to represent the U.S. Navy to the Russian Navy at a dynamic time in both our nations' histories.