I think they were quite extraordinary, both in a russian context as well as international. I am not only thinking about the massive loss of life that happened from 1917-1953. But also the almost succesfull attack on the Russian culture, the very identity of the people. Hitler, also a man that created unfathomble pain, were not near such a feat, though one can say that he did corrupt the german culture and identity.
Resurgence of the Soviet Union?
- Thread starter Jecito
- Start date
- Status
Feanor
By natural position, I mean a historical reality of a russian people living in a geographical space. It has a certain size of space and population, and all this works to a certain relative standing in the world. 100 years of mismangement and selfdestruct has for the time being lessened that position to less that it ought to be, but it will rebounce, just like we are seeing China rebounce to an important position (after some 300 years of relative weakness).
The only difference between A400M and current Russian equivalents is that the Russians developed them years ago when they had the money to sink into them and the Europeans are doing it now instead to create a new capability in Europe. At least the A400M has export prospects.
What the hell are you talking about? In early 2008 Britain had 15,000 troops stationed overseas on a long term basis. For shorter periods (6 months) we can have 50,000 troops abroad, and that means anywhere in the world, not limited to our own backyard. Britain still has one of the best power projection capabilities in the world, which is more than can be said for Russia. And i'm pretty sure the French could come pretty near to matching our deployments too if they wanted.
For our economy to collapse we'd have to try and deploy A LOT more troops, we'd basically have to be in a state of total war.
You're trying to make out like only having dumb bombs available to you is a good thing? Perhaps it isn't necessary to have much better against the Georgians but it certainly makes the job quicker to have technology at your disposal. The Gulf war provides ample examples.
As far as I can remember Britain, Japan and France have both been world powers for a lot longer than the Russians and all have modern militaries.
Are you honestly saying that more engineers and researchers are bad for the economy after the USSR spent decades striving to gain knowledge and pumping out research, if only to support its military goals. Your space program and many military advances of the 80's were ingenious, the best legacy of the Soviets in my opinion. It's the educated researchers who made that happen. Political corruption stalls development and progress very effectively.
For the Russians to regain footing with the medium powers at least it definitely needs to sort it's economy out and diversify away from gas and oil or they'll go into terminal decline pretty quick. As for superpower status, they'll never regain that in my eyes without massive changes. If they don't come up with a way to boost the economy significantly in the long term then the military will decline and eventually there won't even be enough money left for them to maintain the one thing that keeps the world even remotely interested/intimidated by them, the nuclear weapons.
This is nonsensical. It is simply untrue. Share prices and buildings are not the main source of increasing household income. If my house doubles in price, as it did between 2001 & 2007, it does not increase my income. If I sold the house in 2007, I would have had far more than I'd paid for it, but would have had nowhere to live, & the purchase price or rent of any other house I might have lived in had also increased. Result: no net benefit. That's a general rule. Increasing property prices produce an illusion of increasing wealth, not the reality. What they actually do is transfer wealth to those who trade down (sell large houses & move into smaller ones) or inherit & sell houses, from those who buy houses for the first time, or trade up (sell a small house & buy a larger one). They no more increase incomes than average incomes are increased if I give half of mine to my neighbour: he is richer, but I am poorer by the same amount, & the average is unchanged.
My house has since dropped in price, but this does not make me poorer. Indeed, it is positive. Larger houses have decreased proportionately, & it is therefore easier for me to buy a larger house, since the money I have in the bank has not decreased. I'm better off as a result of falling real estate prices, not poorer.
I've gone into this in some detail as it is illustrative of your general misrepresentation of economic realities.
BTW, if nominal interest rates are zero, but consumer prices are falling, real interest rates are positive. Money in the bank is gaining value.
You quote a Korean newspaper on the repatriation assistance, but what you fail to say is that the relatively generous - and voluntary - offer to those on Nikkei visas (i.e. those of Japanese ancestry) is because they can't be deported, or deprived of the right to further Nikkei visas, & are entitled to unemployment benefits in Japan, Unemployed Filipinos or Chinese can get sent home compulsorily.
I see you're a fan of Charles Dodgson, but one who's failed to get the point. He was mocking people who invented their own meanings.
Err - thousands of Airbus aircraft are in use around the world, & thousands more on order. How many Russian transport aircraft have been sold in the last ten years, & how many of those exported? How many are on order? A400M is one project of many.
Last edited:
This is international issue, not connected exclusuvely to russian MOD
Naturally, most generals in every country strongly oppose military reduction. As i said, this have nothing to do with any quantity or quality as you, btw, said yourself. This have everything to do with "will have an impact upon ones personal standing within the military hierarchy and amongst ones peers."
I repeat it again. Nothing extraordinary. French revolution. English constitution. Germany unification. USA presidents all the way. These are only few examples for you, which affected respective countries culture to similar degree.
Lenin and Stalin were of course great leaders, they made in 20 years something what many other countries made in 50-100 years. But then again - even in that they were not unique. French revolution is great example here...
I fail to see why 100 years. 30 years at most. Beginning from mid-70x untill current time. Tsarist Russia were much weaker than Soviet Russia, the tsarist goverment was much more incompetent and corrupt, the country backwardness (compared to best western countries) was much stronger.
So, not 100 years. Either 30 years, or 300 years depending from the way you look.
They are "alternative". The main argument in article - "USSR/Russia have too much equipment for they official spending, so they must spend more than officially open". A case what some things in Russia are simply cheaper (or done entirely different) than in West somehow dont comes to CIA mind...
Lets stick to official defence figures, else we can find dirty tricks in every other country budget.
I repeat. GPS IS NOT OF FRENCH ORIGIN. So you cant count that as french. You can include that in NATO/Western forces - but comparing whole West to single Russia is not our intention...
Comparing single limited Aster, however good in can be in own niche, to full spectrum of Russian SAM's is like comparing Finnish Patria AMV to whole russian armored spectrum - tanks, BTR/BMP/BMD/BMPT/etc.
Again, what quantity?
Far from being complete in practical means, contrary to GLONASS.
Lack tactical missiles like Smerch or Iskander/Tochka.
No question here, however again lack some specialized strategic assests like very fast recon planes (Mig-25), interceptors like Mig-31, strong bombers like Tu-22Mx/Tu-160/Tu-95/Su-34. Even like Su-25 after all...
Here we can find both examples were french are somewhat ahead and were they are behind or even completely lack something.
Huh, which suite?
There is no question
But this is true. Btw, i always find it is pretty dirt trick to point on something like "better feed citizens". This have nothing to do with military strengst or even with the need for military strengst - for the better life of said citizens.
As i said, face it. Russia use legacy of USSR. In all areas, including science, education, infrastructure, etc. Thats why Russia can maintain and even further develop military which is far stronger than any other country of comparable economical strengst (i.e. anyone but USA).
GPS isn't the only guidance mechanism involved. But the french could design a missile without the need for GPS, but it has no reason to, that doesn't mean it can't.
Aster is a single system, that does the same job of just about all the Russian SAM systems (especially if they get round to modifying it for BMD use) so it is better in many ways, fewer different systems to maintain and manage. And why are you comparing what the French have now to every SAM the Soviets built for 30 years. If you're going to compare you must pick the current system e.g S300, S400, not just "full spectrum of Russian SAMs."
GLONASS isn't fully operational, it requires 24 satellites for global coverage, so you're 4 short at the moment. As for Galileo, we can and have developed it, which is the point, we can do it if we want or if the need is great enough. There is no rush because GPS is still fine for us, being allies of America and all that.
The point is that the French and other medium powers could build systems like this if necessary, they simply don't need many of them. Are you suggesting that in order to be considered militarily powerful we must have a matching system for every one of yours, with no room for differing doctrines?
For example, very few countries operate dedicated interceptors now (Britain is/was an exception) because the need isn't part of their defence doctrine anymore. Strategic bombers are also becoming a thing of the past, with smaller aircraft being able to do the job better, which is why the American's next bomber is based on the F22.
If you wait until the Soviet era equipment needs to be taken out of service due to old age etc. then I think you'll find that the Russian military will be doing the very opposite of maintaining and expanding. The money (and the enemy) simply isn't there anymore.
The economic strength of the medium powers (esp. UK and France) is similar to Russia's for now thanks to oil and gas exports, yet they both have a much greater military capability in my opinion in terms of advanced equipment and power projection ability (which are the elements that cost the most). I think this will continue as British and French innovation and advance is happening much quicker than Russia thanks to all those universities pumping out engineers and the like. Let's not forget that the "science, education and infrastructure" you mentioned all fell apart as the Soviet union did, where as ours are still intact and have been all along.
Chrom
Look for Grim901, he answers adequately for me.
Though
Grim!
Look for Grim901, he answers adequately for me.
Though
Grim!
Sorry but that last bottle of vodka did you disservice... there is no comparison between the economical muscles of UK or France and then Russia. F.ex france is an economy 70% larger and not 100% dependent on raw ressource prices.
In my hurry (I was on my way out as I wrote the post) i'm ashamed to admit I simply used a list of nominal GDP to justify what I posted about similar economic power. I shouldn't have, especially as a Geography student who likes to focus on Geopolitics.
Of course the Russian economy is nothing in comparison to that of Britain or France, but for now at least the GDP is similar thanks to large resource reserves and the current situation hitting Britain particularly badly.
I should have stated that.
How many strategic transports are sold by medium sized powers? Russia has ready buyers like China and India. but Russia wont sell them at rock bottom prices even if R&D is paid in Soviet times. and there 1000 already in operation.
I will give you another example of wasted R&D. Airbus A-380. By now almost $20b has been sunk into it. Western banks are on hook for its sales to bankrupt airlines. Why do u think medium sized powers have such huge banking problem. Because it is hiding inefficiencies and corruption in other sectors of economy.
It will be finshed? One satellite in 10 years. I would not be surprized if Russia raise the prices at end for launching galileo. Remember it needs alteast 24 for operation and 30 for effectiveness.
Russia will be the last country with internal instability. This problem of medium sized powers.
First medium sized powers are losing there standard of living as more and more products and services are shifted to Asia which has much bigger population.
2nd Medium sized powers have expensive top universities. which needs expensive facutly to run it.
they are creating debt ridden students and researchers. In order to employ them. Expensive worthless R&D projects are initiated. which are easily imitated by East Asia so no commercial benefit.
how many countries copy Russian uranium enrichment tech (I believe they are in 10th generation. 7th generation sold to China). or heavy tranport or space launch capabilitie.. the answer is none.
better. thats why whole world and UN is using Russian choppers and transport. several thousand medium weight choppers have exported. Russia will create new heavy chopper with China. THere is alot of demand for Russian transports. They are not capable of logistics.
Modern PGMs has different meaning. It needs precision of targeting and weopon system.
It would still be 1 million. airborne will troops will be among the largest part it. how many medium sized powers maintian supersonic bombers with global reach.
superpowers dont depend on tacticals. otherwise India and Israel would be superpower. It was the fear of Russia that led to collapse of Georgian army not the actual fire power on the ground
They are neither military powers nor economic powers. The biggest of them Japan and its dependency on two countries alone China/US. For country to be considered as medium power. it needs very different kind of economic and military system. I am not even going into natural resource independency.
you dont need to be productive to be effective. u can see Russia will soon approach US in grain export. Not a single medium sized powers can approach it. Alot of food deficient countries will be waiting in line.
Bottom line is there is no correlation between Top 500 universities and Superpower. As other factors are far more important. You can pretty much import intellectual capital and industrial machinery from abroad once you have the hard currency.
do you think real estate only includes housing. nothing commericial and industrial real estate. The collapse of construction and real estat sector in any country has very severe implications. Alot of people pension and savings, investments are tied to it. Not every own house. .
the opposite is true for those owning larger houses. they have larger loan and more investment money tied in asset which has lesser value.
Japan is big natural resource importer. and since 1989. Natural resource prices has quadrupled. but Japanese exports have collapsed. The country is alot poorer. Just honda and toyota in one year alone slashing people wages. There is no evidience that per capita income increased by 20%.
Thats the whole. they are giving generous aid. because Japanese government has zero confidence about there own country. they just want to depopulate the country.
This called confidence.
You have to compare how much money is invested in airbus projects. It is subsidized industrial complex. If aviation business was so profitable alot of privated investors would have started it. and with such generous loans and leases Its better to buy Western airline. Aviation industry is kept as strategic sector. so Putin can fly Russian airline or countries where western banks are not giving loans. It is not profitable
Medum sized powers are always creating debt in unlimited amount but Real Superpower is decreasing debt even in recession let alone in expansion.
Stationing a troops in friendly country like Russia has stationed in Armenia, Tajkistan, Crimea, Belarus, kazakistan, Azerbajan, Krgystan and occupying 40% of Georgia is two different things. All these alone come close to 100,000. And still Russia has plenty of troops left to exercise influence.
As i said there is difference between medium sized powers and Superpower.
His point was that France doesn't have independent GPS capability.
That's not quite right. Russia deploys the full spectrum of SAMs from MANPADS, tac-SAMs (a la Tor-M2), division level SAMs (Buk-2M), and theater level SAMs (S-300/400). That's a whole major industry with multiple enterprises, that provides much more then the single French Aster system.
The real question to ask is why we need to invest so much into SAMs? And the answer is because we're deficient in air power. SAMs are a substitute for air superiority. I.e. when operating under contested or even hostile airspace, they are meant to provide cover for ground troops.
By the way what kind of an engagement envelope does the Aster have? (I'm not familiar with it)
See above.
Link please. If you're talking about the 2018 bomber project, then so far we don't have any concrete info on it as far as I know.
Well. The last ORBAT I had, by my estimates, would include 4000-5000 tanks, for example. That's not impossible to achieve. This economic crisis certainly creates major problems. And now I'm not very optimistic, but before it hit all the indicators were that there would indeed be enough new T-90A tanks to substitute most of not all the older models if budget increases continued as planned.
It didn't "all fall apart". Most continued functioning, and gradually fell into disrepair as investment halted, and projects were put on backburner. Some of it has been gradually revived recently. However it remains to be seen if anything happens of it.
Quit dodging my points. You brought up an example. Lets talk about it. How many transport aircraft has Russia sold in the last 5 years? How many can it hope to sell in the next 5? How many transport aircraft has EADS sold in the last 5 years? What are it's sales prospects?
You do realize that most of those ten years were not spent producing the sattelite. And even if the prices are raised (of course they'll be raised, inflation and all) it won't stop the program. Therein lies the key difference. The GLONASS system was already operational once. In iirc 1993. Now it's inoperational, and slowly being brought back up to strength. What's that a sign of?
Garbage. You know nothing of internal Russian politics if you seriously try to make this claim. Regular clashes between radical protest groups and police, ethnic tensions between immigrants and locals, and under the carpet power struggles between various officials and business groups are part of daily life much more so, and much more violently, then in any "medium power" that we talked about.
Bottom line is, Russia is losing jobs faster.
Choppers yes (to some extent). Transport planes? No. And in any event it takes more then a successful transport helo to provide logistics.
What's your point? We used laser guided bombs dropped by the Su-24M (which you claimed had no PGM capability) and guided tactical missiels. Would you like to demonstrate in practical terms and by comparing with other systems across critical parameters, why these weapons are not PGMs by your definition?
Did you bother reading up on it? Do you know what is being done? Who's force structure are we trying to copy? Answer the questions.
Rubbish. Do you not understand the implications of losing independence in development of one's own military tactics and strategies? Having to copy other's force structure almost blindly?
Do you have any idea what you're saying? If anything this is a sign of how low we've come. Russian industry is practically dead. With the exception of some metallurgy, and some MIC, everything else is either dead or only now beginning to recover from the collapse of the USSR
Right. Because there are so many educated people from abroad moving to Russia right now.
Russian Mafia, if some of their members are former GRU, KGB and Spetsnaz, surely enough the Government has enough dirt on them from Soviet documents... Unless corrupted officials have been blackmailing them or cutting deals with them. That is the most likely case, since Feanor is keen on implying that Russia has corruption issues. Every country does, unfortunately. (Which reminds me of the Perak Chief Minister thing, stupidity in the most blatant context)
But, I've got an aunt who studies Meds in Russia. She says it's okay, the people there are friendly. A recent Malaysian reporter came back from Russia, he says Moscow was okay. But Moscow does not entirely tell us of the entire nation, so to a lesser extent his claim is rather invalid.
And Feanor, doesn't Antonov Airlines out-class most of Aerial shipping? that's what Wikipedia says. Please clarify.
But, I've got an aunt who studies Meds in Russia. She says it's okay, the people there are friendly. A recent Malaysian reporter came back from Russia, he says Moscow was okay. But Moscow does not entirely tell us of the entire nation, so to a lesser extent his claim is rather invalid.
And Feanor, doesn't Antonov Airlines out-class most of Aerial shipping? that's what Wikipedia says. Please clarify.
What do you mean by outclass? I know very little of Antonov these days. I believe they operate out of Ukraine, but in close cooperation with Ilyushin Finance Co. and other Russian companies.
I understand that a visitors impression of Moscow may be nice. Believe me it's a dirty, and highly criminalized megapolis. I have not been there for a few years, but from what I know it's not a nice place to live.
I understand that a visitors impression of Moscow may be nice. Believe me it's a dirty, and highly criminalized megapolis. I have not been there for a few years, but from what I know it's not a nice place to live.
Ok, up until last month there were 8,000 troops in Afghanistan and 4,000 in Iraq. I wouldn't consider them friendly, they are warzones. We have thousands more deployed to "friendly" countries that could be deployed if necessary. I read somewhere that beside the US we had the most soldiers deployed on combat operations and also overseas in general. The French were third.
From reading what you've written I doubt there's any point trying to convince you of anything on here now, you don't seem to be able to look past your nationalism and prejudices against the West.
Aster is the naval system, Samp/T is ground based. Not entirely sure on it engagement envelope but is dependent on the missile loaded. Aster 15 has a range of about 30km. Aster 30 is over 120km.
The reason I only mentioned Aster was because he used the justification that the Aster can't match the whole spectrum of SAMs as proof that France can't produce the whole range of systems. He didn't say anything about other SAM systems that the French make. He's choosing to ignore too much.
Just went looking for a link and found some new stuff that suggests that idea has been scrapped, apologies for posting it. The concrete requirements were coming out the end of this year, but the timetable has been pushed back further due the new budget pressures. It was originally assumed to be based on F22 due to the tight schedule. It might still be but Lockheed and Boeing have apparently teamed up now.
Not heard the word ORBAT before. I'd be interested to see if this does happen or not. But I'm not really sure why the Russians still want so many tanks. The Gulf War provided pretty strong backing against massed tanks armies. Can you shed some light on the thinking here?
True for some things. Military infrastructure was pretty badly hit though wasn't it? Especially with major plants/companies ending up in other countries.
That's where part of my justification for him being unable to see past his prejudices against the West comes from.
Yes, there's a lot more to logistics than a decent transport Helo. That being said the Europeans do have some pretty good mid sized choppers and a heavy one in the (early) works.
Just to add to that about what Roberto said, why would Britain or France need to match Russian/US grain exports? They both have smaller populations, the ability to feed them all well and absolutely no need to produce more. In fact we had to introduce a quota system so we didn't have to dump food in the oceans/let it rot.
Out-class as in get all the contracts. It seems that a lot of shipping is done through them, or so their website claims. And when was the last time were you in Moscow?
- Status