# Russia to quadruple nuclear weapon production



## CougarKing (25 Dec 2008)

And Putin...COUGH I mean Medvedev has yet another Christmas present for POTUS-E Barack Obama.



> http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/24/russia-nuclear"
> 
> *Russia has thrown down a new gauntlet to Barack Obama with an announcement that it will sharply increase production of strategic nuclear missiles.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Weinie (25 Dec 2008)

We'll see what impact $40.00 barrel/oil has on the Kremlin's master plans.


----------



## TCBF (25 Dec 2008)

Weinie said:
			
		

> We'll see what impact $40.00 barrel/oil has on the Kremlin's master plans.



- Might slow things down a bit, but Europeans still need natural gas in the winter.  

- Their plan looks sound - their silos are much more blast and overpressure hardenned than others around the world and cheaper than building new SSBNs.

- This may be geared more towards China than the USA. If China was to bite off a chunk of Siberia, the Russians could not touch them conventionally.


----------



## jeffb (25 Dec 2008)

> The new military procurements follow the war in Georgia in August. Russian forces easily routed Georgian troops, but the conflict exposed weaknesses in the Russian army, including outdated equipment and poorly co-ordinated command structures. The defence ministry said it would carry out drastic reforms, turning the army *into a more modern force.*



I don't suppose they mean moving to a volunteer based, professional army? I wonder if the Russians are considering a doctrine change away from mass attacks towards a more Western approach of better trained professional soldiers?


----------



## Spanky (25 Dec 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Might slow things down a bit, but Europeans still need natural gas in the winter.
> 
> - Their plan looks sound - their silos are much more blast and overpressure hardenned than others around the world and cheaper than building new SSBNs.
> 
> - This may be geared more towards China than the USA. If China was to bite off a chunk of Siberia, the Russians could not touch them conventionally.


I did hear on the radio the other day that Russia announced that cheap natural gas was a thing of the past, and that prices would be increasing.  Are the Americans still contributing to the cost of dismantling their old stockpile?


----------



## Infanteer (25 Dec 2008)

jeffb said:
			
		

> I wonder if the Russians are considering a doctrine change away from mass attacks towards



They did a long time ago.



> a more Western approach of better trained professional soldiers?



I believe they started trying a short time ago.


----------



## wannabe SF member (25 Dec 2008)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> [tr][td]
> I believe they started trying a short time ago.



_Kontrakniki_ as they call them are not seen very well by a large part of the military. Sellouts and mercenaries they are called.


----------



## oligarch (29 Dec 2008)

The incongruous said:
			
		

> _Kontrakniki_ as they call them are not seen very well by a large part of the military. Sellouts and mercenaries they are called.



Actually, not always true. They may be looked at by some old fashioned guys like that, but the point is that in any actual fighting Russia today uses only their volonteer professional units. Border guards also recently moved to a volunteer base and are now controlled by the FSB. Georgia war included mostly professional and a few conscripts doing unessential things. The boarder guards were always one of the best places to be sent as a conscript as they did not have much "dedovshina" (informal hierarchies within the conscripts, etc), but now this is not an option anymore. 

They're also stepping up their recruiting efforts: 

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSKgKHp2igk
2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdFWpW3yd4o

look familiar?

Their long term plan appears to be to move most of the fighting units onto contract basis but still have a short conscription period for basic training for all healthy and eligible males in the country. This could be explained by the slew of security concerns but also by engrained outlooks by the population and the army. Russians are also weary of drastic changes to anything after the effect drastic changes in the economy brought in the 1990s, so this will be a long, slow, and careful process before conscription is abolished. Also, there is a belief in Russian millitary circles that "if someone comes for money, they will leave for money", but a conscript serves to protect his home and not his wallet. However, I know many Russians and none of them want to be conscripted. I have heard OF THEM, but have never SEEN them personally. The reality is that most of the good places to serve are contract oriented now.


----------



## JayJay144 (1 Jan 2009)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Might slow things down a bit, but Europeans still need natural gas in the winter.
> 
> - Their plan looks sound - their silos are much more blast and overpressure hardenned than others around the world and cheaper than building new SSBNs.
> 
> - This may be geared more towards China than the USA. If China was to bite off a chunk of Siberia, the Russians could not touch them conventionally.



To be honest I can't see Russia and China going against one another not one bit. They're pretty much oil allies now with other countries around the world like Iran and Venezuala. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/puti-a04.shtml


----------



## TCBF (1 Jan 2009)

JayJay144 said:
			
		

> To be honest I can't see Russia and China going against one another not one bit. They're pretty much oil allies now with other countries around the world like Iran and Venezuala. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/puti-a04.shtml



- A balanced view from the "WorldSocialistWebSite"?

 :


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jan 2009)

Most of this is geared towards Russia's quest to regain "Great Power" status. This worked in the last incarnation as the USSR (the impression of strength provided by the massive "Red Army" gave them a lot of leverage which they otherwise would not have), but the strategy is built on a weak economic foundation and may explode in their faces.

1. Russia's political and economic system is an unstable kleptocracy, which is a pretty weal basis to provide the stable long term funding needed. The collapse of oil prices and the forecast instability of oil prices combined with the global financial crisis will make funding this project much more difficult.

2. Russia is facing pressure on the southern borders from the Islamic states and the "Near Abroad". Retaking the former Russian Empire will consume much time and attention from other Imperial projects

3. Long term, Russia is facing a demographic crash, which means manning the borders and the factory floors will become more and more difficult, with the crash projected to be in full flower in the 2030 time frame. Depopulated areas never stay depopulated for long; the Chinese will have their own demographic issues in the 2020's (excess male/female ratios) and the Islamic lands to the south will also have massive and growing populations who would like to settle available lands.


----------



## CougarKing (1 Jan 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> the Islamic lands to the south will also have massive and growing populations who would like to settle available lands.



You mean Islamic lands in the West, like Xinjiang/新疆 province of China, which some archaic linguist nitwits who still use the Wade-Giles system still refer to as "Sinkiang".


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jan 2009)

I have heard – I cannot find many published sources but there are a few – that Eastern Siberia, especially the Russian regions of Amur and Chita (which border the Chinese province of Heilongjiang), are being depopulated as residents move (back) to the European provinces.

The Chinese appear to be moving into several regions of Eastern Siberia. The _migration_ is perceived to be both real and overblown. I have little doubt it is real and I suspect the Chinese want to downplay the whole thing.

China wants – maybe desperately – the resources in Eastern Siberia and, above all the petroleum in Central and Western Siberia. In my opinion the Chinese are happy to pay for them, provided only that the supply is secure. Were Russia to try to treat China the way it treats e.g. Ukraine then I am pretty sure Chinese attitudes would change and the Chinese faction that believes that everything East of the Yenisei River is Asian (read Chinese) will dominate the debate and Chinese _aggression_ in Siberia will become more pronounced.

Russia’s demographic nightmare is not going away – not in the near term and not in the mid term. China, on the other hand, continues to grow and needs resources to sustain its prosperity. Siberia is emptying and is rich in resources. You do the math.


----------



## geo (2 Jan 2009)

The global economic collapse will result in Russians migrating towards the European side of their great land.... where there is better land and perceived better economic oportunities.

With a sudden turn of the tap, a lot of those petro dollars Russia was spending on their infrastructure (military included) have come to a screeching halt.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jan 2009)

CougarDaddy said:
			
		

> You mean Islamic lands in the West, like Xinjiang/新疆 province of China, which some archaic linguist nitwits who still use the Wade-Giles system still refer to as "Sinkiang".



Xinjiang is more of a problem for China; I am sure the Russians are looking more at the 'Stans, the Caucus and the troublemakers in the Persian Gulf...

When you add Xinjiang to that landmass you are looking at a potentially troublesome problem for both the Russians and Chinese; demographically speaking "the East is Green" and a large and expanding Islamic population in central Asia looking for resources and economic opportunities is the source of nightmares in the Kremlin, probably in Beijing and New Deli as well.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2009)

The Russians would be well advised to move their resources to something more productive than weapons:

http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2009/01/dying-bears-and-eunichs.html



> *A Dying Bears and a Pack of Eunichs*
> 
> We have the most expensive US presidant money can buy ... they, have the most expensive eunichs money can buy ... and a dying bear to boot:
> 
> ...


----------



## Flanker (17 Jan 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Russians would be well advised to move their resources to something more productive than weapons:
> 
> http://cjunk.blogspot.com/2009/01/dying-bears-and-eunichs.html



Wow! Nothing has changed for the last 200 years.
Do not be so naive in your wishful thinking on your "potential" ennemy.
I dare remind that there had already been quite famous "thinkers" like that ... Napoleon and others, you know ... but they all had ended very badly.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2009)

I'm not planning on invading Russia anytime soon; rather I am worried how their deteriorating social, economic and environmental situations will affect Russia's leadership. Many regimes in difficulty find it useful to direct the attention of the population outwards, and starting a war is one of the best ways for Russia's leadership to take their people's mind's off the issues closer to home. (Of course, the stresses of actually campaigning eventually overwhelm any potential gains, the 1980 Afghanistan war or more recent conflicts in the "near abroad" are instructive).

As for wishful thinking, a paranoid and humiliated regime armed with nuclear weapons facing severe difficulties on multiple issues is hardly something to "wish away"; a little cold analysis of the facts at hand are in order.


----------



## oligarch (19 Jan 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm not planning on invading Russia anytime soon; rather I am worried how their deteriorating social, economic and environmental situations will affect Russia's leadership. Many regimes in difficulty find it useful to direct the attention of the population outwards, and starting a war is one of the best ways for Russia's leadership to take their people's mind's off the issues closer to home. (Of course, the stresses of actually campaigning eventually overwhelm any potential gains, the 1980 Afghanistan war or more recent conflicts in the "near abroad" are instructive).
> 
> As for wishful thinking, a paranoid and humiliated regime armed with nuclear weapons facing severe difficulties on multiple issues is hardly something to "wish away"; a little cold analysis of the facts at hand are in order.



Paraniod and humiliated.... wtih a 70% approval rating...lol


----------



## geo (20 Jan 2009)

> As for wishful thinking, a paranoid and humiliated regime armed with nuclear weapons facing severe difficulties on multiple issues is hardly something to "wish away"; a little cold analysis of the facts at hand are in order.



You talking about North Korea in this thread ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> You talking about North Korea in this thread ?



I guess you're trying to be a bit humorous, geo, but it didn't quite come across.

I happen to share Thucydides' fear about Russia: it is weak and _humiliated_ and it does face myriad severe problems - fiscal, demographic, strategic - none of which appear, to me be to amenable to quick, easy, cheap solutions. Russia has no history of the sort of _liberal_ and _entrepreneurial_ 'spirit' or 'drive' that *jump started* England, then America and Western Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries and Japan and then China and India in the 20th.

I think Russia poses a real danger to the West what Barnett called the "connected core" - even though he, mistakenly in my view put Russia in that core in one of those fits of wishful thinking that so often, too often, characterizes American 'thought' about Russia.

Russia *might* have been a _petro-[super]power_ when oil was nearing $150.00/bbl - _might_ have been if the Russians could *manage* their vast, sprawling, poor, corrupt, unproductive nation and its wealth in resources. With oil approaching $30.00/bbl it is not clear that Russia can heat its own homes or fuel its own factories, much less afford to export oil and gas to Europe.

I see Russia as a fast fading giant, old and weak before its time, but able, maybe to lash out once more - if only to exact some revenge for the humiliation of the 1990s. That's a danger.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Jan 2009)

George Friedman at STRATFOR provides an interesting overview of the immediate problems facing the US, and hence, the Western alliance, in Obama Enters the Great Game.

Beyond the economy, which isn't discussed in the article, Friedman states that Obama has to deal with the great game of global competition, where "presidents rarely get to set the agenda." Obama comes into office with "three interlocking issues: Afghanistan, Russia and Europe. In one sense, this is a single issue — and it is not one that will wait." 

He ties together the Afghanistan campaign, particularly the heavy logistics, with Pakistan's instability forcing greater reliance on a Russian-dominated supply route. There will be a requirement, naturally, for Russian participation (or at least non-interference if a Caspian route is chosen over an actual route through Russian territory). This will come at a price, which would be borne by a Europe/NATO that is increasingly beholden to Russian gas.

The knock-on effects will add greatly to those threatened "interesting times."


----------



## geo (20 Jan 2009)

Hey Edward,

I guess I was trying to be tongue in cheek on this one.
While North Korea is a complete and total basket case with an armfull of Nuclear capacity, an economy in ruin AND a leadership that is weak and failing fast... I fear them 1st - because they are probably the country that is probably the most "ripe" at this present time.

WRT Russia, lotta things going for it and a lot of things going against it - least of which is the present decline in world oil prices , notwithstanding the price of gas this morning :GRRR:  However, I perceive them as still having a lot potential... (in the same way as India & China had a lot of unharnessed potential between the 1880s and 1990)  Posessing nukes - I can only compare them as a something akin to being a "Teen with a Gun".  Lots of potential for trouble.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Feb 2009)

As Russia's oil wealth dissapates, so does the social consensus.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/4414018/Vladimir-Putin-faces-signs-of-mutiny-in-own-government-as-protests-break-out-in-east.html



> *Vladimir Putin faces signs of mutiny in own government as protests break out in east *
> Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, faces signs of an unprecedented mutiny within his own government that threatens to undermine his once unassailable authority, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.
> 
> By Adrian Blomfield in Vladivostok
> ...


----------



## geo (2 Feb 2009)

> But he has made an unspoken bargain with his people. In return for creating an anti-democratic state, he has promised to deliver financial stability and economic growth. That pledge, which looked so secure when oil was selling at more than $100 a barrel, is looking increasingly tattered today.



Figured that the economic downturn would have an effect on our Soviet  Russian friends and their ambition of regaining their position WRT Global domination.  This is going to be a lesson in Economics 101 for our friend Vladimir.  Global domination is going to have to wait for better times.


----------



## ltmaverick25 (2 Feb 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Figured that the economic downturn would have an effect on our Soviet  Russian friends and their ambition of regaining their position WRT Global domination.  This is going to be a lesson in Economics 101 for our friend Vladimir.  Global domination is going to have to wait for better times.



Indeed, but this economic mess is not going to last forever.  In the short term Putin may be in trouble, and obviously any attempt at reasserting itself globally in any meaningful way will be difficult for now.  However, once this economic mess turns around, I beleive one of the first things to happen will be a sharp increase in the price of oil.  If that happens were back to square one.  Provided that Putin can survive between now and then we are looking at a short term delay at best in the grand strategic picture.

In my opinion that means Russia is still a threat.  I agree that North Korea is an area for concern as well though.  Which one is more dangerous in the immediate future?  That is hard to say.  North Korea is pressing hard to agitate South Korea as we speak, but Russia still has much more capability of projecting power then North Korea does.  Because of the ailing food supplies in North Korea, they would never be able to make full use of their military power.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Feb 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> George Friedman at STRATFOR provides an interesting overview of the immediate problems facing the US, and hence, the Western alliance, in Obama Enters the Great Game.
> 
> Beyond the economy, which isn't discussed in the article, Friedman states that Obama has to deal with the great game of global competition, where "presidents rarely get to set the agenda." Obama comes into office with "three interlocking issues: Afghanistan, Russia and Europe. In one sense, this is a single issue — and it is not one that will wait."
> 
> ...



Since power projection just got priced out of the market; blocking actions aimed at other powers are now the order of teh day:

http://lawhawk.blogspot.com/2009/02/russian-about-face-on-logisitical.html



> *Russian About Face On Logistical Support For Afghan Operation? *
> 
> Instapundit notes that the Russians are about to pull the rug out from under the US and NATO in their ongoing Afghan operation.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2009)

Further evidence of Russia's economic decline. Oile prices may bounce back after (or because of) the financial crisis, but much of the wealth will need to be used to rebuild decayed infrastructure and perform other useful investments. If Russia's rulers continue with the Kleptocracy, then Russians might start asking hard questions about where the oil wealth is going to:





> *Have Car, Need Briefs? In Russia, Barter Is Back*
> By ELLEN BARRY
> Published: February 7, 2009
> 
> ...


----------



## R. Jorgensen (13 Feb 2009)

Even with Putin as Prime Minister/Premier (an article says he's PM but CIA Factbook says he's Premier), he's dangerously close to President Medvedev. Putin managed to convince Medvedev to extend the Presidential term from 4 to 6 years, this would allow Putin to come back into Presidential running. Putin isn't the greatest of Russian politicians, he's shady, mysterious and potentially lethal; sure, he was able to promote sports (development of the KHL - Kontinental Hockey League) and arts which brought a better sense of welcoming and friendliness to Russia's appearance.

With Medvedev being so easily manipulated by Putin, there's no telling what could happed. All of Medvedev's proposed plans of knocking out US Missile Defence systems in Eastern Europe by targeting Iskander nuclear-capable missiles at the radar stations in Poland and Czech Republic were actually the secret plans of Vladimir Putin. Putin muttered these words of "fighting off the American swine" when he first entered Presidency in May of 2000.

In mid-April, 2008, the Russian Foreign Ministry announced that Prime Minister Putin had given instructions to the federal government whereby Moscow would pursue economic, diplomatic, and administrative relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia as with the subjects of Russia. This was the reactionary plan to Georgia's massing military force that was preparing to invade the Republic of Abkhazia in an attempt to re-assimilate it back into Georgia (even though Abkhazia delcared independence along with Ossetia and Transnistria). Russia started deploying military forces into Abkhazia and Ossetia "as part of the peacekeeping force." What he was really doing is trying to, I guess... protect Russian interests in Abkhazia and Ossetia? Trying to assimilate ABKZ and OSTA into Russia as part of Putin and Medvedev's plan to create a "mini-USSR" along with Belarus.

Oh, I found it. South Ossetia (North Ossetia is still part of Russia) and Abkhazia were annexed by Russia as a result of the armed conflict with Georgia in August 2008.

I didn't follow Russia's affairs too closely over the years so there may be some inconsistencies in my text above.

But all in all, Russia as been falling apart ever since the end of the Soviet era.

/facepalm is all I really have to describe my feelings.

P.S.

Sounds kinda like Chechnya doesn't it? Someone wants independence from Russia but Russia won't allow it... hmm.... nah.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Mar 2009)

Russia is hard hit by the economic crisis. This is a dangerous development, since economic unrest has caused much trouble in the past (the "October Revolution" was sparked by another economic crisis, as well as the fall of the Soviet Union), and the regime has already demonstrated a willingness to use external adventures as a means of distracting the population:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/17/russia-global-economy-recession/print



> *Moscow starts to shut up shopSoaring unemployment and a shrinking economy point to long winters of discontent*
> Kathryn Hopkins in Moscow
> The Guardian, Tuesday 17 March 2009
> 
> ...


----------

