# A Perspective on Russia.



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5403074.stm

Fair Dealings Provision of the Copyright Act etc.

I know that commentary is expected  but lacking knowledge I wanted to see if some of the other folks round about here could comment.



> Fox warns over Russian military
> 
> Liam Fox says Russia is stepping up defence spending
> 
> ...


----------



## couchcommander (3 Oct 2006)

On top of the increased defence spending they have almost completed rationalizing their armed forces, especially their Navy, though of course there is still more that could be done, especially in terms of their land forces. Regardless this has allowed them the resources to properly invest in their current holdings (to a point of course), as well as start development on the next generation of weapons systems. One must realize they are basically starting off where the Soviet Union left things in the late 80's, but surprisingly they are not that behind. Given 5-10 years they will be producing top notch weapon systems, and unfortunately for us, at a fraction of the cost of American ones. 

.02 anywho


----------



## geo (3 Oct 2006)

Am confused.... talking about access to Syrian ports and Mediteranean bases in the same sentence.....

Since when did Syria have a port on the Med (Excluding Lebanon?)


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2006)

How about Al Ladiqiyah?



> Geography
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## 3rd Herd (3 Oct 2006)

"And he warned of the economic power being wielded by Russian gas giant Gazprom, which he said was controlled by "extremely questionable oligarchs and politicians". 

There have been several articles in recent business sections of various papers surrounding the levying of fines for environmental pollution by the Shell2 project and I do seem to remember a recent negotiation between Russia and Greece over an oil/natural gas pipeline to avoid the Black Sea and Turkey. A second reason for this completion was to avoid more "environmental pollution" by tankers in the Black sea. The use of the environmental argument seems to have caught many off guard. Are we seeing a rise in Russian nationalism.


----------



## geo (3 Oct 2006)

Whups.... stand corrected.............
must be a mental fart..... yup, Syria is landlocked on all other sides anyway


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Oct 2006)

Early onset alzheimers is a terrible thing.  

Add caffeine.


----------



## GAP (3 Oct 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Early onset alzheimers is a terrible thing.
> Add caffeine.



and stop chewing on aluminum pots!!!


----------



## geo (3 Oct 2006)

.... T'was those old aluminium mess tins we all used to have..... 
(the ones that made better shovels)


----------



## Bigmac (15 Mar 2007)

> *Russia clinches Balkan oil deal *
> 
> Russian President Vladimir Putin has signed a deal in Athens to ship Russian oil to the EU via a pipeline bypassing the busy Bosphorus.
> The 285km (178-mile) pipeline will go overland from Bulgaria's Black Sea port of Burgas to the northern Greek town of Alexandroupolis on the Aegean Sea.
> ...


http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6453153.stm

     Great news for Russia. I don't know if it is in the best interest of the EU to depend on Russia for the majority of their oil? The US is not protesting very much. I wonder what the backdoor deals are? Things that make you go hmmmmm? ???


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Mar 2007)

Russia has made overtures to both Algeria and Qatar about creating an LNG cartel similar to OPEC.

Short Version:  If I were Western Europe, I'd be getting ready to open my wallet because Russia is about to become very demanding.


Matthew.


----------



## sober_ruski (16 Mar 2007)

That or not building any more bases around their borders.

Or both.

I wouldnt be surprised as to why they are doing it.
According to CIA (yes, CIA) "In 2006, Russia's GDP grew 6.6%, while inflation was below 10% for the first time in the past 10 years. " Economy is recovering, armed forces are getting a chunk of it. Also increased spending helps with changing from draft system to a contract based professional force, more money=more people.


----------



## 3rd Herd (16 Mar 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Short Version:  If I were Western Europe, I'd be getting ready to open my wallet because Russia is about to become very demanding.
> 
> Matthew.



Certainly was last night on CBC.


----------



## Bigmac (16 Mar 2007)

> *New Russian pipeline will ease congestion*
> 
> Tony Halpin, Moscow
> 17mar07
> ...


http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,21393665,00.html

     Well this certainly explains why the US is not protesting very much. US oil companies will undoubtedly win lucrative contracts helping to build the pipeline as well as striking deals to export oil to the US at lower cost than from OPEC. Why isn't Canada getting a piece of this action?


----------



## Adrian_888 (16 Mar 2007)

Russia is still our ally right?  Whats wrong with them getting stronger?


----------



## rz350 (16 Mar 2007)

Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> Russia is still our ally right?  Whats wrong with them getting stronger?



the problem is a lot of people seem to think that the Russian Federation is actually still the Russian Socialist federal republic from the USSR days, and thus they are still stuck in a world of T80's coming though Berlin, instead of catching up with the modern times.


----------



## sober_ruski (16 Mar 2007)

rz350 said:
			
		

> the problem is a lot of people seem to think that the Russian Federation is actually still the Russian Socialist federal republic from the USSR days, and thus they are still stuck in a world of T80's coming though Berlin, instead of catching up with the modern times.



Agreed. T80's wont be coming through Berlin...















... it will be T90's or T95's  ;D

I kiddddd  :blotto:


----------



## Bigmac (17 Mar 2007)

> Mar. 16, 2007
> 
> *The U.S. Creates Alternative to Russia’s Pipelines*
> 
> ...


http://www.kommersant.com/p-10330/pipeline__alternative/

      It looks like the US is working on it's own pipeline as well to compete with Russia. I am trying not to be sceptical as to why the US invaded Iraq but developments like this make it difficult.


----------



## Centurian1985 (19 Mar 2007)

Adrian_888 said:
			
		

> Russia is still our ally right?  Whats wrong with them getting stronger?



Sigh.... what makes you think they are our 'ally'?  

At the very best they are an aggressive 'formerly hostile' country that is still 'discretely hostile' upon occasion.


----------



## rz350 (19 Mar 2007)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Sigh.... what makes you think they are our 'ally'?
> 
> At the very best they are an aggressive 'formerly hostile' country that is still 'discretely hostile' upon occasion.



Canada Russia relations seem to be fairly neutral to slightly friendly, at least one gathers from the department of foreign affairs...you know, the diplomatic types from our government who do that kind of stuff for a living. http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/canada-europa/mundi/country_rus_c-en.asp

Not allies...but not hostile.


----------



## Centurian1985 (20 Mar 2007)

The face put on by politics, of which foreign affairs is a part, and the real world are often two different things.  Just because leaders of countries shake hands for the camera and engage in trade and commercial activities does not mean that everything is roses.  

You should also realize that the page you gave as a reference is not a depiction of truth and reality.  It is a public relations tool for communicating selected information to the public.   

For a different perspective, try reading this page...
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2093

Or this one...
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/newsroom/news_e.asp?id=1518

Now answer this question: if a foreign nation is 'slightly friendly' or even 'fairly neutral' why would it continue to send its military aircraft directly at the airspace of another nation, deliberately forcing a military response in kind?  Are there any other countries worldwide that have conducted similiar actions agaianst Canadian airspace?  Think about it...


----------



## rz350 (20 Mar 2007)

They diddnt violate air space. So we cant say much, now can we? The US sends it ships and subs into our waters too. And they are our best ally. Why would they do that if they are our best ally? (which I know they are, and Britain is number 2) But still, answer that? That comes into our actually sovereign waters, not just skirting along.

I know they are not an ally, but I do not believe they are hostile, in the true meaning. They look out for them selves, and them selves alone, but I do not think or have seen anything evident, that since the fall of the USSR, they have intended to cause harm to us for the sake of causing harm alone. (perhaps to increase their own profits or something, sure, but just to cause us harm, I do not think so since the fall of the USSR)


----------



## Centurian1985 (20 Mar 2007)

They diddnt violate air space. 

- Only because they were intercepted.  What, do you think they just got lost and wandered all the way across the North pole?

The US sends it ships and subs into our waters too. 

-  They also send messages to our government prior to their arrival in our waters to let us know they are coming as part of a standing agreement between our countries, a process used by nations worldwide.   

(perhaps to increase their own profits or something, sure, but just to cause us harm, I do not think so since the fall of the USSR)

- The 'or something' appears to say it all.  Perhaps you should study up on Russian history and read up on current Russian internal politics.  The current Russian Federation is merely a smaller version of the former USSR that has ceased to wield its military like a political bludgeon and instead uses more subtle tools of influence and power.  If anything, the breakup of the USSR allowed the Russians to get rid of a lot of useless baggage.  

In summary you failed to address the question I gave you and instead have ignored it in an attempt to validate your own position. And if you're going to pose a rebuttal by flinging a flurry of challenging questions to another person, you should at least include some facts or evidence to support your opinion.  Read up on the subject and form a reasoned opinion, dont just provide vague examples.


----------



## sober_ruski (20 Mar 2007)

Oh noes! The Ruskies are coming !!!  :

As the people, they just want to be left alone and finally rebuild the country after it was raped with a sand paper condom by communists, but  ready to act if needed.

I guess one way to look at it is a la WW2 with the common enemy. Beslan, Moscow Theater, Subway/bus/apartment building bombings are all to fresh. 
2nd campaign was not started by bad ruskies trying to suppress chechen "freedom fighters". It was Dagestan asking for help when extremists tried to take part of their country to build an "independent islamic state". If anything, they have been dealing with this sort of crap for way longer, maybe learn from their mistakes and success instead is a good idea?

PS
I am surprised you didnt mention the Kitty Hawk incident. Sending pics to Pentagon via e-mail was the icing on the cake  ;D

I would be more worrying about China as the next super power.


----------



## rz350 (20 Mar 2007)

Well said SR.

Centurion, when do you suppose We are going to be hit by a barrage of Nukes and VX preceding tanks and troops rolling off landing craft to invade North America? Or when are the tanks going to be rolling though Europe?

I my self dont see it happening, thus I do not really care.

Maybe its just media hype, but on global news a while back, they where saying US subs where coming into our water without prior notice. The Danes seem to like the North Pole too. Maybe we need some threads about the impending Danish onslaught? Like serious long threads, not just the mention every now and then of Danish flags up north.


----------



## 3rd Herd (20 Mar 2007)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Perhaps you should study up on Russian history and read up on current Russian internal politics.  The current Russian Federation is merely a smaller version of the former USSR that has ceased to wield its military like a political bludgeon and instead uses more subtle tools of influence and power.  If anything, the breakup of the USSR allowed the Russians to get rid of a lot of useless baggage.



A little bit of USAF history:

"The bloodiest period started in 1950 when Soviet fighters shot down a US Navy patrol craft over the Baltic Sea off of what is now Latvia. From then until 1970 the blood flowed as American aircraft penetrated Russian airspace and paid the price. In a twelve-year period 19 more US planes, mainly reconnaissance aircraft, were destroyed in one-sided fights with Russian MiGs."(Eger) But the DPMO states that their total is "thirty-nine U.S. military aircraft and one civilian aircraft were either shot down by communist forces or crashed on the periphery of communist countries while flying
operational missions during the Cold War (1946-1991)."(DPMO) "Whatever the impulse behind the Soviet drive, whether it was a search for national security or a desire to promote Communist world revolution in keeping with Marxist doctrine, the USSR strategy appeared to be one of expansion. The United States could see no inherent limits to the outward push. Each Communist gain, it seemed, would serve as a springboard from which to try another; and a large part of the world, still suffering from the ravages of war, offered tempting opportunities for further Soviet expansion. The American response was a policy of containment, of blocking any extension of Communist influence. But, viewing the European continent as the main area of Soviet expansion, the United States at first limited its containment policy to western Europe and the Mediterranean area and attempted other solutions to the problem in Asia."(AMH)

Source:

DPMO Cold War Report- Cold War Losses, Single Page Summary http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/coldwar/pmcold_summary.pdf

Eger, Christopher." US Air Combat Losses to the USSR Twenty US - Soviet Shoot Down Incidents in the Cold War"
http://air-combat.suite101.com/article.cfm/us_aircraft_lost_to_the_soviets

American Military History "PEACE BECOMES COLD WAR, 1945-1950" http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/amh/AMH-24.htm


----------



## ROTP Applicant (20 Mar 2007)

*"Conservative leader Stephen Harper said Dec. 22 he would assert more strongly Canada’s northern territorial claims following reports that a U.S. submarine recently traveled unannounced through Canadian Arctic waters."*
Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1429085&C=europe

That's a clear example of the illusion that the U.S. Navy always notifies Canada of its actions in Canadian waters.  

There is no doubt that Putin is doing his best to bring back the authoritarian practices of the Soviet era. Nevertheless, it is highly unlikely that the "evil Russian empire" is attempting to revive the Cold War; it has more important internal issues to look after.


----------



## rz350 (20 Mar 2007)

So 3rd herd, what your saying is USSR (not Russian Federation) Shot down USAF airplanes that violated USSR air space?


----------



## 3rd Herd (20 Mar 2007)

rz350 said:
			
		

> So 3rd herd, what your saying is USSR (not Russian Federation) Shot down USAF airplanes that violated USSR air space?



Not what I am saying but what is in history. I was also kind enough to put the source information so anyone can either view it to try and discredit it or if interested follow the links. And not only USAF planes, does Flight KAL OO7 ring a bell ? If not you may find this link very interesting as it is the Times interview with the Russian pilot who did the shooting. The article is "Ex-Soviet Pilot Still Insists KAL 007 Was Spying" By MICHAEL R. GORDON, The New York Times)http://users.rcn.com/lana.interport/link/colonel.html . Unfortunately, trying to ascertain how many of theirs we 'bagged' is a whole new ball game.


----------



## rz350 (20 Mar 2007)

The US shot down Iran air flight 655 as well. Accidents happen, and maybe that pilot really did believe it was spying, even if it was not. I see a history of hostilities with the USSR, we all know that. However, the USSR folded camp in 1991.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655


----------



## Donut (20 Mar 2007)

Wikipedia...the definitive text on foreign relations.


----------



## rz350 (20 Mar 2007)

It was a quick reference to a well known event in world history. Not meant to show the relations implications, just the rough outline of the USA doing what the USSR did. Exactly the same thing, killing 100's of civilians by being far too happy on that missile firing button.


----------



## 3rd Herd (20 Mar 2007)

A little more digging:

CLOSING SESSION OF THE 17TH PLENUM OF THE U.S.-RUSSIA JOINT COMMISSION ON PRISONERS OF WAR/MISSING IN ACTION
(NOVEMBER 15, 2000)

"....during the work of the Commission, the Russian side has received microfilmed documents from the archives of three U.S. Air Force units, videotapes made from gun-camera photography depicting shoot downs of Soviet aircraft, and a list of those Soviet aircraft shot down by the U.S. Navy after 1950."
http://www.dtic.mil/dpmo/sovietunion/17th_plenum_closing.htm

and 

US planes also drew blood on a few occasions. On September 4, 1950 a US Navy F4U Corsair shot down a Soviet A-20 bomber while it was on a reconnaissance flight too close for the Navy's comfort. In December of that same year a tail gunner aboard a US Navy P2V Neptune splashed a Soviet MiG that was trying to shoot it down while on a recon mission over Vladivostok. 

 In return for their help solving these mysteries the Russian members of the Joint Commission requested information on 28 specific Cold War era incidents of Soviet losses of aircraft, submarines and personnel. These included the shoot down of an unarmed Il-12 transport by as USAF F-86 over North Korea in 1953.(Eger, Christopher)


----------



## midget-boyd91 (20 Mar 2007)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> Russian members requested information on 28 specific Cold War era incidents of Soviet losses. These included the shoot down of an unarmed Il-12 transport by as USAF F-86 *over North Korea* in *1953*.



I don't want to sound *too* arrogant   but... A Russian made aircraft shot down over North Korea during a war with nations who flew Russian aircraft. Unarmed or not, it would still (appear to) be an enemy plane. There wouldn't be much of a way to tell that it wasn't Chinese or N Korean short or flying close enough to read the writing that says "If you can read this, you're too close."

But enough about explaining a shoot down from 54 years ago.

I can clearly remember sitting down with the old gray man (more commonly known as the grand-dad) and talking about how on several occasions while posted in Germany shots were fired between Canadian Sabers and Red MiGs. 
This is normal and can't shouldn't be taken too harshly by the other sides when the stakes are that(this) high, and the decisions were made by the men at the controls who had to make a a split second decision. That is how wars get started.


----------



## midget-boyd91 (20 Mar 2007)

Edited to remove the accidental double post.

Freakin technology.  :


----------



## Centurian1985 (20 Mar 2007)

sober_ruski said:
			
		

> Oh noes! The Ruskies are coming !!!  :



Whoa, rein it in there, clyde.

I would like you to actually read what I posted.  At no point anywhere did I say the 'the ruskies are coming'.  All Im pointing out is that we are not 'allies' as the first poster said, nor is a country 'friendly' just beacuase they engage in trade and commerce with another country, and, that deliberately  and repeatedly  violating the airspace of another nation is not an act engaged in by 'friendly' or even 'nuetral' nations. Especially when such acts happen on such a continuous basis that an entire organization is created to deal with the problem (You may have heard of it, its called NORAD.  Oh wait are you out of high school yet?  Maybe not.) 

Further there is a big difference beween an American aircraft that violates Canadian airspace because we share a border, and a Russian military aircraft that has to fly 800 miles, yes, 800 miles, before entering our airspace.  That means flying for two hours in the wrong direction over waters where death by hyperthermia is meaured in seconds, and chances of rescue are just about zero. That doesnt happen by accident, its a deliberate act, and definately not the act of a 'friendly' country.   

In regard to your brilliant 'yeah well about this' reference to the violation of Canadian waters by US submarines, (which is really brilliant by the way - I mean, an aircraft and a submarine are pretty much the same thing arent they? Oh wait, did that sarcasm slip through...?), this has been a continuous problem that anyone can read about in the papers.  They are not the only country that does this, especially in the north where many countries do not recognize Canadian soverignty over the northwest passage.  Try looking at a deep sea chart of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and you will see why. 

Enjoy....


----------



## rz350 (20 Mar 2007)

NORAD was created to counter SOVIET air threats. You know, that country that existed from 1917 to 1991. The one that no longer exists.

This thread is about the Russian Federation, the country that formed in 1991, after the USSR folded tent. The one that is not communist and uses a tri color and not a hammer and sickle emblazoned on a red field.


----------



## Donut (20 Mar 2007)

You mean the one that still "tickles" our defenses on a regular basis?


----------



## Centurian1985 (20 Mar 2007)

This getting repetitive.  If this were a game of darts, the waitresses by the bar would be ducking from your wild shots.  I'll let you entertain someone else more tolerant for a while...


----------



## rz350 (20 Mar 2007)

And the waitress would be bored of you talking about your game of darts from 20 years ago, still going on and on about that bulls eye you made in 1987.


----------



## aesop081 (20 Mar 2007)

Time out !!

army.ca staff


----------

