• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Russia in the 21st Century [Superthread]

fake penguin said:
I read that  Russia could beat Nato in 60 hours.  But also in one year Nato could build up enough forces to hopefully defend against Russia. Is this because Russia has now a more powerful  military than the USA or is it all because of logistics  and where the fight would take place the reason Russia would destroy Nato?

Two things that play majorly into this. First NATO war plans usually involved delaying until American divisions could be brought in from across the Atlantic because that would be the bulk of NATO's combat power. Where as Russia and the warsaw pact had all there forces ready to go. That is the numbers game.

Second, without a doubt whoever strikes first will have some element of surprise, capitalizing on that is basic strategy in warfare so if Russia strikes first you could expect the baltics and eastern Europe to fall before NATO mounts a sustained, coordinated defense across europe. Once NATO can dig in, and reinforcements start pouring in NATO has an equel footing.
 
You can't compare 1976 with 2016.  The Fulda Gap is now 1,200km from the closest Russian-allied point (Brest, Belarus).  That's a hell of a long way to go against Polish and German (and NATO allied) ground and air defences before you're able to break through and into the heart of the alliance and "win".  There's always those pesky NATO nukes that might get in the way if there's a total collapse anyway. 

The threat against NATO is no longer an overwhelming Russian attack into the heart of the alliance.  It's Russia chipping away at the edges where there's enough Russian interests (eastern Ukraine, the Baltic States and possibly the eastern edges of Poland) where Russia might be willing to take the chance that NATO's interests are not strong enough to risk a full-scaled war in order to defend those regions.
 
Your right it's not the Fulda Gap any more, its the forests of eastern poland, the hills of the baltics, and the plains of Ukraine. The front is large, the stakes are the same, Russia is growing at an alarming rate, and seem to be preparing as if war is around the corner. I hate to say it but at the rate things are going WWIII isn't an if question, its a when.
 
I certainly won't argue that conflict is very possible and we should definitely be prepared to defend our interests against a resurgent and aggressive Russia.  However I'd argue that the stakes aren't the same.  If the Cold War had become "hot", the goal of the Russians would have been to utterly defeat NATO.  That meant bursting through our defensive lines and breaking through into the heartland of not only West Germany, but France as well and forcing our unconditional surrender.

The stakes now aren't as high (although of course the risk of unintended escalation and "mistakes" are clearly possible).  Russia is looking to re-establish LOCAL dominance.  To regain control of areas historically and strategically important to Russia.  This is limited to the periphery of the Russian state with the goals of regaining control/influence and creating a buffer from the forces of NATO.  The Baltic States, the Caucasus, Eastern Ukraine, and Eastern Poland are most certainly at risk.  I don't believe however that Russia has either the will, the power or the resources to take the fight to NATO's homeland (Germany and France) in a WWII-style war of conquest. 

The world has become too economically interdependent since 1945 (and nuclear weapons too much of a deterrent) for the established major states to have their actual existence threatened by other states.  Borders may shift and internal stresses may certainly cause fractures, but in my opinion there are very few direct, external, threats to our actual existence as a nation.
 
GR66 said:
I certainly won't argue that conflict is very possible and we should definitely be prepared to defend our interests against a resurgent and aggressive Russia.  However I'd argue that the stakes aren't the same.  If the Cold War had become "hot", the goal of the Russians would have been to utterly defeat NATO.  That meant bursting through our defensive lines and breaking through into the heartland of not only West Germany, but France as well and forcing our unconditional surrender.

The stakes now aren't as high (although of course the risk of unintended escalation and "mistakes" are clearly possible).  Russia is looking to re-establish LOCAL dominance.  To regain control of areas historically and strategically important to Russia.  This is limited to the periphery of the Russian state with the goals of regaining control/influence and creating a buffer from the forces of NATO.  The Baltic States, the Caucasus, Eastern Ukraine, and Eastern Poland are most certainly at risk.  I don't believe however that Russia has either the will, the power or the resources to take the fight to NATO's homeland (Germany and France) in a WWII-style war of conquest. 

The world has become too economically interdependent since 1945 (and nuclear weapons too much of a deterrent) for the established major states to have their actual existence threatened by other states.  Borders may shift and internal stresses may certainly cause fractures, but in my opinion there are very few direct, external, threats to our actual existence as a nation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

Angell argued that war between industrial countries was futile because conquest did not pay. J.D.B. Miller writes: "The 'Great Illusion' was that nations gained by armed confrontation, militarism, war, or conquest."[3] The economic interdependence between industrial countries meant that war would be economically harmful to all the countries involved. Moreover, if a conquering power confiscated property in the territory it seized, "the incentive to produce [of the local population] would be sapped and the conquered area be rendered worthless. Thus, the conquering power had to leave property in the hands of the local population while incurring the costs of conquest and occupation

I know its not a direct parallel but I always think of that whenever someone mentions economic interdependence preventing war.

That said, I agree 100% that nukes and their high cost prevents a lot of conflicts these days. The cold war would have just been WW3 if not for nuclear weapons, India and Pakistan would have probably gone at it another time of two if they were not nuclear powers, Israel and its neighbours would probably have had another round or ten if Israel didn't have some nukes, and I'm of the opinion that North Korea would be a smoldering hole in the ground if not for the few nuclear weapons they have cobbled together.
 
GR66 said:
You can't compare 1976 with 2016.  The Fulda Gap is now 1,200km from the closest Russian-allied point (Brest, Belarus).  That's a hell of a long way to go against Polish and German (and NATO allied) ground and air defences before you're able to break through and into the heart of the alliance and "win".  There's always those pesky NATO nukes that might get in the way if there's a total collapse anyway.

On this point, it a much larger distance for the Soviets to fly in their Spetznaz to attack NATO's rear and take control of French Nuclear weapons, but it does not totally remove the possibilities that they may still have many of the Cold War tactics on their books.

GR66 said:
The threat against NATO is no longer an overwhelming Russian attack into the heart of the alliance.  It's Russia chipping away at the edges where there's enough Russian interests (eastern Ukraine, the Baltic States and possibly the eastern edges of Poland) where Russia might be willing to take the chance that NATO's interests are not strong enough to risk a full-scaled war in order to defend those regions.

If we delve into the Cold War world of Robert Ludlum and other writers, the use of Intelligence Agents to turn segments of Western populations to their cause and create havoc tying up LEO and military resources is still a reality.  It is not like the Fall of the Wall and the "end" of the Cold War magically did away with clandestine activities by any of the world powers.  That is very naive. 
 
Altair said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

I know its not a direct parallel but I always think of that whenever someone mentions economic interdependence preventing war.

That said, I agree 100% that nukes and their high cost prevents a lot of conflicts these days. The cold war would have just been WW3 if not for nuclear weapons, India and Pakistan would have probably gone at it another time of two if they were not nuclear powers, Israel and its neighbours would probably have had another round or ten if Israel didn't have some nukes, and I'm of the opinion that North Korea would be a smoldering hole in the ground if not for the few nuclear weapons they have cobbled together.

I'm definitely not suggesting that globalization will PREVENT a war between the major powers.  I'm just suggesting that globalization (among a number of other factors) is likely changing the nature of war that we can expect between major powers.  In my opinion a truly "total war" where one major power seeks to militarily defeat and occupy another major power in the sense that we might have expected in the Cold War is highly unlikely. 

I think that it is highly unlikely that China would actually invade Japan if they come into conflict over the South China Sea for example.  That doesn't mean that each side wouldn't strike important targets in eachother's homelands and they would be at war...but not our grandfather's type of war.  I think the same is probably true with Russia.  NATO and Russia could very well go to war over the Baltic States for example but I honestly don't see the Russians pouring West and trying to occupy Berlin or a NATO drive into the heart of Russia to seize Moscow.  War, but likley war with more limited objectives that what we may have expected in the past.

My opinion anyway.
 
GR66 said:
You can't compare 1976 with 2016.  The Fulda Gap is now 1,200km from the closest Russian-allied point (Brest, Belarus).  That's a hell of a long way to go against Polish and German (and NATO allied) ground and air defences before you're able to break through and into the heart of the alliance and "win".  There's always those pesky NATO nukes that might get in the way if there's a total collapse anyway. 

The threat against NATO is no longer an overwhelming Russian attack into the heart of the alliance.  It's Russia chipping away at the edges where there's enough Russian interests (eastern Ukraine, the Baltic States and possibly the eastern edges of Poland) where Russia might be willing to take the chance that NATO's interests are not strong enough to risk a full-scaled war in order to defend those regions.

Depends where you consider "the heart of the alliance" to be located.  Jean Claude Juncker probably has a different definition than Donald Tusk.

And that brings up the real problem.

When Russia crosses into Latvia, will Luxembourg rush to Latvia's defence?

60 hours to the Carpathians?

Why not?
 
George Wallace said:
... the use of Intelligence Agents & fellow travellers/dupes to turn segments of Western populations to their cause and create havoc tying up LEO and military resources is still a reality ...
FTFY
 
Thanks for answering my questions guys. So basically Russia doesn't have enough resources to go into places like Germany and US doesn't have enough resources to take the Baltic states back but enough with help from rest of nato to stop Russia from going to far into Europe. So the question is will Russia take over the Baltic states and push it and go further and will Nato just hold of Russia from going further or push it and try to take on Russia in the Baltic States. Trying to read everyone response and just trying to make sure I got it.
 
fake penguin said:
Thanks for answering my questions guys. So basically Russia doesn't have enough resources to go into places like Germany and US doesn't have enough resources to take the Baltic states back but enough with help from rest of nato to stop Russia from going to far into Europe. So the question is will Russia take over the Baltic states and push it and go further and will Nato just hold of Russia from going further or push it and try to take on Russia in the Baltic States. Trying to read everyone response and just trying to make sure I got it.

I would argue the question is:  Is either side prepared to pull the trigger?  Or are they just willing to bump chests?
 
.... Russia tells citizens to find out where the closest bunkers are

.... Russia told its citizens to urgently prepare for a devastating radioactive conflict as relations with the West stoop to their lowest since the Cold War.

By PATRICK CHRISTYS

PUBLISHED: 02:09, Fri, Oct 14, 2016 | UPDATED: 07:41, Fri, Oct 14, 2016

Russia told its citizens to find their nearest nuclear bunker ...

A ... Russian television broadcast ... told civilians to find out where their nearest bomb shelter is and repeatedly asked viewers if they were ready for nuclear war.

One ... broadcast told viewers on Moscow's state-owned TV channel NTV: "If it should one day happen, every one of you should know where the nearest bomb shelter is. It’s best to find out now."

Edited to remove histrionic adjectives.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/721008/Russia-America-nuclear-war-Putin-Obama-bunker-fallout-shelter-Syria-Bashar-al-Assad

Anybody have any sense of the truth of this article?  Or the nature of the programme on which it was reputedly broadcast?
 
Chris Pook said:
Edited to remove histrionic adjectives.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/721008/Russia-America-nuclear-war-Putin-Obama-bunker-fallout-shelter-Syria-Bashar-al-Assad

Anybody have any sense of the truth of this article?  Or the nature of the programme on which it was reputedly broadcast?
First I've seen of the TV show in question, and I'd have to dig a bit, but in the past, senior RUS government info-machine folks have used "current affairs" programming to give the party line in ... melodramatic terms. 

What I HAVE seen recently is an all-Russia civil defence exercise last week - these news release links, in English, from Russia's federal emergency management ministry ...
 
More Russian paramilitary groups. The end of the article puts it into perspective: no group like this could possibly exist or operate without the permission of the government:

http://nypost.com/2016/10/18/inside-the-radical-war-camps-where-russian-fighters-are-born/

Inside the radical ‘war camps’ where Russian fighters are born
By Associated Press October 18, 2016 | 9:16am | Updated

MOSCOW — Deep in the woods on the outskirts of Moscow, a sudden burst of gunfire sends a flock of birds screeching into the sky. A dozen people dressed in military fatigues scale a crumbling, abandoned high-rise with Kalashnikovs strapped to their backs.

This is a “war camp” organized by the ultra-nationalist Eurasian Youth Union, known as ESM, the youth wing of the broader Eurasian movement. Such camps, which are on the rise in Russia, imitate a broader Kremlin policy of “patriotic education” that has seen a marked increase in government funding in recent years.

The ESM camps serve as breeding grounds for the volunteers who fought alongside Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine and are now producing a new generation of trained fighters.

“We are in a state when NATO moves closer to our borders and today’s youth needs to be trained in order to prevent those attacks,” says ESM leader Anton Bryusov.

The nationalists see the West as their key enemy, but some are dissatisfied with President Vladimir Putin’s handling of the war in Ukraine and believe he has not gone nearly far enough.

“War with Ukraine is inevitable, but so far we have done only half of the task,” says Alexander Dugin, the leader of the Eurasian movement. “We have united with Crimea, we have provided help to Novorossiya, but we didn’t liberate Novorossiya.”

A member of Right Anarchist prepares to shoot his Kalashnikov in a makeshift camp. Photo: AP
Nationalists had believed in what was known as the Novorossiya project, which aimed to carve out a swathe of traditionally Russian-speaking eastern Ukraine and reunite it with Russia. Instead, the conflict has created two breakaway pro-Russian regions in Donetsk and Lugansk, but they formally remain part of Ukraine.

Still, despite their dissatisfaction over Ukraine, the bulk of nationalists remain supportive of the current regime, said Andrei Kolesnikov, an expert on Russian domestic politics at the Carnegie Moscow Center.

“Mostly, the nationalists who are more or less rational are pro-Putin. Those who are really radical are against Putin because he hasn’t finished the story in Donbass,” he said. Plus, he added, “if they ended up going too far and presented a real threat to the regime, their activity would be stopped.”

Dugin, a far-right political ideologue with close ties to the Kremlin, chalks up Putin’s handling of the situation in Ukraine to the political realities of Western pressure and economic sanctions.

“I am irritated by the slowness of Putin’s reform,” Dugin said, speaking in his TV studio a stone’s throw from Red Square. “When we are hesitating, we are losing; when we are making decisive steps, we are winning.”

Dugin denies he is in the Kremlin’s pocket, insisting they regard ESM as “a dangerous force that they cannot be lead or rule because we follow a strict line of our ideology.” But research carried out by the Russia-based Center of Economic and Political Reforms shows that between 2013 and 2015, the ESM received presidential grants totaling more than 18.5 million rubles (nearly $300,000).

Carrying out his own training in the woods, not far from the location of the ESM “war camp,” Sergei Andreev, the 25-year-old founder of a small, far-right youth group called Right Anarchist, is polishing his Kalashnikov. Unlike most of his peers, he does not support Putin’s presidency.

“Putin is like all other leaders in the modern world: He just wants to hoard money and resources so that his family lives well,” Andreev said. Behind him, the Right Anarchist flag — a skull and crossbones — flutters above a crackling camp fire. “There is no great idea behind him. He uses it to cover up his political manipulations.”

The numbers of far-right supporters like him who openly position themselves against Putin is small, and it’s unlikely this discontent poses much of a threat to the Kremlin.

“Part of the Putin regime is far-right and ultra-nationalist. However, Putin would crush any ultranationalist force that’s not loyal to the Kremlin,” says Anton Shekhovtsov, an expert on the far right who has extensively chronicled Dugin and his followers over the past decade. “If it’s not instrumental to them, they would ban them or crush them or put their leaders in jail.”
 
Sanctions continue to bite:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/10/17/putins-boasting-hides-his-fear-of-sanctions/

Putin’s Boasting Hides His Fear of Sanctions
KARINA ORLOVA

Russian President Vladimir Putin was in Goa, India this weekend at the annual BRICS summit, where the big announcement was that Igor Sechin’s Rosneft had bought a controlling stake (49 percent) in the Indian Essar Oil company. At a press conference for the announcement yesterday, Putin was asked if Russia would consider softening its counter-sanctions against the United States and the European Union. “Screw them,” he said. More:

We deliberately enacted restrictions on importing agricultural products, a kind of an asymmetric response. They hit our manufacturing, dual-purpose manufacturing, financial restrictions… but we can’t do the same in response. I mean, we could, but it would have been senseless. So we acted in the sphere where it creates problems for them—their losses are in the billions, you see yourself. We are not keeping count, it’s being tallied by Western European experts, representatives from relevant industries. That’s why we did it, we profited from it. We won’t be doing anything to just punish somebody, and punish ourselves.

The bravado was surely music to the ears of his Russian audience. But Putin was sounding a distinctly different note two weeks ago, when he submitted a law to the Russian Duma withdrawing Russia from a long-standing plutonium disposal agreement with the United States. Among the preconditions for the resumption of the treaty named in the document one in particular stands out: “The United States must pay for the damages incurred by the Russian Federation as a result of the aforementioned sanctions, including any costs born from counter-sanctions the Russian Federation was forced to undertake.” (This language was of course not mentioned in Russian coverage of Putin’s bill. What the Russian people instead heard on TV was that Putin Almighty was sticking it to the United States.)

The economic reality is harsher. The Russian Government, looking ahead to a future where oil prices stay at around $40/barrel, recently announced that it will slash its budgets for next year, including a cutting its health care budget by one third, down to $6 billion for 126 million people, which includes spending on research. And yet all these budget cuts still have the Russian Government running a deficit well into the future. Russia’s reserve fund is expected to drop to $15 billion by the end of the year by some analysts, and could run out as early as mid-next year. Though the IMF is predicting that the Russian economy will return to growth next year, it maintains a gloomy outlook for the next few years out, arguing that growth “remains subdued given long-standing structural bottlenecks and the impact of sanctions on productivity and investment.”

EU Foreign Ministers are meeting this week, and Russia is on the agenda. New European sanctions seem unlikely—Austria today joined Hungary, Cyprus, and Greece in signaling opposition—but recent developments in Syria appear to have forestalled any talk of easing the sanctions currently in place. For his part, Secretary of State John Kerry yesterday announced that the United States was mulling imposing additional sanctions on Russia in connection with Syria. We will see if anything comes of it.

President Putin is indeed screwing someone over, but it’s not the West; he is screwing over his own people, over and over again, millions of whom are paying the price for their leader’s personal ambitions and interests. Critically, however, Putin’s decisions are also hurting those in his inner circle, and his regime is suffering and weakening. Sanctions won’t make the Russian President behave in a more democratic way. He has crossed so many red lines by now that he cannot go back—at this point, Russia either becomes more authoritarian and dangerous, or Putin steps down. But what sanctions might do is lead to a change of direction for the whole of Russia down the road…
 
Highlights mine - shared under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act...
Russia's only aircraft carrier, Admiral Kuznetsov , and a supporting naval task group has set sail for the Mediterranean, state-owned news agency TASS has reported.

"The group consists of the aircraft-carrying heavy cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov , the battlecruiser Pyotr Velikiy , large anti-submarine ships Severomorsk and Vice Admiral Kulakov and support vessels," according to a statement from the Russian Northern Fleet on 15 October, reported by TASS later that day.

The mission of the deployment is "to ensure naval presence in the important areas of the World Ocean", said the Northern Fleet statement. "Special focus will be made on safeguarding security of maritime traffic and other types of maritime economic activity of Russia and also on responding to the new kinds of modern threats such as piracy and international terrorism."

NATO has been developing plans to monitor the progress of Admiral Kuznetsov and its battlegroup as they transit through the North Atlantic and into the Mediterranean. Many of the alliance's naval and air assets participating in Exercise 'Joint Warrior' off the west coast of Scotland are expected to be drawn upon for the surveillance operation, including Royal Canadian Air Force CP-140 Aurora and US Navy Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft temporarily deployed to RAF Lossiemouth in Scotland.

UK assets on call for the surveillance operation include a Type 23 frigate and a Type 45 destroyer to shadow the Russian ships, a senior UK military official has told IHS Jane's . Royal Air Force aircraft are also being prepared for the operation. These include a Boeing RC-135 Rivet Joint electronic eavesdropping aircraft, a Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules transport being used in the surface surveillance role and Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft to shadow any Sukhoi Su-33 or Mikoyan MiG-29K naval strike fighters launched from the Russian carriers.

A UK Royal Navy spokesperson told IHS Jane's on 15 October, "UK and NATO assets routinely monitor warships from other nations when they enter our area of interest and this will be no different."
 
On a lighter note on the Russian carrier task force dropping by the English Channel ...
CvOuGHUUAAAV-jZ.jpg
 
One thing is for certain, the Med is going to be very crowded for the next bit.  Whatever happened to those politicians who would avoid this by diplomacy and proxy.
 
World war FEARS: 'Weak' Russia will drag world to brink of nuclear war, says expert

VLADIMIR PUTIN'S Russia is weak and insecure and may push the world to the brink of nuclear war to avoid a conventional conflict with the West, a leading expert on the region has warned.

By TOM BATCHELOR
PUBLISHED: 11:00, Fri, Oct 21, 2016 | UPDATED: 18:10, Fri, Oct 21, 2016

Successive wars in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria have demonstrated Russia's willingness and ability to use its military power to achieve political goals, award-winning author Arkady Ostrovsky argued.

But Mr Putin's belligerent approach is not a sign of Russia's unbridled strength, he added.

Instead, it reveals deep insecurity and weakness in the Kremlin, Mr Ostrovsky said.

Mr Putin knows he cannot afford a conventional war with NATO alliance members, but is trying to raise the stakes he could inadvertently bring the world to the brink of nuclear war.

His report, published in the Economist this week, states: "[Russia] is once again using the threat of nuclear arms to blackmail the West."

He wrote: "Mr Putin sees Russia's wars as a form of self-defence, driven by the need to deter the West.

"Russia's military-industrial complex is unable to produce anything close to Soviet volumes of hardware.

"But the country's relative economic and military weakness compared with NATO does not make the country any safer; on the contrary, it poses a big risk.

"The only way Russia can compensate for the gaps in its conventional forces is to invoke the threat of a nuclear strike."

His essay continued: "Mr Putin would not unleash a war for ideological reasons. He will continue to present his actions as defensive.

"What he is ultimately after is a new pact along the lines of the Yalta agreement after the Second World War which would create a buffer zone between Russia and the West.

"In the absence of such a deal, Mr Putin will continue to confront his perceived enemies by both non-military and military means."

Mr Ostrovsky is the winner of the 2016 Orwell Prize for books and author of 'The Invention of Russia: A Journey from Gorbachev's Freedom to Putin's War'.

His analysis comes as relations between the West and Russia reaches its lowest ebb in years.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/723873/Vladimir-Putin-Russia-drag-world-brink-nuclear-war

 
Back
Top