Members NeonVomit Posted October 16, 2009 Members Share Posted October 16, 2009 The first part seems to make a good point. The rest I don't really agree with. Brinkmanship is no way to run a world. It certainly isn't, but that's the way things have been ever since Greeks vs. Persians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted October 16, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 16, 2009 ...except the proposed missile shield was not intended to stop Russian missiles. It couldn't, in fact, since the launch corridors for Russian ICBM against the USA are over the North Pole (which is why your missile launch detection radar are in Alaska) That's irrelevant. The Russians didn't want them to be placed. If the Russian military was in such a state of disrepair, as the poster suggested, there would be no reason to give 2 cents about Russia's position and then subsequently reverse our course with the shield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted October 16, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 16, 2009 Russia has a 10 year supply of oil.You're joking, right? Russia holds the world's largest natural gas reserves, the second largest coal reserves, and the eighth largest oil reserves. Russia is also the world's largest exporter of natural gas, the second largest oil exporter and the third largest energy consumer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chunky-b Posted October 16, 2009 Members Share Posted October 16, 2009 Russia has a 10 year supply of oil.According to who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FreestyleIntruder Posted October 16, 2009 Members Share Posted October 16, 2009 That's irrelevant. The Russians didn't want them to be placed. If the Russian military was in such a state of disrepair, as the poster suggested, there would be no reason to give 2 cents about Russia's position and then subsequently reverse our course with the shield. Are you suggesting that the decision to not go ahead with the missile shield was based on Russia's opposition to it, rather than the fact that it was expensive and unnecessary, and probably wouldn't have worked very well in any case? I agree with you that the OP is hardly news - Russia said pretty much the same thing last year (which may help explain why the majority of Poles were opposed to the missile shield) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pickinatit Posted October 16, 2009 Members Share Posted October 16, 2009 That's irrelevant. The Russians didn't want them to be placed. If the Russian military was in such a state of disrepair, as the poster suggested, there would be no reason to give 2 cents about Russia's position and then subsequently reverse our course with the shield. The 2 cents given had nothing what-so-ever to do with the Russian Militarywhether it's in disrepair or ready to rock. It was all about Russian cooperation & support for sanctions against Iran. The reverse course on the shield was their price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted October 16, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 16, 2009 Are you suggesting that the decision to not go ahead with the missile shield was based on Russia's opposition to it, rather than the fact that it was expensive and unnecessary, and probably wouldn't have worked very well in any case?I'm suggesting the Russian military isn't rusting out nor is it in a state of disrepair. That much was stated rather clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FreestyleIntruder Posted October 16, 2009 Members Share Posted October 16, 2009 I'm suggesting the Russian military isn't rusting out nor is it in a state of disrepair. That much was stated rather clearly. ...with which statement I would be in full agreement. Incidentally, for anyone who's interested, there's a fact sheet here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted October 16, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 16, 2009 The 2 cents given had nothing what-so-ever to do with the Russian Militarywhether it's in disrepair or ready to rock. It was all about Russian cooperation & support for sanctions against Iran. The reverse course on the shield was their price.If the Russians can't afford to pay their military personnel, and their equipment is sitting there rusting out, there is little to no need for Russian cooperation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members pickinatit Posted October 16, 2009 Members Share Posted October 16, 2009 You're joking, right? Quote: Originally Posted by Perfessor Russia has a 10 year supply of oil. You're joking, right? Quote: Russia holds the world's largest natural gas reserves, the second largest coal reserves, and the eighth largest oil reserves. Russia is also the world's largest exporter of natural gas, the second largest oil exporter and the third largest energy consumer. That Oil Revenue isn't translating very well into Russian Prosperity Expecting 13% unemployment, 37 million people living in poverty... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/world/europe/31russia.html By most accounts that I can find, the military isn't fairing all that well either http://www.cdi.org/Russia/johnson/2009-62-30.cfm# http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/january-2009/russian-military-a-paper-tiger-despite-symbolic-comeback-says-iiss/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members FreestyleIntruder Posted October 16, 2009 Members Share Posted October 16, 2009 You're joking, right? Oh, and your point about fossil fuel exports is very relevant. If Russia wanted to inconvenience Europe, they wouldn't need expensive nukes. In fact it would go something like this: MEDVEDEV: Comrades, switch off the gas valves...!EUROPE: Oh bollocks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted October 16, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 16, 2009 By most accounts that I can find, the military isn't fairing all that well either http://www.cdi.org/Russia/johnson/2009-62-30.cfm#http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/january-2009/russian-military-a-paper-tiger-despite-symbolic-comeback-says-iiss/ Well lessee- The Russian military will spend a total of some 5 trillion rubles (US$189 billion) between 2007-2015 to replace 45 percent of its current arsenal with new weaponry systems ranging from submarine-launched ballistic missiles to new aircraft carriers for deep-water missions, in what reflects the country's resurgence as a global player........ Russia's defense budget has been growing steadily thanks to economic growth fuelled by high oil prices and a consumer boom. As a result of the surge in federal budget revenues, the Defense Ministry quadrupled its budget from 214 billion rubles in 2001 to 821 billion this year. Yeah. It really sounds as if everything has been rusting out and nobody is getting paid these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted October 16, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 16, 2009 Oh, and your point about fossil fuel exports is very relevant. If Russia wanted to inconvenience Europe, they wouldn't need expensive nukes. In fact it would go something like this: MEDVEDEV: Comrades, switch off the gas valves...! EUROPE: Oh bollocks... I agree. That's pretty significant influence for a country where supposedly "the once mighty Russian Navy lies rusting in Murmansk harbor. Russian soldiers don't even enjoy regular paydays. Russia's nuclear arsonal is approaching 50 years old and like everything else has been starved by shortages, budget cuts and decades of neglect." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members zachoff Posted October 16, 2009 Members Share Posted October 16, 2009 Yay, nukes! Cold War II. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ender_rpm Posted October 16, 2009 Members Share Posted October 16, 2009 @ Thud, RE: Russian military- That article is dated 12FEB2007. Just sayin, things MAY have changed a bit since oil was at it's historic high. An interestign article on the subject HERE. This site tends to be very "rah rah military" but I've found their articles to be generally well researched. Sometimes they scoop "official" channels... If you look at thier conventional forces performance in Georgia, it wasn't terribly impressive, but they threw a lot at it. Right Now (2009) Russia does not have the conventional military ability to project force beyond it's very near abroad, but it DOES have the unconventional/ Nuclear capability to do a great deal of damage to anyone dumb enough to attack Russia directly. Their ability to manipulate the EU through natural resources is the far more potent and usable stick in thier arsenal right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted October 16, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 16, 2009 @ Thud, RE: Russian military- That article is dated 12FEB2007. Just sayin, things MAY have changed a bit since oil was at it's historic high. If you look at thier conventional forces performance in Georgia, it wasn't terribly impressive, but they threw a lot of ow (2009) Russia does not have the conventional military ability to prject force beyond it's very near abroad, but it DOES have the unconventional/ Nuclear capability to do a great deal of damage to anyone dumb enough to attack Russia directly. Their ability to manipulate the EU through natural resources is the far more potent and usable stick in thier arsenal right now. I haven't made the claim that that you are suggesting I am. As a matter of fact your mention of "it DOES have the unconventional/ Nuclear capability to do a great deal of damage to anyone dumb enough to attack Russia directly" is quite helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ender_rpm Posted October 16, 2009 Members Share Posted October 16, 2009 Okey dokey Check the link ay way re: your assertion that the conventional military isn't "rusted out". And to clarify, by Unconventional, I mean NBC, not SOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted October 16, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 16, 2009 Okey dokey Check the link ay way re: your assertion that the conventional military isn't "rusted out". And to clarify, by Unconventional, I mean NBC, not SOF. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted October 16, 2009 Members Share Posted October 16, 2009 Let's not kid ourselves: The only people that truly know the capability of the Russian Military are not authorized to speak regarding this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted October 16, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 16, 2009 Let's not kid ourselves:The only people that truly know the capability of the Russian Military are not authorized to speak regarding this.So people aren't authorized to speak as to whether or not Russian military personnel get a paycheck on a regular basis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wades_keys Posted October 16, 2009 Members Share Posted October 16, 2009 So people aren't authorized to speak as to whether or not Russian military personnel get a paycheck on a regular basis? No military analyst in his right mind is going to believe this bull{censored}. The trick is sifting out fact from fiction from these public statements and leaks. The real analysis occurs in a much more clandestine fashion. There's what the public "knows", and there's what the "agency" knows: 2 completely different things. I've got some indirect experience with how this works: my dad was a high ranking DEA employee (SAC, to be precise). You wouldn't believe the disparity in some cases as to what the public "knows" and what the government knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ender_rpm Posted October 16, 2009 Members Share Posted October 16, 2009 You wouldn't believe the disparity in some cases as to what the public "knows" and what the government knows.To the contrary, it's what I do for a living Not Russian analysis, but other stuff. I have a pretty good idea what the insiders know, and can fact check myself before I make eroneous (military/international political) assertions. In most other areas, I'm subject tot eh same info stream as most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted October 16, 2009 Moderators Share Posted October 16, 2009 There's what the public "knows", and there's what the "agency" knows: 2 completely different things.The public doesn't need anything more than common sense. Is the Russia of today the same Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991? Highly doubtful. If they were still completely in the crapper as they were back then, they may not have become a member of the G8. Since that's the case, would it be common sense that perhaps almost 20 years after the total collapse of the Soviet Union, Russian soldiers might actually be receiving a regular paycheck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.