|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 8, 2015 16:32:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jun 13, 2015 11:29:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 13, 2015 13:42:45 GMT -6
Yes, it might be more than interesting. The questions are simple: why didn't you give the new contractor the original contract to begin with? Can he give you the same price? Are they the same type and size engines? Can he support them? Ad infinitum. This whole Ukrainian crisis could be another Afghanistan for the Russians. I wonder when superpowers are going to learn? The US: Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The Russians: Afghanistan, Chechnya and now the Ukraine. We should call ourselves "Stupidpowers". British didn't do much better: Boer War, India, the list goes on and on.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jun 13, 2015 15:44:58 GMT -6
I think among other things it underscores how much of the "Russian resurgence" is bluster or pipe dreaming and how little Putin is thinking about what is actually needed in terms of industrial base and logistics to return Russia's military to being a credible power. The Ukraine held a lot of the old Soviet Union's military-industrial complex; the Soviet Navy especially was heavily dependent on Ukrainian gas turbine engines and shipbuilding facilities. That may be one reason why he's so hellbent on returning it to the Russian fold, but little things like wars tend to due a number on industrial infrastructure and in the meantime the supply is cut off. The Russian surface fleet is not in good shape and it's going to get worse; they haven't built a surface combatant larger than frigate size since the Cold War ended and now that's looking like a strain on their shipbuilding capabilities. Those vintage Krivaks and Sovremennys don't have many years left in them.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 14, 2015 16:33:47 GMT -6
I think among other things it underscores how much of the "Russian resurgence" is bluster or pipe dreaming and how little Putin is thinking about what is actually needed in terms of industrial base and logistics to return Russia's military to being a credible power. The Ukraine held a lot of the old Soviet Union's military-industrial complex; the Soviet Navy especially was heavily dependent on Ukrainian gas turbine engines and shipbuilding facilities. That may be one reason why he's so hellbent on returning it to the Russian fold, but little things like wars tend to due a number on industrial infrastructure and in the meantime the supply is cut off. The Russian surface fleet is not in good shape and it's going to get worse; they haven't built a surface combatant larger than frigate size since the Cold War ended and now that's looking like a strain on their shipbuilding capabilities. Those vintage Krivaks and Sovremennys don't have many years left in them. Economics is a potent force. It might be more potent than the theory of the Heartland developed by Mackinder. While the Russians occupy the heartland, economics controls their destiny and always has. If you have been to the gas pump, you might have noticed a drop in gas prices caused by the drop in global oil price. A barrel used to be $100 and now it is $60, this has caused the Ruble to drop like a rock and that has significantly affected the Russian economy. Half of their government revenue comes from gas and oil. With the drop in revenue, and the sanctions, their foreign debts are becoming unsupportable. Higher interest rates due to the sell off of the ruble has stymied the government. Putin's popularity is slowly deteriorating. Of course, like most oligarch's, he blames everyone else and therefore the Ukraine crisis. He hopes this will deflect his people from the truth. That will work only for so long. Those bases in the Crimea are almost worthless to him, since they are surrounded by unfriendly nations and he has basically a coastal navy, with some subs.
Its a feedback loop, build up the military so that his political popularity will increase and it helps the economic situation. He hopes that he can continue this long enough to have oil and gas go back to their highs, solving the problem. This is the same strategy used by almost all Communist dictators, I've seen them create a crisis simply to deflect their people from the inside truth. Same Cold War strategy.
On the other hand, he might be trying to Finlandize the surrounding new countries and return to the days of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. I doubt that strategy will work.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jun 21, 2015 20:12:26 GMT -6
Gee, whatever gave you the impression that he's using the military for popularity at home? www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/16/vladimir-putin-opens-russian-military-disneyland-patriot-park?CMP=share_btn_twI wonder if part of the issue is that since the start of the Cold War (and perhaps even further back), Russia has not had what one would call the Western definition of "allies." The Warsaw Pact as devised was mostly a meat-shield of satellite nations between Soviet territory and NATO, and a notable provision of the agreement was a framework for intervening in the internal affairs of member states should they show political independence. It was not a true collaborative security framework like NATO; there was no question that the Kremlin was making all the decisions and the Warsaw Pact military units would have served in a support capacity only in case of war in Europe. Either the Kremlin is incapable of realizing that rattling the saber at their neighbors is just going to drive them into a stronger defensive alliance (a problem the PRC seems to have as well) or that plays into their internal narrative of standing against a strengthening foreign presence on their borders. Maybe it's a little of both, but the economy angle is going to bite hard regardless. Then again, dictators and oligarchs tend not to worry about futures other than their own immediate ones. As another note, this one may belong in the aircraft-related threads but I'll put it here. The Russians have cut their orders for PAK FA and Su-35, and the PAK DA bomber project has been pushed back several years. They've ordered more Su-30s and are reportedly planning on restarting Tu-160 production. To me that sounds like they don't have the industrial base to develop new aircraft and set up production facilities in a timely manner, and are falling back on production of 1980s-era designs. Given that the Tu-95 fleet was just grounded due to an engine fire and by reports the remaining MiG-29s are falling apart, they can't wait to sort out the kinks with new designs.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 22, 2015 9:46:02 GMT -6
I really need research more on Putin, his advisors and the government but it seems to me that he and his friends are living in the past, hoping that saber rattling will bring those border nations back to the fold and I don't think it will. I agree that the Warsaw Pact was not what it seemed, and not a real strong alliance of nations with a common goal. The goal of Poland and the Eastern European nations was to get out from under the Iron Curtain and be free. Myopia is common amongst oligarchs. As Santayana said "Those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it."
Putin is attempting to redress the deterioration of the military since the collapse of the Soviet Union. He is focusing on established technology and conventional forces. Conventional forces are required for power projection, which I suspect is high on Putin's laundry list. We can see this in the bomber patrols over the Pacific and Atlantic, task forces sent to different regions, the Georgian campaign and joint maneuvers with the Chinese. They are increasing their outlay for shipbuilding. The last poll in Russia shows support for increased military spending, if you believe polls taken in Russia.
I don't think we can turn a blind eye to these changes and we should have expected them. One area of concern for the Russians has been their research and development sector and whether it can keep pace with the West.
I am not certain where all this will lead, but economics, as we have suggested is important and they could slip into the same mode as before the fall, putting everything into the military and forgetting the consumer. All or nothing is not good economics, balance is vital.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 24, 2015 14:26:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jun 24, 2015 18:37:25 GMT -6
I think the second one is on target, although the source is hardly impartial. If Putin is truly worried about NATO as a threat to Russian territory, well to put it bluntly he's screwed himself. Reminding the ex-Soviet bloc NATO members of the fun times they had under the Kremlin's thumb is spurring them to beef up their military forces (Poland especially is loading up for bear) and accept a greater NATO and US presence on their territory. On the other hand, if what's he's really worried about is internal dissent, maintaining a permanent siege mentality in the public conscience works well in the short-to-mid term at least. That goes for keeping the fighting in the Ukraine simmering as well - having the Russian-backed regime pushed out of power by popular demand was not a good example for the folks back home. Angling back to the general topic, while Russia is modernizing its forces to some extent, it's not to the point of adding new dimensions. The new stuff, which has questionable delivery timelines and capabilities, is just replacing what they have with more advanced models. The result is a Russian military that's more technically advanced than it was in say, the 1980s, but it doesn't seem do anything it didn't do back then and it's lost its numerical edge against NATO. This is one reason I consider the PRC to be a more capable potential adversary in most fields; if you look at the PLAN's build list it includes a relatively large number of capable DDGs and FFGs, modern patrol corvettes, nuclear and conventional subs, as well as amphibs and logistics ships. They seem to be developing at least some kind of away game and enough assets to spread it around, not to mention actually delivering the ships. By contrast the Russian Navy is struggling to build modern FFGs and their most capable surface ships are a handful of overhauled 1980s-vintage vessels, they can't seem to build modern amphibs, and their fleet logistics force is small and creaky (five 70s-vintage AORs). A refitted Kirov is a very impressive sight, but it's not worth much outside of home waters if you have no UNREP assets for the escorts.
|
|
|
Post by sirchaos on Jun 25, 2015 12:10:39 GMT -6
What´s the alternative for him? If he stops, he´ll be seen as weak. If he´s seen as weak, he will over the short or long run be replaced by a rival. And if he´s replaced by a rival, he has either a gulag to look forward to, The Hague, or a bullet and a shallow grave somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 26, 2015 9:18:46 GMT -6
One of the problems for democracies is the fact that we change rulers ever so often, four years for us. As such, our policies generally don't change on a whim, we have strong bodies of representatives that monitor or check on inconsistencies in foreign policy. The policy usually won't change on a whim by the new administration. It usually has been implemented gradually by other administrations. Sometimes it doesn't work like that, but on the whole we have a consistent foreign policy and geostrategic view. Oligarchies don't necessarily work that way. Their policies are subject to the whims of one person and his entourage. These regimes eventually become isolated. Sometimes they last a long time like North Korea, which due to its geographic position, can maintain its hold. Most of the time, the people realize what is happening and things change either peacefully or violently. I've seen over the past half century throughout the Cold War. Putin has alternatives and it is possible that corruption is causing policy changes. These kinds of regimes are very secretive and anything known is usually speculative. What we can say is that he using the same old Communist methods and as I stated, the paradigm has changed as has the geostrategic situation in the world. Does he realize this, maybe.
I believe that we are going to need another two or three decades to see a change in the minds of the people and a government of Russia that finally cleans up the corruption and realizes that it is part of the world island and needs to participate in friendly trade and supports freedoms around the world. Hope springs eternal.
I go back to my favorite saying by George Santayana " Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". This variation is better "Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them". This is applicable to the Russians and to the Europeans along with the US.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 26, 2015 12:48:33 GMT -6
I agree that the PLAN is a far more dangerous opponent only because it does have clear access to the Pacific Ocean areas. The Russian's are essentially back to square one, with little or no access to large seas and oceans except for ports that are closed by ice six to nine months out of the year, or the only access is through NATO controlled passages like the Dardanelles, and the Kattegat and Skagerrak. History shows us that during times of peace, a nation must do what's necessary to maintain skilled technical people and corporate capabilities to provide the necessary foundation for a ramp up during times of conflict. You can see this after WW1 in Britain and after WWII, and Vietnam. I suspect that Putin is trying to do the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jun 26, 2015 21:33:31 GMT -6
The PLAN does have better access to open water, but as stated they're building a more rounded fleet and more importantly they're delivering the ships. When Russia says they're going to start building a carrier in 2018 and achieve IOC by 2023, you can bet they don't even have a shipyard that can build a carrier and the design is a complete pipe dream. When the PLAN is going to build a carrier, the first we'll know about it is when a satellite spots it under construction. The Russians spent years telling everyone that the first unit of the Kirov class was going to be modernized and brought back into service; in truth they hadn't even taken the "Kirov" lettering off the hull, let alone defueled the reactors on a ship that was laid up after a nuclear accident over two decades prior. Meanwhile, the PLAN has managed in the space of about a decade to produce a fairly capable fleet of modern DDGs and FFGs.
Part of this is probably economical - the PRC simply has a much stronger economy than Russia; even if they're still deficient in some technical areas they have the resources to buy or copy stuff that does work and produce it in numbers. I think the other part though is that Russia's military is a very defensive-minded force that in some respects is more of a propaganda panacea for the citizenry than an effective fighting machine. Their army is their principal offensive force and they're probably not going to pick a fight with a country they can't drive a tank across the border to. Most of the PRC's adversaries are in island chains; if they want to make faces at them they have to build warships.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 27, 2015 9:33:34 GMT -6
Let's take a review of Russia. It's the world's largest country in territory and the 9th largest in population. Climatologically, most of Russia reaches temperatures below zero and much of the other part is close or just a little above zero degrees. Russia holds the largest proven gas reserves out of ten countries in trillions of cubic feet. Out of ten countries, they are 7th in proven oil reserves. In gold reserves, they are 8th, the US is first. They rank second in coal reserves behind Mexico and Canada. 53% of their resources lie in the middle of the nation, the European area is far behind. Much of that area is in the coldest regions and the least developed.
Demographically, there was a decline in birth rates from 1991 to 1997 but an increase in 2010. Mortality has been increasing each year since 1990 and the Russian population has declined by 1.4 million from 1991 to 1998. Migrations have occurred from the northern and eastern regions to the western, southern, and central regions. This migration of course will affect how natural resources will be secured. Simply put, Russia is too cold, too spread out and very far from borders, ports and the world markets. It's infrastructure, transport and political power is too centralized. Most of the industrial centers are around Moscow, the Donets basin and the Ural mountain region in the center.
This is a complex subject and I am certainly not able to do justice to it, but Putin has some traditional problems that were partially solved but also partially created. Maybe we can continue our discussion with more actual facts about economic, political and military geography.
Here is an interesting piece about Putin - windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2015/04/putin-gives-world-his-geography-lesson.html
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jul 21, 2015 17:46:51 GMT -6
Figured this would generate some discussion, as earlier we dissected a comparison of the IJN and the PLAN: medium.com/war-is-boring/to-defeat-china-in-a-conflict-america-should-study-world-war-ii-43610f7d6f17Personally I think the idea is a little too pat; this is not the 1940s. Unrestricted naval warfare against shipping (much of which is probably neutral-flagged) doesn't seem like something that would fly in the 21st century. There's also the matter that backing nuclear-armed nations into a corner by cutting their economic lifelines is a very risky game.
|
|