Vladimir Putin's Nuclear threat to the west

[elite_hunter_sh3]

Vladimir Putin has delivered perhaps his most menacing tirade against the West yet, repeating threats to train nuclear missiles on Europe and warning of unspecified retaliation if Kosovo declared independence.

Addressing his last press conference as Russian president, Mr Putin mounted a defiant display that demonstrated more emphatically than ever the widening gulf between Moscow and its former Cold War rivals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../wputin115.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/15/wputin115.xml)


... :hmm::hmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Didn't I say that this was happening a while back? The widening gulf between the US and Russia?

-S

[elite_hunter_sh3]

yep... still not sure wether its a good thing or a bad thing.. personally i would like to see Russia topple the EU... :yep:

[Oberon]

No need, it'll topple itself before long.

Russian missiles trained on the West is nothing new, in fact, I really doubt they've been untrained since they were built.

[SUBMAN1]

No need, it'll topple itself before long.

Russian missiles trained on the West is nothing new, in fact, I really doubt they've been untrained since they were built.Good point! I doubt the EU will fall - its exactly what elitists have been clammoring for, for decades. Russia however probably has the same settings on its missiles since 1980.

-S

[XabbaRus]

Ah the torygraph and Putin, objective journalism at its best.

Wow....

[STEED]

Vladimir Putin has delivered perhaps his most menacing tirade against the West yet, repeating threats to train nuclear missiles on Europe

Find my me as long as he targets the EU Parliament and blows it to hell. :D

[Oberon]

Vladimir Putin has delivered perhaps his most menacing tirade against the West yet, repeating threats to train nuclear missiles on Europe

Find my me as long as he targets the EU Parliament and blows it to hell. :D

I thought you would be annoyed STEED, he'd be beating you to it. Stealing your thunder so to speak!

[STEED]

Vladimir Putin has delivered perhaps his most menacing tirade against the West yet, repeating threats to train nuclear missiles on Europe

Find my me as long as he targets the EU Parliament and blows it to hell. :D

I thought you would be annoyed STEED, he'd be beating you to it. Stealing your thunder so to speak!

Not really just saves me the job in doing it. :rotfl:

I will just sit back in my deckchair and watch the EU Parliament go boom. :cool:

[Steel_Tomb]

They say they have "plans" ready if Kosovo declares independence? Is he suggesting the use of force to prevent it? What would NATO's reaction be? It would be after all, an attack by the Russian armed forces against a European country! Looks like the ****s about to hit the fan!

[Sea Demon]

They say they have "plans" ready if Kosovo declares independence? Is he suggesting the use of force to prevent it? What would NATO's reaction be? It would be after all, an attack by the Russian armed forces against a European country! Looks like the ****s about to hit the fan!

Russia using force against a European country, and directly in NATO's sphere would not be in Russia's interests. They know it, and we do as well.

[CCIP]

Honestly, I don't think Russia gives a s*** about Kosovo.

No, it's certainly going to protest, but eh - it didn't do anything when Serbia was getting bombed, and it won't do anything now. Why would it? It's stupid and is a lose-lose situation for Russia.

[sonar732]

I think that the Kosovo and Ukraine threats by themselves would be harmless. However, the fact that they came so close together with actual warnings from Moscow regarding "we know what to do" and increased military exercises worries me a great deal.

Anyone who can say that this isn't something to raise eyebrows needs to look back at quite a few other "close calls".:know:

[Sea Demon]

I think that the Kosovo and Ukraine threats by themselves would be harmless. However, the fact that they came so close together with actual warnings from Moscow regarding "we know what to do" and increased military exercises worries me a great deal.

Anyone who can say that this isn't something to raise eyebrows needs to look back at quite a few other "close calls".:know:

Agreed. I think it would be prudent to take Putin at his word. And let him know that what he proposes may not be in Russia's interests. I've been thinking lately that our navy ships shooting down that satellite may be a small response to Russian threats. Showing Russia that we can now shoot things down from space (like missiles) from mobile sea-based platforms may be a message in itself. I don't know, I'm just speculating. May not have anything to do with that at all. But Putin should take notice of that anyway. And his threats seem less than hollow. We are pointing alot of missiles and warheads in his direction as well.

[baggygreen]

I thought that too:)

thankfully, there are still enough missiles and bombs in the world that MAD is the order of the day, and nobody wants that.

They'll kick up a stink and maybe even write a meanly worded letter to someone and that will be that

[Peto]

Agreed. I think it would be prudent to take Putin at his word. And let him know that what he proposes may not be in Russia's interests. I've been thinking lately that our navy ships shooting down that satellite may be a small response to Russian threats. Showing Russia that we can now shoot things down from space (like missiles) from mobile sea-based platforms may be a message in itself. I don't know, I'm just speculating.

I think that's pretty good speculation Sea Demon. The US shooting down a satalite is almost certainly meant to send a message. But they better hit it :hmm:.

[Sea Demon]

Agreed. I think it would be prudent to take Putin at his word. And let him know that what he proposes may not be in Russia's interests. I've been thinking lately that our navy ships shooting down that satellite may be a small response to Russian threats. Showing Russia that we can now shoot things down from space (like missiles) from mobile sea-based platforms may be a message in itself. I don't know, I'm just speculating.
I think that's pretty good speculation Sea Demon. The US shooting down a satalite is almost certainly meant to send a message. But they better hit it :hmm:.

Yes. They better. The fact that they announced it, I hope that's a sign of confidence.

[Peto]

Agreed. I think it would be prudent to take Putin at his word. And let him know that what he proposes may not be in Russia's interests. I've been thinking lately that our navy ships shooting down that satellite may be a small response to Russian threats. Showing Russia that we can now shoot things down from space (like missiles) from mobile sea-based platforms may be a message in itself. I don't know, I'm just speculating.
I think that's pretty good speculation Sea Demon. The US shooting down a satalite is almost certainly meant to send a message. But they better hit it :hmm:.

Yes. They better. The fact that they announced it, I hope that's a sign of confidence.

I agree.

[AkbarGulag]

As far as America shooting down a satelite is concerned, the gas inside is a smokescreen imo.

I saw the news article where they said it had never been done before... never been done by the U.S.A maybe, China did this succesfully some months ago.

China and Russia are currently pushing for a treaty banning the use of weapons to destroy satelites and things in orbit. Much like the rush to conduct nuclear tests before the test ban treaty, this is merely an attempt by the U.S.A to redress a technilogical imbalance before any treaty discussions.

As far as Putin and Russia are concerned, Russia spends no more on arms than say, the U.K or France or Japan. The U.S.A spends possibly more than the rest of the planet combined. With that in mind, everything is just posturing. Russia has a massive nuclear detterent, making them unlikely to ever be invaded, aside from maybe a suicidal enemy. The missile shield could possibly negate this last defence for the Russian state, thus the new rush by Russia to upgrade their technical conventional forces. The commitment to numbers will be small, but the russian state has a long history (at least since WWII) of having things on the drawing board in the eventuality they may need to produce something at a moments notice.

The new sub under construction in Russia, with a crush depth of 450m is a prime example. This is far greater than the 250m boasted by new model American subs.

There is no threat from Russia, there is merely a response to current trends.

[Sea Demon]

As far as America shooting down a satelite is concerned, the gas inside is a smokescreen imo.

I saw the news article where they said it had never been done before... never been done by the U.S.A maybe, China did this succesfully some months ago.



Incorrect. Both the Russians and the USA have conducted successful ASAT tests in the 1980's. Way before China. Actually, this would be a much greater technological capability demonstrated by the USA due to the fact that it is being conducted from a deployed tactical sea-based mobile platform. The USA already did what China did a couple of decades ago. More than once even.

The new sub under construction in Russia, with a crush depth of 450m is a prime example. This is far greater than the 250m boasted by new model American subs.

While I can't speak for actual depths, I don't see Russia's new subs outdiving their American counterparts. The days of the Titanium hulled subs are over for Russia. While I'll never know the actual depth, 250m sounds a little shallow for an American nuke.

[AkbarGulag]

As far as America shooting down a satelite is concerned, the gas inside is a smokescreen imo.

I saw the news article where they said it had never been done before... never been done by the U.S.A maybe, China did this succesfully some months ago.


Incorrect. Both the Russians and the USA have conducted successful ASAT tests in the 1980's. Way before China. Actually, this would be a much greater technological capability demonstrated by the USA due to the fact that it is being conducted from a deployed tactical sea-based mobile platform. The USA already did what China did a couple of decades ago. More than once even.
Well, then the news article is probably a CNN piece ^^ who else would make things up and say they are news ^^ If this is also the case, why are people specualting as to its results??? after all, as you say, its already a done deal.

The new sub under construction in Russia, with a crush depth of 450m is a prime example. This is far greater than the 250m boasted by new model American subs.

While I can't speak for actual depths, I don't see Russia's new subs outdiving their American counterparts. The days of the Titanium hulled subs are over for Russia. While I'll never know the actual depth, 250m sounds a little shallow for an American nuke.
Both of these statistics are from newly launched or freshly commisioned Submarines. If the americans can go greater than 250M and the Russians cant go down to 450m, then someone is lying. which one is it? I'm only re-iterating the documentaries... can you supply more information please?

[The WosMan]

Given the Russians track record of greatly over exaggerating abilities which we only found out about after the iron curtain fell I doubt their claims. At the same time we all know the Silent Service is very tight lipped about the true abilities of its machines. This has always been her motto and it served her well for many years (and probably a huge reason the fleet was so successful during WW2). 250m is only a bit over 700 feet. We know that the Thresher back in 1963 was way below 400 m when she imploded.

[AkbarGulag]

http://www.csg2.navy.mil/Texas.htm

USS Texas(SSN 775)

Depth: Greater than 800 feet

http://www.milparade.com/security/49/01_01.shtml

K-335 Gepard

operational diving depth 520 m and max depth 600 m

I don't know the conversion. Feet and inches are french to me ^^ Have a tool here somehwere but can't find it to convert.

As a side note, many of the workers who built the Russian sub, were so poor, that they took their families to the dockyard to feed them, as food was supplied there.

I heard on the doco, (The russian one, sorry they might be lying?) that at 450m, the pressure is like balancing an elephant on a dinner plate.

[Sea Demon]

-I saw the news article where they said it had never been done before... never been done by the U.S.A maybe, China did this succesfully some months ago.


-Both of these statistics are from newly launched or freshly commisioned Submarines. If the americans can go greater than 250M and the Russians cant go down to 450m, then someone is lying. which one is it? I'm only re-iterating the documentaries... can you supply more information please?

OK. Why don't we start from your sources. Can you provide them? We can start from there. But looking up US ASAT tests is very easy to google. The current US test, if successful would break a new trend for sure. That would mean we could forward deploy and have the capability to put BMD platforms in any ocean. And could modify missiles for the ASAT role if worse came to worse from anywhere in the world...at any time. As far as documentation that shows 250m depth's for US subs, I think it's officially "greater than 800 ft." That's "greater than". But like I said, we'll never know russia's or the USA's actual depth figures for their current subs.

[Sea Demon]

http://www.csg2.navy.mil/Texas.htm

USS Texas(SSN 775)



Depth: Greater than 800 feet

Right. Exactly. Greater than 800 Feet. Are you absolutely certain Russian subs can outdive the USA's subs using this information?

[AkbarGulag]

http://www.csg2.navy.mil/Texas.htm

USS Texas(SSN 775)



Depth: Greater than 800 feet
Right. Exactly. Greater than 800 Feet. Are you absolutely certain Russian subs can outdive the USA's subs using this information?
It was a documentary, all the information came from sailors and captain on the newly commisioned american sub.(including the depth capabiliteis as supplied by the captain of the ship, i suggest you question him over hot coals)

I realise that elite hunter has you all riled up, but being defensive and ripping apart my statements without providing ANY information of your own is worse than stating something from memory.

I suggest you take a break from the forums. As you may notice, im not american or russian and I dont care who has the 'Better' of this that or the other. I'm here because I like subs and the SH4 game.

P.S can a moderator please lock this thread before demon has an anuerism

[Sea Demon]

I realise that elite hunter has you all riled up, but being defensive and ripping apart my statements without providing ANY information of your own is worse than stating something from memory.

I suggest you take a break from the forums. As you may notice, im not american or russian and I dont care who has the 'Better' of this that or the other. I'm here because I like subs and the SH4 game.

P.S can a moderator please lock this thread before demon has an anuerism
:lol: Oh come on. :roll: elitehunter is of no consequence to me. That is laughable. I'm just asking for you to back up your claims that nobody has done any ASAT tests, or that Russia can outdive American boats. I simply ask you to provide evidence of that.

But here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/a-history-of-asat-programs.html

and here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon

these are just starters. There is much much more for you.

And I ask for you to provide info of sub diving depth. You make a claim, I just ask where you're get the info from. Don't be so defensive. I have never seen anything that dilineates Russia's current subs diving depths greater than American subs depth. In the 80's the russians had the titanium hulls. and yes, their diving depths were known to be deep. But it's not the same anymore. Russia's not building subs from that material anymore. Do you have something that is definite? I'm just interested. You do know the Seawolf's are constructed from HY-100 steel.

As a side note, many of the workers who built the Russian sub, were so poor, that they took their families to the dockyard to feed them, as food was supplied there.

I heard on the doco, (The russian one, sorry they might be lying?) that at 450m, the pressure is like balancing an elephant on a dinner plate.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. I like that elephant to plate analogy.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

And I ask for you to provide info of sub diving depth. You make a claim, I just ask where you're get the info from. Don't be so defensive. I have never seen anything that dilineates Russia's current subs diving depths greater than American subs depth. In the 80's the russians had the titanium hulls. and yes, their diving depths were known to be deep. But it's not the same anymore. Russia's not building subs from that material anymore. Do you have something that is definite? I'm just interested. You do know the Seawolf's are constructed from HY-100 steel.

Primary source for the below from Polmar's Cold War Submarines.

Don't be so impressed. First, HY-100 is nothing new. They actually considered making Los Angeleses out of that stuff. They just couldn't quite hack the metallurgy back then, especially with the Los Angeleses already running late and overbudget. So it was HY-80 for all of them.

The Russians actually had a long history of outdiving American subs. The November, for all its reliability horrors, still had a test depth of 300m at a time when Skipjacks were only rated for 700 feet, and crush was estimated at 1050. However you define "test", when one side's test is w/i50 feet (K-3 wound up diving to 310m/1017feet) of your Crush, the other side definitely has the deeper diving boat.

The Thresher then went all the way to 400m test depth by improved wielding and weighed 700 tons more. The Soviets then went to AK-29 steel (HY-100 equiv) for the Vics and matched it at ~100t lighter (surface displacement) than Thresher despite a weight-consuming double-hull configuration.

Then came the all too famous decision to shed hull weight for the 688s, cutting the test depth down to 300. The Soviets had their run with titanium subs, but at around the same time they advanced to AK-32 (100kg/cm^2 or about HY-140 equiv). The Akula wound up having a test of 600m, and a "normal operating depth" of 400-480m. That's actually comparable to even Sierra. When you are almost getting the same results with steel (still at a heavier weight, but hardly the chasm it was at the beginning) as you can with titanium, obviously you are going to go with steel.

Part of the reason, that Russian subs successfully used higher yield steels, I suppose, may have to do with their work with titanium as well as their choice of a double hull. It allows the hydrodyamics to be "separated" from the strength. So while the Americans struggle to get the complex hydrodynamic shape without cracking any of the steel, the Soviets can make the hydrodynamic outer hull out of thin plates of lower grade steel and make the strength pressure hull in a way that's easy to make, not in a way that's good for hydrodynamics.

[Skybird]

I don't know the conversion. Feet and inches are french to me

Roughly, the factor is 3 (feet to meters). Not exactly, but for most estimations, multiplying or dividing it by three serves it's purpose.

The precise factor is 1 foot=30.46cm (shoe size 46).

[Oberon]

Exact crush depths are classified anyway, I heard rumours that the Traffie can go near 2000ft which is just insane depths for an SSN. The Alfa, Mike and Sierra classes could go damn deep but in the Alfas case it was damn noisey, in the Mikes case it caught fire and was too expensive to build a new one, not so sure about the Sierras, heard they were quite effective.
The major problem the Soviets had was a lack of money to run their navy the way they wanted, something which thanks to the global oil crisis, is now solved for the most part.
I think this is the first time in many years that the Russians are virtually neck and neck with the US in terms of technology, perhaps because of the 'glasnost' of technology which occured at the end of the cold war, more people now know about the capabilities of US submarines and US technology, we know how Stealth works, we know about pumpjet propulsors, and while I have no doubt that the US has even better toys that we DON'T know about, now that the Russians are getting more money, I have no doubt that they will begin making their own special toys.
Who knows, we might not be far off from a global arms race the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 50s/60s.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Exact crush depths are classified anyway, I heard rumours that the Traffie can go near 2000ft which is just insane depths for an SSN.

Near? That can mean anywhere from 1500-1999. But anyway, if they use HY-130, they have a chance for a ~3000 foot crush depth just like the Akulas (corresponding to the 600m test). The British use about 1.75 as their safety factor IIRC, so that translates to 1715 feet of test depth.

The Alfa, Mike and Sierra classes could go damn deep but in the Alfas case it was damn noisey,

It wasn't like it would have been less noisy if it hadn't dove as deep.

[sonar732]

Ok...let's get back on the topic of Putin and his threats.

The timeline is just too close.

On the 3rd, Poland agrees to the US Missile Defense Shield, for the past 3 months they carried out exercises in mutliple fleet operation zones (Atlantic, Med, Pacific, and Artic Oceans).

On the 12th, Putin makes a statement that "It's frightening not just to talk about this, but even to think about, that in response to such deployment, the possibility of such deployments - and one can't theoretically exclude these deployments - that Russia will have to point its warheads at Ukrainian territory".

Finally, on the 15th, he stated after 'throwing a fit' "We have a ready-made plan and we know what we are going to do".

So...with all of these cards on the table, let's look at the results.

[Oberon]

Exact crush depths are classified anyway, I heard rumours that the Traffie can go near 2000ft which is just insane depths for an SSN.

Near? That can mean anywhere from 1500-1999. But anyway, if they use HY-130, they have a chance for a ~3000 foot crush depth just like the Akulas (corresponding to the 600m test). The British use about 1.75 as their safety factor IIRC, so that translates to 1715 feet of test depth.

The Alfa, Mike and Sierra classes could go damn deep but in the Alfas case it was damn noisey,

It wasn't like it would have been less noisy if it hadn't dove as deep.


Aaaah, yeah 1715 ft sounds about right to what I heard :up:
Another problem with the Alfa was that damned power plant ;)

[bradclark1]

ASAT History
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/a-history-of-asat-programs.html

[Sea Demon]

Here's an interesting transcript about the upcoming SM-3 attempt.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4145

Obviously the US is not going to come out and threaten Putin's ability to launch missile attacks. But it's hard not to think that Putin can't see that if this system works, or is being worked on to this degree, there will be challenges faced.

[sonar732]

Ok everyone...the first part has taken place...sit back and let's keep the civility as time goes by.

Kosovo Declares Independance

Fox News Coverage (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330951,00.html)

Has pictures of Kosovo Albanians holding British and American flags.
CNN Coverage (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/17/kosovo.independence/index.html)

[Skybird]

As expected. But I think Kosovo has turned more Albanian than independant. More important, it is a late total victory for islamic land-taking. In a medium- and long range perspective, for the West it is set to prove to be a pyrrhus victory only, and it is not worth the row it has created with Moscow. The US and the EU may have piushed for this move together, yes - but the consequences will affect Europe exclusively. Wishing wisely is an art. The West does not excel in it, but is like a kid in a store full of sweets.

[Oberon]

Yes, we never were good at looking at things in the long term, the Treaty of Versailles is a good example of that... :damn:

[sonar732]

Russia's Ministry Response (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080217/ap_on_re_eu/russia_kosovo)

BBC Coverage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7249317.stm)

[bradclark1]

It has warned that recognition of Kosovo by the United States and other nations would encourage separatists in the former Soviet Union, across Europe and around the world.
They do have a point and plus it would turn into an Islamic state which terrorists would base out of. Thats my take on it anyway.
What the west needs to do is have more sex which equals more babies which equals more citizens with western democratic values. So have at it.

[XabbaRus]

And let loose the dogs of war.
This is *******ed up. Liberal wussies in the EU banging on about self determintation at all costs. Well Lets see if they recognise N. Osettia and Abkhazia.

As for the targetting of nukes, as if they were detargetted. Rhetoric to spook the wes and its working. Russia is in a position of strength with regards energy flows etc. Maybe the EU should listen to Russia sometimes.

[Skybird]

It has warned that recognition of Kosovo by the United States and other nations would encourage separatists in the former Soviet Union, across Europe and around the world.
They do have a point and plus it would turn into an Islamic state which terrorists would base out of. Thats my take on it anyway.
What the west needs to do is have more sex which equals more babies which equals more citizens with western democratic values. So have at it.
Make love, not war! :lol:

[Stanny]

Yeah,yeah...of course. :lol:

Russians should dress and equip their poor and hungry soldiers first,before they can initially start posing any threat to U.S. and NATO.

Russia is very weak compared to U.S.A. both in economic and military,as well social and all other aspects.Military equipment is extremely out-dated,they have only 12 4++ generation SU-35 fighters while USAF has already got 100 5th generation F-22s,they have several SSBNs in service while US NAVY has about 20 Ohios with much more powerful Trident ICBMs,they have several SSNs in service,while US NAVY has 50 688 and 688i Los Angeles,3 Seawof,4 Virginias and dozens of new Virginias to be completed.

Where do you see any threat?Russian goverment is capable of threatening and terrorising their own people and citizens only.

[CCIP]

Unfortunately I have to agree with you.

Why Russia hasn't gone to a proper professional army is probably a mystery to most people (and to me, except for the fact that they get a lot of free labour by concripting young men like this). This is something they'll need to do to get their armed forces in shape.

[Skybird]

Military power is not all power. And only sometimes - sometimes - it is the most important of all powers. There is relations, strategic direct and indirect influence. Capital. Ressources, energy. Access to and ability of controlling traffic (vehicles, goods, finances, ressources flow). A hand in another nations's economy. Influencing intenational corporations operating supra-national. that's why China can only in it's own sphere of influence, near it's costal waters, compete with the US navy - and nevertheless overtaking the Us in international power. Russia also is back - without neeeding to be a military equal. Finally, both nations are unattackable for the US.

Why always this tendency to underestimate the other - and getting surprised badly? how little it takes to paralyse the superior military power of the US you can currently see in Afghanistan, and Iraq. Nothing to learn from that?

[Steel_Tomb]

I wouldn't say the US is paralyzed in 'Stan/Iraq... counter insurgency is a long uphill slog and true things aren't 100% in Iraq. But how much of that is at the foot of the Iraqi's? If the different factions weren't so greedy in their quest for power in the name of all mighty Allah Iraq would be a much better place. Intervention from the likes of Syria and Iran in forms of arms doesn't help matters either, but thats an issue for the UN and the international community as a whole, which doesn't seem to be doing much about it either!:damn:

[Skybird]

If, when, because of.

If the enemy would not shoot back, war would be a picnic. One knew - at least one SHOULD have known and COULD have known - that the different Iraqi factions are greedy in their quest for power in the name of almighty Allah, that Iraq would be a mean place, that Syria and Iran would intervene, and that the Un would not be able or willing to stop that. And in Afghnaistan, killing the enemy sees no effect, the situation was allowed to detoriate after 2002, and now one is fighting with one's back against the wall and wants other nations to be stupid enough to take the blame for the failure.

So...?

The system of only counting one's own guns and rifles bogged down. And here is where the factors that I mentioned in my post above, as well as different ideological motivations with longer breath compared to Western short visison, come into play. violence in afghnaistan has climbed to new heights these days, and in how far the relative stability in Iraq is owed to Monsieur Sadr having agreed to a seize-firing six month ago that now is to be ended, remains to be seen. If anyone thinks he had to agree to that seize firing because of an asusmed weakened position, he better thinks twice: basically he allowed the Us to kill the enemies and untrustworthy elements in his brigades that had started to pose a risk of rebellion to him, and used the time to increase his studies to raise his influence as cleric, and in some years eventually as ayatollah. That is imporant for his ambitions, since that rank allows him to speak out fathwas. at least a more clever US commander is in place now, so I see a fair chance for Patreus to be able to deal with any eventual worstening of security status again.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Yeah,yeah...of course.
Russians should dress and equip their poor and hungry soldiers first,before they can initially start posing any threat to U.S. and NATO.
Russia is very weak compared to U.S.A. both in economic and military,as well social and all other aspects.Military equipment is extremely out-dated,they have only 12 4++ generation SU-35 fighters while USAF has already got 100 5th generation F-22s,they have several SSBNs in service while US NAVY has about 20 Ohios with much more powerful Trident ICBMs,they have several SSNs in service,while US NAVY has 50 688 and 688i Los Angeles,3 Seawof,4 Virginias and dozens of new Virginias to be completed.
Where do you see any threat?Russian goverment is capable of threatening and terrorising their own people and citizens only.
Actually, that still makes them, in terms of equipment at least, very well off compared to most countries.
Unfortunately I have to agree with you.
Why Russia hasn't gone to a proper professional army is probably a mystery to most people (and to me, except for the fact that they get a lot of free labour by concripting young men like this). This is something they'll need to do to get their armed forces in shape.
There's always the good old cost fallback, and while of course it isn't the whole reason it shouldn't be completely ignored.
Personally, however, I think the real resistance is due to the whole "Relative Expert Power" ladder concept. Part of a leader's authority over his subordinates is based on superior knowledge - they are under him because he knows more and can teach them. This is a great part of the authority of for example, a US Navy CPO.
The Soviet conscript system had this down-pat, at least theoretically. The conscripts don't know much more than how to clean and aim their rifles, and the conscript sergeants aren't a whole sight better. The officers know more, and they play a personal role in teaching their men. So now the officer is clearly the authority figure, the expert of the platoon. As you go up, more experience and more schooling. The end result = a clearly defined ladder, with expertness (and thus authority) correlating to rank.
The Warrant Officer program in 1972 introduced some wrinkles to this. But with the senior enlisted corps so decimated, the NCOs simply don't have the experience superiority to force their views onto the officers by the moral authority of experience. And because the officers themselves receive more specialist education than in say the US, they are less vulnerable to "blackmail" tactics by the NCOs - you might have heard of US enlisted reacting to a crap "sea puppy" officer by putting in minimum effort until the division goes to h*ll and the JO caves in if only to save his OER, but a Soviet officer is used to his conscripts putting in minimum effort, both because they often aren't all that motivated and they often don't know enough to be more enthusiastic in a helpful way.
So the WO corps, at least in the Army, was quickly sidelined. That destroyed at least half the purpose of creating it in the first place, but at least the Expert Power structure in intact.
Obviously, such measures won't work in a fully professional army. A professional army, or even just all-professional NCOs, is a perversion of Expert Power, with an additional peak near the far right of the enlisted scale.
A veteran professional NCO often knows more than his JO and can probably do the JO's job very easily. So where does the officer's authority come from? A holdover from the aristocratic past? Or is it down to the thin legalistic thread of The Regs?
Even now, Russian officers are paid more for being in a "contract unit", reflecting the perceived difficulty of working with enlisted that may be more experienced.
It is said that the Russians gape when they see all the things NCOs are allowed to do in the West. I couldn't help but think whether the gaping is really about "How the heck does the officer in your system even retain control when the NCOs are clearly so much more capable at their tasks? Why even bother, for example, to have a "Sonar Officer" when your real hydroacoustics experts are all enlisted?"
And until they have an answer that satisfies them to that question, there will be resistance. Quite frankly, when I look at this problem, I wonder myself how the West keeps this problem solved in the post-aristocratic world.

[Stanny]

Why is Russia so worried in U.S. planned Missile Defence Shield in Europe?They are so worried because both Pentagon and Russian Defence Ministry got the same results in their researches:approximately 90 or even more percent of russian ICBMs will be shot down without any,even minimum possibility to harm U.S.A. or any of it's key allies in Europe in case of real nuclear war.The counterstrike of U.S. military will be absolutely deadly to Russia,however.It is also known that U.S. military has got a strategic reserve of nuclear weapons for "Maintaining the superiority and domination in the world after the complete destruction of Russia in nuclear war".

[Kapitan_Phillips]

I dont think it'll be Russia, should something spark off. Its more likely to be a rogue state with illegally manufactured or purchased nuclear weapons if anything. And they wont missile it, they'll smuggle it somewhere and detonate on the ground.

Makes you think about many suicide bombings. What if those bombs were dirty bombs? :-?

[XabbaRus]

Why is Russia so worried in U.S. planned Missile Defence Shield in Europe?They are so worried because both Pentagon and Russian Defence Ministry got the same results in their researches:approximately 90 or even more percent of russian ICBMs will be shot down without any,even minimum possibility to harm U.S.A. or any of it's key allies in Europe in case of real nuclear war.The counterstrike of U.S. military will be absolutely deadly to Russia,however.It is also known that U.S. military has got a strategic reserve of nuclear weapons for "Maintaining the superiority and domination in the world after the complete destruction of Russia in nuclear war".

Could you care to provide sources to back that claim up.
Russia is pissed off because assurances were made that NATO wouldn't go right up to Russia's borders and they went back on it. Now having looked at your profile I doubt you will be able to provide objective data but please try.

[Stanny]

Could you care to provide sources to back that claim up.
Russia is pissed off because assurances were made that NATO wouldn't go right up to Russia's borders and they went back on it. Now having looked at your profile I doubt you will be able to provide objective data but please try.

If you can understand russian,I advice you to read what russian military analysts are talking on this issue.The most widely discussed question is so called "Project 2010".

Project 2010 actually means the year of 2010,when Russia is expected to reach the lowest point in it's strategic nuclear attack capabilities,and U.S.A is expected to reach the top of it's military power contrarywise.That will provide U.S. the possibility to strike first with no threat of being counter-attacked.

These conclusions were made as a result of rigorous calculations of how both U.S. and russian military potentials are changing.

So what has Russia got actually:

During Soviet Era the key weapon of russian nuclear arsenal was the SS-18 Satan ICBM.USSR had approximately 308 such missiles,each with huge nuclear warhead loadout and awesome number of countermeasures.They were capable to jam and penetrate virtually any missile defence system.But,all of them are ending their service life now.

All production facilities for these missiles were left in Ukraine after the end of the Soviet Union.

In the last decade Russian armed forces have been steadily reducing the number of R-36M missiles in service, withdrawing those that age past their designed operational lifetime. About 40 missiles of the most modern variant R-36M2 (or RS-20V) will remain in service until 2020 and will be then replaced by newer MIRV version of Topol-M. In March 2006 Russia made agreement with Ukraine that will regulate cooperation between the two countries on maintaining the R-36M2 missiles. It was reported that the cooperation with Ukraine will allow Russia to extend service life of the R-36M2 missiles by at least ten years to 25 year.[4]

Russia has now really three combat ready regiments of "Topol-M" mobile ICBMs,totaling of something about 54 units.Each one has got approximately 100-120 times smaller nuclear warhead and countermeasure loadout then SS-18 Satan had.Production tempos at Votkinsk Plant are 4-6 units a year,instead of planned 40-50 units.Again,I will repeat those ICBMS are much less powerful than U.S.Trident D5 ICBMs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topol-M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-36_(missile)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_missile

Russia has now got only one operational Typhoon Class SSBN TK 208 Dmitry Donskoy.5 other submarines of this class are withdrawn from service.U.S. Navy has all 18 SSBN Ohio active in service.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_class_submarine

Situation in air force capabilities comparison is even worse.USAF has got 21 B-2 Spirit bombers that are absolutely invisible to any russian radar system and can smash any strategic objects deep inside russian territory.Russians have only got 14 Tu-160 Black Jacks and old Tu-95 Bears that are extremely vulnerable.USAF has got over 100 newest 5th generation F-22 Raptors that have no competitors in Russian Air Force at all.

It is not as shiny picture as Mr.Putin trying to present it,isn't it?

[XabbaRus]

I think you are overstating American capabilities.
So you don't think the Russians have anything that can detect and take down a B-2?
Interesting since the plane is old hat now.

The F-22 though arguably the best fighter planes isn't the silver bullet it is made out to be. There are only 112 of them.

So only one Typhoon is left, but there are still between 6 & 8 Delta IVs in service plus Borei of which one has been launched and two others are in advanced stages of production.

I can't find anything on the web to do with Project 2010 and I can speak Russian. I did find something similar but that was based on an official document release in 1993 when the economy was screwed.

Russian forces maybe not be what they were in Soviet times but they are better than they were 5 years ago.

[Stanny]

You should read Vladimir Krasilnikov's review in russian here:

http://www.hrono.ru/text/2003/kras_udar.html

Compare his figures with up-to-date information from Wikipedia and you will see that Russia is progressing really slowly.

The F-22 though arguably the best fighter planes isn't the silver bullet it is made out to be. There are only 112 of them.

Yes,but there are only 12 Su-35s in service with Russian Air Force for the present time,and they are not a 5th generation fighter jets at all.That is a heavily modernized version of Su-27,and they still have big problems outfitting them with AESA radars,desperately needed for modern air combat.However,USAF is completing the modernization of and deployment of new F-15C AESA versions,F-16 Block 60 already have AESA,F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets have AESA too.

So you don't think the Russians have anything that can detect and take down a B-2?

Do you mean that accident when F-117A Nighthawk was shot down during NATO campaign in Yugoslavia?It was shot down more using a visual detection,than actually tracking it with a radar,just occasionally.

So only one Typhoon is left, but there are still between 6 & 8 Delta IVs in service plus Borei of which one has been launched and two others are in advanced stages of production.

It is still almost twice less than 18 SSBN Ohios of U.S. NAVY.You must also take into consideration that facts:

1)The primary strategic naval wepon of Russian Strategic Submarine Fleet will be Bulava ICBM.Bulava is just a navalized version of Topol-M ICBM with the same much reduced nuclear warhead and countermeasure loadout compared to that of Trident D5 ICBMs normally carried by all U.S. SSBN Ohios.

2)Bulava had a lot of problems during tests.

To my personal opinion,these "power demonstrations" done intensively by russians in the past time should be only associated with presidential elections coming in the next two weeks.Russian people should be shown that they are still mighty and able "to show something to these americans".That's why we can observe such stupid accidents like Tu-95 Bears flying at low altitude over the decks of U.S. aircraft carriers as it was in 1970s,though principles of naval warfare have changed,flying up to U.S. airspace in Alaska,where ancient Tu-95s are met with state-of-the-art F-22 Raptors and so on.I am reading russian military forums quite often,and even russian people who understand more or less in military technolgy say that "their goverment looks at them as at idiots".I am treating all that is shown on russian TV nowadays as pure propaganda.

[Steel_Tomb]

What gets me is that although Putin is a dedicated Russian man who wants his nation to be great... he doesn't actually improve things that matter at this time. Yes armed forces are important, but they are at a moderately adequate level now. He should be improving the lives of the average joe Russian citizen, new housing and state of the art technology... bring the standards of living up to the levels that we here in the West enjoy, that more than anything else would get Russia recognized... not pure military strength.

[Stanny]

What gets me is that although Putin is a dedicated Russian man who wants his nation to be great... he doesn't actually improve things that matter at this time. Yes armed forces are important, but they are at a moderately adequate level now. He should be improving the lives of the average joe Russian citizen, new housing and state of the art technology... bring the standards of living up to the levels that we here in the West enjoy, that more than anything else would get Russia recognized... not pure military strength.

You are absolutely right.Actually,there are only three cities in Russia where there are high living standards.This is Moscow (10 mln. inhabitants),Saint Petersburg (5 millions) and Ekaterinburg (1.5 million).All other cities,towns,villages are living in extreme poverty.

Russia's most urgent problem is that they almost do not have so called middle class income citizens.There is a huge gap between dozens of billionaries and hundreds of millionaires and tens of millions of all other people.

[XabbaRus]

Really extreme poverty, please define that?
How many Russian cities have you visited in the past few years?
It seems a few sweeping statements are made without checking the facts.

Yes there is extremem poverty in Russia. Yes Moscow and Petersburg are the cities that are most developed, but to say all other places are in extreme poverty is a joke.

Putin HAS done more for the average Russian then Yeltsin ever did.

[Oberon]

Yeltsin did something? :o :o

[XabbaRus]

Quoting wikipedia as a primary source isn't the best IMO.

Again I'll have to read that guy's stuff but will have to research his background.

[XabbaRus]

That link to Vladimir Krasilnikov's article is that Project 2010? It seems that is his personal observations based on events he has seen, not hard data though I have only skimmed it.

As for using wikipedia, never as a major source.

Has he seen the document prepared by the Russian Committee of Chiefs of Staff?
Also this article is 5 years old, things have changed.

At this very moment there are few but will be more modern strike fighters etc. I see it on forums all how Russia doesn't have anything capable of taking on the F-22 but who does. The Su-34 is a Fencer replacement and a vast improvement modernised Su-27s are coming on stream. These will be adequate to take on the current crop of potential adversaries, eg European airforces.

As for AESA radars the Russians are ahead of Europe, christ we can't even get one in the Typhoon and Rafale.

[Stanny]

As for AESA radars the Russians are ahead of Europe, christ we can't even get one in the Typhoon and Rafale.

I am afraid that you are watching russian Channel One and making wrong conclusions.I repeat,even people at russian message boards are very concerned about the fact,that Russian military has little success in chasing U.S. military.SSNs,5th generation fighters,AESA modernizations of the present fighter aircraft in service-that is all they are having constant problems with.Russians have developed Irbis-E AESA radar for SU-35 BM,but they still cannot launch it into mass production as they initially have troubles fitting it into the body of SU-35.That is your aforementioned "ahead" of all Europe.That is the lovely slogan of russian TV show "Strike Force" on Channel One-"has no analogues in the world".On serious russian military forums like Sukhoi or Balancer's Airbase people stopped thinking so a long time ago.There are even such discussions if ten Su-35BMs could possibly kill one F-22.You see,USAF is in 5th generation with their F-22 and F-35 already while the rest of the world is just in 4++,and Rafale with Typhoon are not an exception.

Quoting wikipedia as a primary source isn't the best IMO.

Well,people who fill Wikipedia in do it primarily from Global Security and FAS sources.

but to say all other places are in extreme poverty is a joke.

It is not a joke but severe reality.My observations are based on stories that people who go to Russia on vacation/visiting relatives tell.People are returning frightened and shocked from there.Harshness and inmodesty are everywhere in the life of Russia.Insulting people is a normal example of behaviour for any local russian official in any russian government institution.Why does russian police carry AK-74 assault rifles on regular basis daily?Is that a standard issue weapon and why does police need such weapons?Is ordinary pistol not enough for maintaining order and enforcing law?In Lithuania,for example,policemen carry just Glock-17s and nothing else.I think it is just a normal policy for russian authorities to demonstrate the official power to their citizens and keep them controllable.

[XabbaRus]

Ha, the Americans could down an F-22 with 10 F-15's so it isn't a unique russian problem.

And no I haven't been watching channel 1 I have been reading various reports on the internet. The euros are having as many problems with their AESA. Why haven't they put it in the Typhoon yet? Same with the French Rafale, the RB2 isn't ready either.

And the last time I was in Moscow last year in fact I didn't see the Russian police regularly running around with AK-47s either, in fact most were unarmed.

Also having travelled round Russia I saw poverty but not extreme poverty in every city.

And insulting behaviour from officials in Russia, again not a uniquely Russian problem, get it just as often when dealing with bureaucrats in the UK. See there are several types of Russians I have met in the UK. Normal ones who can see the faults of their country but are still proud to be Russian, those who blindly think Russia is the best thing since sliced bread (which is of course daft) and then the self hating Russians who are ashamed to be Russian and will slag off their country to anyone who will listen. They are the ones who seem to get the attention over here.

You never explained what you meant by extreme poverty.

[Stanny]

You never explained what you meant by extreme poverty.

I will say again,Russia and all countries of ex-Soviet Zone more or less are lacking the middle class segment of society.Middle class term is used to describe people who gain normal (medium) profits.Those people who do not drive Bugatti Veyron but do not feel the lack of money for all necessary things in everyday life (healthcare,higher education,real estate).That are the people,whom you will normally see forming the biggest part of population in older EU countries and U.S.A.

Where have you been to Russia?Were you visiting little towns or villages in Siberia?Most of the russians live there.

I understand that Moscow is all shining with Rolex watches and Ferrari cars,and these toys bought for oil money do impress,but Moscow is not the Russia.Even russians think so.

[sergbuto]

They do have a point and plus it would turn into an Islamic state which terrorists would base out of. Thats my take on it anyway.

I dont think it'll be Russia, should something spark off. Its more likely to be a rogue state with illegally manufactured or purchased nuclear weapons if anything. And they wont missile it, they'll smuggle it somewhere and detonate on the ground.

Makes you think about many suicide bombings. What if those bombs were dirty bombs? :-?
I wish US administration had the same thoughts as you guys. Unfortunately, even the Sept.11 tragedy, which clearly showed where the real danger comes from, did not straighten their priorities.

One thing is to fight for profits of a few very rich American people/companies in the sphere of Russian economic interests, another thing is to really expect, seriously discuss and take measures against the threat of a nuclear war from a slavic country with capitalistic-jungle economy (not even commies any more) while the islamic/muslim origin of the threat was clearly indicated by the Sept.11 attack.

They should leave it to Baltic countries, Ukraine and Georgia worry about the Russian military threat because those counties need that to justify their presence in EU to get their piece of the pie. :)

[Stanny]

They should leave it to Baltic countries, Ukraine and Georgia worry about the Russian military threat because those counties need that to justify their presence in EU to get their piece of the pie. :)

Do you think so for real?Why are we so different from let's say Denmark or Holland?If Denmark and Holland deserve to be in EU why we do not?Can you explain this?

You may have a totally different opion watching from Sweden,that has been neutral in the World War II and happily built an advanced model of capital socialism afterwards.But we live here and we have our own point of view,inspired by our experience throughout the biggest part of XX century.

[XabbaRus]

You never explained what you meant by extreme poverty.
I will say again,Russia and all countries of ex-Soviet Zone more or less are lacking the middle class segment of society.Middle class term is used to describe people who gain normal (medium) profits.Those people who do not drive Bugatti Veyron but do not feel the lack of money for all necessary things in everyday life (healthcare,higher education,real estate).That are the people,whom you will normally see forming the biggest part of population in older EU countries and U.S.A.

Where have you been to Russia?Were you visiting little towns or villages in Siberia?Most of the russians live there.

I understand that Moscow is all shining with Rolex watches and Ferrari cars,and these toys bought for oil money do impress,but Moscow is not the Russia.Even russians think so.

No need to say again, as that didn't answer my question, I know Russia lacks a large middle class but it is growing.

As a matter of fact I did live in Siberia for 9 months, Tomsk to be exact.

Also lived in Voronezh (1996) aswell as St Petersburg (1997) and Moscow 3 years.

During my time there I visited Pskov, Gelendzhik, Novorossisk, various towns around Moscow so I have travelled quite a lot there and since it was by trains passed through some grim towns for sure, but to say extreme poverty isn't accurate for all other places in Russia outside of Moscow, Petersburg and Yekaterinburg.

So again specify extreme poverty. eg, lack of access to clean water, house, heating, food etc...ie bin raking to find food as the norm, begging as the norm.

[Skybird]

Petersburg would be a city I would be interested to visit for a day, or two. much beauty, I got the impression on TV, but I assume: also much shadow offsides the obvious hot spots.

[XabbaRus]

Hotspots? What do you mean?
It is a beautiful city, if only I had the photos, but my ex-girlfried took them.

I felt prefectly safe there, more so than London.

[Skybird]

Hotspots? What do you mean?
It is a beautiful city, if only I had the photos, but my ex-girlfried took them.

I felt prefectly safe there, more so than London.
Howowoh, stay cool, man, I never was there, just saw film material on TV. Think it is a nice city, but I do not know if that is true for all the city, or just the city centre, and to what degree it has been restaurated and worked over since the USSR fell, and when I said "hotspots" I only meant that maybe there are other sections that look less beautiful. I don't know! Cities like Heidelberg, Lübeck, Munich etc also are famous for their beautiful sections, but they also have less impressive, ugly places to offer, usually at the outskirts of the cities, or factory zones. If that is not true for Petersburg , and in fact ALL of the city looks as good as what I saw in pictures and films - the better!

[Stanny]

So again specify extreme poverty. eg, lack of access to clean water, house, heating, food etc...ie bin raking to find food as the norm, begging as the norm.

Are you the citizen of U.K.?Attitude towards people with burgundy passport may differ from those who are Russian citizens.

Personally,I do not understand your greatest love in Russia.It sounds for me like you are getting attracted by some kind of exotic.How do you like the Moscow three day registration rule?How do you like the need to carry your passport with registration mark along all the time in order not to get in jail for three days?Do you like all this? :o

By no means I will ever go to Russia,unless it is absolutely necessary.Because it is really dangerous country,where human,his life and civil rights mean nothing both to the citizens and official authorities.

[Dmitry Markov]

I live in Moscow, but my wife and I like to visit Petersburg couple times a year on weekends. My impressions of center parts of the city are that it was not built to live in - it was built as a showcase. So it has some phantasmagoric ghostly appearance - lines of sidestreets with faded colors of the houses where no life seem to dwell (especially strong these feelings are when walking the streets in early morning - about 5 to 7 o'clock). But the palaces, cathedrals, museums on the contrary look more alive than common houses. It gets into the eye that Petersburg was built for them - and they are the truly inhabitants of the central parts of the city. Suburbs look more like the normal city - you can see that people came there to live and work, but the center... Sometimes I think that palaces and official buildings where built first and after that some will have brought citizens, houses and so on to be the background of the first ones.
Nevertheless I do like the city indeed - walking the streets in the night and in early morning, sitting in multiple cafes, visiting museums and suburban parks - Tzarskoe Selo and Pavlovsk and so on...

[XabbaRus]

Yes I am a UK citizen and the registration process doesn't bother me, it is one of the rules and technically you don't need to carry your passport with you and you won't end up in pirson for 3 days if you don't.

So I like russia for many reasons and happen to know many Russians from many walks of life.

Still you haven't answered my question. You seem to just dislike Russia for reason of prejudice. You haven't been to Russia. It is not a really dangerous country I can think of many worse.

[Stanny]

Kind policeman and old woman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lJjbAiwok0

Watch the end of the movie,also very kind policemen (it is Belarus,but Russia does not differ much):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1QZSzAIDeM

Typical russian block house:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSH2fsso6r0

Wealthy citizens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpYOIcz_n4o

Wealthy citizens again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h25tnEMu1fE

Two russian friends:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHmjeQnf4qk

Another wealthy russian:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tW6zAJFUcc&feature=related

Finally,the real combat brotherhood in the army that threatens the whole world:

http://video.mail.ru/mail/s.o.s.-07/40/140.html

[XabbaRus]

Really I find your use of youtube to demonstrate the realities of Russia quite telling.
I've lived there, have Russian friends, been to many Russian places and have a Russian wife.

You have your mind set on one idea only and nothing will change it.

[Stanny]

You have your mind set on one idea only and nothing will change it.

My friend,I was born in the Soviet Union during the rule of Leonid Brezhnev.I was still a child but I do remember quite a lot of things.IL-76s cargos loaded up with ammunition departing for Afghanistan in 1987,empty shelves in the shops,events of 1991,withdrawal of Soviet Army from Lithuania,economic crisis of mid 1990s,huge levels of crime and so on up to Lithuania's integration into European Union and NATO.

We are crawling towards western standard of living,like you have in your native Aberdeen,and you advice us to look back for Russia.We who lived all our lives under Russia know what Russia really is.And it is quite enough of Russia for us,believe me.

Why do you live in Aberdeen then?You should go and become a permanent russian resident,apply for Russian Citizenship.You should forget your native Britain and stay in Russia forever.Only then you will clearly understand whether you want russian way of living or not.

and have a Russian wife

I believe in love for ages and other romantic things like that but...there are very little russian girls and women who do not dream of getting married with foreigner,especially one carrying the U.S.,or U.K. passport. :D

By no means I am trying to tell that Russia is something absolutely terrible.No way.But I know the real situation as we are all here from the former Soviet Union.