A question about the Russian army etc

[mapuc]

We have a thread about the crisis in Ukraine and many of my friends are also discussing this on Facebook

Many of my friends tells me that the Russian army, airfore, navy is in a very bad shape.

I'm not saying they are wrong, it however goes against what I have read and learned.

Before glasnost and all the rest, Sovjet had more of quantity than quality.

After the fall of the Berlin wall an increas of Western technology came to the Russian army, navy and airforce

Is my friend right on their allegedly?

or is it me?

Or are we both wrong?

Markus

[Oberon]

From what I know it's a bit of yes and no.

After the fall of the Soviet Union the Russian military went into decline, corruption was pretty much standard, weapons went 'missing', submarines rotted in dock and most of the world pointed at Russia and laughed. As you can imagine this, and the state of the Russian economy did not do much for Russian self-image and pride.
However, with the ongoing post-9/11 chaos in the Middle East and the subsequent sky-rocketing price of oil, Russia has managed to profit and rebuild its economy and military and regain its status as a major world power which is briefly lost in the Yeltsin years.

Now, what does that mean for the Russian military? Well, it's not exactly in Warsaw Pact levels of quantity but it's still a powerful force, but it is also old and in the middle of upgrading. Take for example the venerable Mi-24 Hind, long in the tooth and whilst still potent, nowhere near as dangerous as the Ka-50 and 52, however whilst the Russian military has 298 Hinds, it only has 49 of the Ka-50 and 52 in service. This number is being increased (in the case of the 52, the 50 was dropped in favour of the 52) but it will take time before the Russian air force is in a position where it can retire the Mi-24.

Right now, on a one to one basis, US vs Russia, the US wins in terms of firepower, because the US has been able to constantly spend on its military since the end of the Cold War with little cutbacks. This is going to change in the near future as the US military budget starts hitting brick walls, and its technology spends itself out of a market (the F-22, the most advanced fighter that it too costly to risk being shot at).

However, the biggest problem that NATO has is two-fold, one is the US fear of China, any war between Russia and the US will give China an opportunity to expand in the Pacific, although their economy would go through a rocky road as the US went onto a war footing.
Secondly there's war exhaustion. Most of the nations of NATO have spent the last ten years smashing their heads into a brick wall in Iraq and Afghanistan, the public are fed up of war, the military is currently equipped to fight in a desert environment, and the economy is not on a war footing.

So whilst purely on an equipment basis we might have an advantage, a war would be the finishing blow to the world economy, and most of the nations involved in it.

Then there's the nukes. There has never been a war between two nuclear armed nations since the invention of the atom bomb. India and Pakistan have both come close on a number of occasions, and of course there were a lot of close calls in the Cold war, but it's an unknown scenario, would the threat of MAD mean that conventional weapons only would be used? Or would one side or the other feel their territorial intregrity threatened enough to resort to them? No one really knows and that's why no one really wants a war with Russia...well, no one in Europe anyway.

[mapuc]

Oberon, I say: many many thanks for your deep and inside explanation

Markus

[Skybird]

Techncial modenrization and chnaging training paradigms have been accompanied by two major changes in Russian doctrine. After 1989, the first such reform focussed on the possibility to fight against upraises and rebellions, or civil wars inside Russia and Russian allied states, and the threat by NATO, while not being ignored, became somewhat a second priority only. But some years ago, 5 years or so, that doctrine again changed and led to a u-turn in cutting the defence budgets, and again focussing on the West as a pssible and most likely opponent for a military confrontation, since then Russia's defence spending aim at rising every year again. The forces have been restructured and shrinked, their general mobility was increased, and as Oberon said, more attention was paid to shrink the technology gap to especially the US forces.

I take it for granted that lessons from the Georgian war and the Chechnya campaigns have also been learned.

The US mean while has given up the offiocial claim that it is capable to wage two mahjor wars on the globe simulatenously, and forces in Western Europe have been redcued tremedously in size, esoecially tabk fleets. Some states have given up their heavy tank units completely, or at least considered to dissolve them and to replace them with lighter, more mobile formations using more modular platforms (Netherlands gave up their Leopards, Canada considered to give up all its MBTs, but did not do then, when the Strykers did not show to be too good replacements). Size of air forces and naval fleets also shrunk.

Since some years, some states boost their defence spendings again, but Germany still cuts its forces. For many reaosns not to be deabtes here, the German army and forces in generla are in a pitiful state, and the moral is constantly hitting new lows. I knew two professional officers whom were friends of mine back then and who have quit service in frustration already years ago, saying the political signals and the general trend indicated to them that it is hopeless to expect that any administration would try to swing around the rudder in the forseeable future. Luckily, both men could afford that step. Since then, there have been more scandals, and the general mood has not really improved. Quite the opposite. Also, needed recruiting goals after the draft had been suspended, cannot be met, and many professionals with experience and specialised training, quit early now.

To what degree Russia is able to go to wear with the Europeans, I do not judge, but I would claim that Europe has not really maintained its ability to stand such a war with Russia either. It has always been my thinking that technological superiority can compensate numerical inferiority only to a certain point, but not beyond.

One thing only is relatively certain: both sides probably have not the long breath to wage a major war of that dimension over a longer period of time.

Also, the Russians would not be the Russians if they would not get underestimated a little bit, and would not have the one or the other little technical surprise in their backhand.

That the Russians could start a campaign against Scandinavia, I currently spend no serious thought on. Extremely unlikely scenario, extremely unlikely.

[mapuc]

Thank you Skybird.

My question was not about a russian war against Scandinavia/Sweden, but a full scale war against NATO. Denmark and Norway is a member, so here a war in scandinavia could be plausible., as a part of it.

And once Again it does not make me sleepless. Only one thing does and that's a totally other story

Markus

[CCIP]

Within the Russian military, you also have to keep in mind that there are huge inconsistencies and disparities. For one, there's the difference between the "contract military" and the conscripted recruits. By and large, the latter are still a free workforce and cannon fodder, and their material condition is very poor. But you look at professional units, and there is a very different and varied picture, generally leaning towards good quality. The navy may be suffering from some serious problems with funding and maintenance, but the personnel is by and large excellent and very well-trained. The airforce has been modernizing gradually, and again, the personnel - both flight crew and mechanics - are generally excellent. Air defense and missile forces are well-trained and well-equipped. Elite army units are, well, elite. Among interior troops (the interior ministry responsible for police also maintains armed fighting units), there is a wide disparity - some are in poor conditions, others are or par with the best army units.

It's hard to paint Russia's forces with a broad brush. Even in Georgia in 2008, there was an eclectic mix of everything from conscripts with obsolete equipment to top-notch Spetznaz units, all operating in the same areas, mixing with local militias and interior ministry units. Some would get themselves into disastrous situations, breaking and running - but an hour or two later, a far better unit would arrive and the situation would reverse.

And this, by the way, has been historically a hallmark of Russian ground forces. They're a very strange mixed bag, but you can't judge them by any individual unit or formation.

As for Russian full-scale war against NATO, not gonna happen. The Russians are not that stupid. By and large, the army's top brass are well-informed, pragmatic and know their chances well. They are opportunistic in smaller conflicts and generally well-prepared for homeland defense, but they don't even have the kind of capabilities they would need to take on NATO offensively - not in the air, on the sea or on land. The only kind of offensive weapons they could effectively use against NATO are nuclear. So trust me, they're not even going to think of taking that chance - certainly not within the next decade or two.

[Oberon]

It would be very stupid of Russia to knowingly create a war between itself and NATO, however it would be equally stupid for NATO to persue any such war onto Russian territory. That way lies madness. That's the major caveat that I'd add to any suggestions of Russian weakness. We could push them out of the Ukraine, but any thoughts of 'kicking down the door and the whole rotten lot coming down' are best left to the Wolfs lair. :03:

So, no, not very likely that Russia would knowingly start a war with NATO, and likewise NATO would be very loathe to start one with Russia. So what's happening right now is both sides figuring out just how far they can go to achieve their goals before the gloves come off. I think Putin would be very stupid to attempt anything major in East Ukraine, but equally I may well have once upon a time said such a thing of Hitler post Munich...so I'm going to just sit back and see how this one pans out.

[CCIP]

It would be very stupid of Russia to knowingly create a war between itself and NATO, however it would be equally stupid for NATO to persue any such war onto Russian territory. That way lies madness.

Yup, exactly :yep:

Like I said, the condition of Russia's offensive forces is pretty questionable, but you do not want to go the other way. The state of Russia's air defenses, coastal defenses and ability to fight back on land is just not something you want to mess with.

[Skybird]

We could push them out of the Ukraine,
Can we? I doubt that. For practical reasons, as well as the simply fact that the rsusians would refuse to see any miltary fighting with NATO inside Ukraine as a limited engagement any longer, but a full-blown war with NATO. Escalation from the moment on when NATO invades the Ukraine and starts shooting at Russian forces, is inevitable.

[Skybird]

Yup, exactly :yep:

Like I said, the condition of Russia's offensive forces is pretty questionable, but you do not want to go the other way. The state of Russia's air defenses, coastal defenses and ability to fight back on land is just not something you want to mess with.
Even if we let our air offensive being planned by a certain Mathias Rust? :D

[Sailor Steve]

^ ^ ^
:rotfl2: :rock:

[Jimbuna]

Even if we let our air offensive being planned by a certain Mathias Rust? :D

http://s27.postimg.org/aokis25df/image.jpg (http://postimage.org/)