EU signs defence pact

[Catfish]

"First proposed in the 1950s and long resisted by Britain, European defense planning, operations and weapons development now stands its best chance in years as London steps aside and the United States pushes Europe to pay more for its security."

Somehow i do not think this has been Trump's real desire :03:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-defence/eu-signs-defense-pact-in-decades-long-quest-idUSKBN1DD0PX?il=0

[em2nought]

"First proposed in the 1950s and long resisted by Britain, European defense planning, operations and weapons development now stands its best chance in years as London steps aside and the United States pushes Europe to pay more for its security."

Somehow i do not think this has been Trump's real desire :03:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-defence/eu-signs-defense-pact-in-decades-long-quest-idUSKBN1DD0PX?il=0

Especially given the new uniform regulations :D
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/29/20F9796500000578-2931169-ISIS_forces_prepare_for_battle_in_Iraq_More_than_1 00_bodies_of_j-a-3_1422531197705.jpg

[ikalugin]

Well if you can't build the 4th Reich you can try to build the 3rd Califate.

[Skybird]

"Pact", thats ounds so adamant, so iron-and-steel-like, so unmovable and strong and irresistable. But this PESCO treaty is in tsi frmat not more than a paper of politcal intention, and some bureauracrtic new regulations to avoid bureaucratic overregulation when allied military and liguistics cross borders. It does not raise the combat power and resistability to a Russian attack. It does not claim to raise troops levels and procurations, but wants to use "clever management" to compensate for lacking equipment - like Guttenberg did with the Bundeswehr, which as a result is weaker off after him, than it already was before him.

I stick to it, the money that is planned for this, should directly go into better payment of soldiers to attract more new recruits, and repairing, replacing and procuring military equipment, platforms, and building certain skills (cyberwar, drones). This PESCO treaty now is too uch poltics and bureaucratics, and too little combat-relevant substance, too much is aiming at projecting police forces to thrid world places to build schools and protect elections, than to fight robuts wars against a determined aggressor. For the latter NATO claims responsiblity, and cannot fill it already. If PESCO does not help there, then why having it in the first? To missionise distant parts of the planet in a bid to relabel development aid as defense spendings for the pacifistic audience at home?

Quatschköppe. Weicheier. Waschlappen.

A defense pact - I'm shivering - that does not make a potential enemy scared of the idea to challenge and fight against it, is pointless. And cooperaiton in building weapon platforms? I just need to think of the Airbus A400M to dislike the idea, or the slow - and still not finalised! - delivery history of the Eurofighter. The history of the Puma is not story of fame as well, but illustrates how political correctness trumps de facto needs and military essentials. German tank know how gets outsourced to the French - effectively for nothing.

The problem is the unwillingness of the mental attitude in Europe, in leaders hands, and populations' heads, to defend and to fight for one'S own princples. The problem is the too small armies and the too low numbers. PESCA does not adress any of this. The only positive thing in it is that logistical movement across national borders is hoped to get simplified, bureaucratically. If it works.

They money should go into NATO instead, strengthening European stand in it and by that forcing the Americans to give more ground. Currently the US in NATO is strong and dominant, due to own strength, but also - due to European weakness.

A pact of weak nations, is a weak pact. Thats why PESCO does not convince. Strength contributes strength to a cause. Adding more of weak partners, does not do that, like a chain doe snot become stronger, just because you extend its length by adding more weak links.

Its like I say its with LED torchlights. You do not need torchlights with a dozen LEDs in them, you need just one LED. But that one has to be a real good one. Lamps with a dozen of LEDs are cheap and of bad quality, because their LEDs are cheap and bad, a dozen of these LEDs cost less than one good LED.

[Jimbuna]

^ I'm with you there Sky :yep:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

^^ I agree with you Sky! However I would exercise caution with wage increases: do not make your army unaffordable!

[Catfish]

Well PESCO sounds like pesky, so... :03:
It is now more a treaty for quick help than to fight, though this may come later. And i agree they should fund NATO better, rather than create a new EU-wide army.
My reason is a bit different though, i would not like a fictitious EU army to build and maintain nuclear weapons in the long run.

[Skybird]

^^ I agree with you Sky! However I would exercise caution with wage increases: do not make your army unaffordable!
We have too few interested recruits, and thes eoften are of too low skills and abilities. We either rasie the attractiveness, or return to conscript armnies - but thgese again need a core of professionals. Currently, the Bundeswehr sees a masisve drain of old experience. But w ehave an explosion of higher officers, and generals. Generals that nobody needs, of which there are far oot many, but who want to be generla of something, just anything. And so dubious posts and offices get created that cost a lot of moeny, but are not needed, and do nothign constructive, but hidner the internal routines, and many primabellerinas try to fit into one and the same tutu. We mess it upo further with feminization of fighting spirit and combat troops and by that: highly questionable mentality re-education drills, and we care about our war waggons being suitable for pregnant warrior princesses so that possible exhaust gas cannot interfere with the forewater. We take yearsd and decades to build a transport that still doe snot fly, we dream of air mobility nevertheless and cvall in Eastern despots to shuffle opur troops around, and we build an IFV that needs the air trtansp0rot that we build since years and years and that explodoies in costs, but doe snot fly. And meanwhile a military lightweight like I thinmBrazil or Peru build an airtroanspoort within just a few years that fits the needed specifications, and does it all alone and teaches us a lesson of how it is to be done - we boast and sign big mouthed proclamations.

I do not kinow an adequate Engliush tanslaiton, bvut what PESCA is about is: Mängelverwaltung, while hidding the failures and roaring like a (paper) tiger.

Wars need combat troops, men of warrior's mentality. Weapon platforms. Fighting spirit. All in sufficient quantity. Only that fights, survives and wins wars. Only that ability deters a potential enemy. PESCA is symbolic theatre play that politicians love so much. And the Russians - no doubt close the curtains on the Kremlins's windows and then, when the world cannot see them, boast with laughter.

We even still do not have the will to protect our own borders! One could wonder why we even maintain an army at all...?

Yesterday, or the day before, i read a piece about analysing the militarey status of the Bundeswehr. The author, who wreote a whole book about it, said the German Luftwaffe alone would need at least 15 years to regain a status in equipment and perosnnel so that it could indeed defend German airspace against a detmerined aggressor. Its about lacking or deficitary equipment, lacking personell, lacking spirit, and experience drain. And in such specilaised branches of the armed forces, conscription does not really help. What is needed is warrior-minded men who think service is attractive again and who can trust in poltical leadership to act with hgih sense of responsibility. And the latte ronce again is a hiuge deficit. The mroal and general mood in the Bundeswehr is said to be extremely bad, it falls from year to year. That von der Leyen would like to stay in office, does not help at all, she is met with utmost mistrust and a majority of the Bundeswehr dispises her. She - sees it as a career booster for her ambition to become chancellor one day (haven help us). Interest for military stuff is not what drives her. Another complication of the matter.

But on top of it all is that Germany still wants others to do the dirty work, and wants to abuse its history to escape needing to get its hands bloody. Germany wants to command in the background how other should defend German interest and do the dirty part of the job. It wants to accentuate its humanitarian attitude by focussing on bridge building and school-repairing instead. The Bundeswehr, for many Germans, is a self-defensively armed chorps of development and aid workers. Even many soldiers' self-understanding is like that. But with that attitude you better ask for a job in the THW (Technisches Hilfswerk).

What is needed, are warriors. Not talkers. You do not talk a Russian offensive into a stall - you shoot it into pieces, or you loose. You do not care for your enemy until he gives up - you destroy him, or he destroys you. You do not put your bet on hopes - you are prepared and ready for anything.

[Skybird]

My reason is a bit different though, i would not like a fictitious EU army to build and maintain nuclear weapons in the long run.
No nukes, no believable deterrance. That simple. When states reach the possession of nukes, wars between them slow down and become very rare, that is an empirical fact. Best illustrations are India, China and Pakistan.

However, what raises, is asymmetrical warfare, terrorism, guerilla wars and pöroxy wars and the likes. That also can be counted out for convincing empirical evidence.

For example chapters 14 and 15 in "The culture of War", which I currently read a second time.

The most murderous and blood-dripping weapon of mass destruction in history is not the hydrogen bomb, but is the small callibre firearm, btw.

[Skybird]

^^ I agree with you Sky! However I would exercise caution with wage increases: do not make your army unaffordable!States are de facto bancrupt, they live by a model of delayed filing of insolvency, which makes them all criminal offenders. Debts are astronomic, and the counterfeit system collapses in slow motion. If one argues with what we can afford, all and everything would need to come to an immediate standstill. We are drowning in debts, we cannot afford spending a single Taler on anything.

What we shoukld do instead is, strengthening our military, but focussing it on its purpose: to protect us, our homes, our places. Not to shuttle it around the globe and fight other people's wars for them and missionise other cultures whose warrior mentality is far superior to our weak fighting spirits.

We should also stop selling military items and goods to places outside Europe, Israel, North America, Japan, Australia. Keep our abilities in the family. OUR family, that is. Other palces we do arms deals with, just see our arms ending uop in the wrongnhands, and a good deal of them later gets directed at out soldiers. Our our civilian pedestrians in our own streets.

[ikalugin]

The problem is the too small armies and the too low numbers. PESCA does not adress any of this.
I would argue that an EU wide Armed Forces would solve those issues, but this may be undesirable for other reasons, ie partial loss of soverenity by member-states.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

States are de facto bancrupt, they live by a model of delayed filing of insolvency, which makes them all criminal offenders. Debts are astronomic, and the counterfeit system collapses in slow motion. If one argues with what we can afford, all and everything would need to come to an immediate standstill. We are drowning in debts, we cannot afford spending a single Taler on anything.Depends. Germany's debt per GDP is about 68,0% while France in high end has 96,0% and Estonia in low end has 9,5% (all from 2016).

What we shoukld do instead is, strengthening our military, but focussing it on its purpose: to protect us, our homes, our places. Not to shuttle it around the globe and fight other people's wars for them and missionise other cultures whose warrior mentality is far superior to our weak fighting spirits.There must be quite big difference between Germany and Finland the. Granted we also have some troops participating on those wars abroad, but atleast the focus of armed forces is still in defence of homeland.

We should also stop selling military items and goods to places outside Europe, Israel, North America, Japan, Australia. Keep our abilities in the family. OUR family, that is. Other palces we do arms deals with, just see our arms ending uop in the wrongnhands, and a good deal of them later gets directed at out soldiers. Our our civilian pedestrians in our own streets.I agree here. However the "political problem" here would be: if we don't sell to them, then who buys so we can keep the jobs? Answer should be selfevident but apparently it is not. Atleast not in Europe...

[Skybird]

Depends. Germany's debt per GDP is about 68,0%
Last time I checked it was approaching 90%, was officially at 86% or so ;) And that is just the explicit debt. The implicit debt - future debts that necessarily result from the design faults and debts you already implemented today - means you have this number at - depending on the way you calculate things - minimum 280%, mor eliekly in the range of 400-700%, and some very critical economists even pished this number up to over 1100%.

Its like with inflation rate. The real value gets hidden and covered under layers and laods of misleading gaphs, handpicked numbers and cleverly designed calculation mhtods that evade unwanted truths.

Its a bomb with burning fuse.

The total Western debt level btw today is much higher than it was before 2007.


There must be quite big difference between Germany and Finland the. Granted we also have some troops participating on those wars abroad, but atleast the focus of armed forces is still in defence of homeland.
I expect the differences in mentality to be very big on these matters. You see, we Germans win by making everbyody loving us . Why would we need to want to defend ourselves then? We are surrounded by the Polish, the danish, the French, the Italians to keep the bad guys away from our borders. :D Thats why we now want a defense cooperation with these - under German command. We proivde logistics - them do the dirty stuff.

We lived by buying ourselves out of military dirty committments for half a century now. Why give that up now when in the past it has worked so well? LOL

[Skybird]

We should also stop selling military items and goods to places outside Europe, Israel, North America, Japan, Australia. Keep our abilities in the family.


http://www.dw.com/en/germany-quintuples-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-and-egypt/a-41370500

Nobody listens.

[Jimbuna]

It seems a bit ironic regarding weapons exports when you take into consideration the poor state of German equipment but selling is a lot cheaper than procuring I suppose.

[Skybird]

Reports are coming in today, an expert group that surveyed the Bundeswehr's tank fleet, said that of 244 Leopard-2s, just 95 are ready for action. One third of the fleet has broken down permanently due to lack of spare parts.

Defence pact! Germany needs you to defend it, so join our pact!

According to the German foreign minster Sigmar Gabriel from some months ago, even just repairing the tanks and other broken down equipment or procuring replacements for it, would be considered as "entering a new round of arms race" that "sends the wrong signal to Moscow."

95 tanks left. :haha: Pact! Thats two tank batallions with three companies each (German army structure). TWO! batallions! Six companies!

PACT! PACCA-PACCA-PACCA-PACT...! :har:

[Jimbuna]

^ most worrying if true.

[August]

Well PESCO sounds like pesky, so... :03:
It is now more a treaty for quick help than to fight, though this may come later.

So then why do you say that you don't think this was President Trumps "real desire"? Do you think we like having to pick up Europe's defense costs?

[Catfish]

^ i think that Trump's desire was to let the EU's members invest more money in the NATO, not to let the EU create its own army.

Which certainly ignores the point that the US invests in European security and NATO, for their own strategic reasons – not altruism.

[Skybird]

Trump did not think. He just saw: "US cuts investment in Europe - less moneyspent oj others - my voters at home happy." There was no strategic reasoning from his side, regarding NATO. Its all about keeping is fanboys pleased.

The strategy of the US in Europe in past decades was multi-layerd. Keeping the Russians out, was dominant intention, but also: complain about Ezuropeans beaing so low on defense spendings - while enjoyng this weakness as an excuse to remain in ciontorl of NATO and heaivly committed i coutnries that not alwys were so welcoming at all. Much of thos ecomplaints during the cold war, was theatre play. In reality one liked the Europeans beogn so weak - you must not share control of NATO, and they cnanot afford to throw you out.

I assume however for a wider part of the US public, it was more on the surface a perception: Europeans weak, and we muts pay for them. The rest of the above description, got cut.

Its true, Europeans do too little. Too much hot air, too much pathic words and oaths about Nibelungentreue. Fact is the nATO treaty does not mandatorily demand any nation to come to thr rescue of any other, it leaves a very wide escape hatch open. One of which I am convinced some states would have made use of, if the cold war would have turned hot.

Thats why I want the Europeans to strengthen their defemse and inside NAOT, so to meet the Americnas finally on sam eey elevel, so that they can demand a more mutual sharing of command authorities at top levels, and have more influence on decision building. Right now, America has little reason to take the Europeans serious - why should it? Europe cannot even take care of rumbles in its own backyard like former Yugoslavia. How much less if the Sowjets would have attacked back then!

[Skybird]

^ most worrying if true.
Its believable, becasue in other wepaon branches it doe snot look better. The Tiger helicopter in Mali that lost its rotor blades and killed its crew some months ago, is said to also have been suffering from ill maintenance in that kind of heat, due to underfunding. Not to emntion that they send a helicopter that by design is not operational in this kind of heat, pilots say, and needs utmost careful maintenance if beign send nevertheless. Its a stupid thing, this Tiger helicopter. IMO no match for the Apache, way too many compromises in its design.

When was the last time you heard that a helicopter lost its rotor blades by them disconnecting from the rotor head?

The cannibalising in the navy also is proverbial, so to speak. For sending one boat or ship out on an internaitonal mission, two other units have to be sacked and cannibalised.

I do not have the exact numbers of tranpsorts and helicopters being grounded or broken, but in both categories: the majority of machines is not ready to fly. So it was last time I have read about it months ago. The vast majority is grounded - since years. Last time I read about the Eurofighter, more than half them or more were grounded, that was early this year.

If the Russians would strike us with even just one of their two armies located in the western military district of theirs, it would cut through Germany like a hot knife through butter. There was the claim earlier this year that they would need just three days from the Eastern border to the coast of the North Sea. Judging it by the state of the German military, that is not unrealistic in my opinion. I do not know their capability to logistically support such a 72 hours thrust with a full army group, but my trust in the capabiltiy of the German army to stop them by force, is very low. Too broken down, too few, too little of everything. And then, a public attitude with zero fighting morale and no willingness to resist. Lrst sit down and talk with th Russians, you see. Give them what they want, thats better than war. - THAT is the German way today. Thats why Merkel took months and months before - maybe -understanding that Putin would NOT give back the Crimean peninsula. Such determination has become unimaginable over here. Regarding this, the Russians can snack us for breakfast, and easily so.

This treaty they signed, is just hot air, pltical smybolism that the operetta stars of potlics love to boast with. What is needed is getting swords, spears, shields and armour. What these operetta stars instead spend their time with, is newly designed parade uniforms with bigger golden emblems, and dreams of how lovely the applaus will be once they go on Sunday parade.

[Schroeder]

Why I agree that our forces are a bad joke I think that we're arming us for the wrong reasons (what do we need the Tiger for anyway for example? Wouldn't something with a cannon make more sense for Mali, Afghanistan etc? Should have gotten Apaches or Cobras instead or at least develop something that is suitable for the current scenarios and not full Soviet tank spam that will never come). Let's face it: "The Evil Russian"© won't move into central Europe, end of story.
Russia has about twice the population of Germany and only about the same GDP, yet everybody seems to be pooping their pants all of a sudden... I think they simply couldn't financially afford a full scale invasion and occupation and frankly why would they even want to? Occupying Crimea made strategic sense from a Russian perspective, waltzing into Central Europe just because they could doesn't. Besides our economies are so interwoven by now that this would hurt Russia's interests more than it's worth.

To me it seems there are certain elements who want to revive the old "red menace scare" for their own reasons. Maybe it's a cry for help to finally get some funding into the military.:roll:

[Skybird]

Playing guessing games is good. Being prepared is better. And what if the Russians miove just into the Baltic states and Poland? Germany then again sending logistical support only? The former Warsaw Pact states are attractive for quites some political people in Russia. They want them back. And some of them do not hide that.

On the other hand, the Poles more and more behave like under the Communist regime anyway, and this time they do it voluntarily and without being occupied by Sovjets. Maybe we should not try to stop the traveller. But the three small Baltic states - that is a majpor problem for which NATO currently has no military option except threatening thermonuclear exchange.

And btw, Schroeder - Germany was the loudest voice saying that the Russians did not mean to keep the Crimean forever, and the Eu was ht eloduets vpoice claimign that Rsusia could not sustrain ther sanctions. The Crimean is sitllo theirs, and their economy is improving and has the low of the sanctions behind it.

[ikalugin]

The only value Baltic states now have is as a jump off point for invading Russia, with NATO presense there being the primary reason why we care about them. This is so because their economic value is marginal, especially with the new ports we built in SPB area.

Introducing classical manuever forces into Baltics would feed that. Morever, defense of the Baltics is non viable not only due to military causes but also due to the geographical ones.

[Skybird]

I think many in Russia still live with their heads in the past, mourning about the loss of their empire, and glorifying the good ol' days when the world could not afford to not oisten to the Russian miliztary'S drums. I think the former provinces are wanted back more for emotional and sentimentla reaosns, than any other. To relive the glory ol' days. Its the country that nowadays makes a cult of Stalin and celebrates him in pop culture and present entertainment media.

Imagine Germany would do that with Hitler, and have a musical about him, and gloss over his mass murder. The outcry would echo from here to the moon, and back.

[Jimbuna]

This thread has certainly become more interesting during the course of the last handful of posts :cool:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Besides our economies are so interwoven by now that this would hurt Russia's interests more than it's worth.Why this sounds so familiar...? :hmmm:

Oh, yeah! Because that is same line of thought we heard before First World War. Don't worry, be happy! :woot:

Yes, there were other fallacies as well. Blood ties between monarchs will keep them out of war and so on...

[Catfish]

This thread has certainly become more interesting during the course of the last handful of posts :cool:

So the EU creating its own army is not interesting, but a german beating on Germany's defence force is. From a certain point of view this may be logical :D

The US spends more than ten times on "defence" (lmao) than Russia. What about China invading? So is anyone really in fear of a russian invasion? In Europe? "Only" in Poland? "Only" in the baltic? Really?
Not me.

[Jimbuna]

I try to take an interest in military matters and I find it interesting to learn of the current state of affairs of different countries armed forces.

The more I glean, the more I realise it is not just the UK that is downsizing but I suspect, also most of the armed forces in the western world.

[ikalugin]

As Russia was mentioned, this piece may be of interest:
http://carnegie.ru/commentary/74762

[Skybird]

People who want to gamble, should visit a casino and risk just what is theirs. Russia took Abhasia, and everybody said they would not do it and would not keep it. It took the Crimean, and everybody said they could not do it and would not keep it. I played tough in syia, and everybody said they cannot do that and will not win it.

Its better to have dfeences and not neeing them, but to need them - and then learning one has none. The concept is called "deterrance". And to refuse a deterrance against a neighbouring bully just because Chinese troops are unlikely to enter Europe, is - well, I leave it to you assessment.

[Jimbuna]

As Russia was mentioned, this piece may be of interest:
http://carnegie.ru/commentary/74762

For those that can read Russian perhaps.

Can't you post a translation in the knowledge that the vast majority of this community understand English?

[Commander Wallace]

For those that can read Russian perhaps.

Can't you post a translation in the knowledge that the vast majority of this community understand English?


This is the translation from Ikalugin's post.


Doctrine. How the African badger became a model for Russian foreign policy




The doctrine of the cannibal must convince the competitors of Moscow that the benefits of infringing on its interests will be much less than the potential damage. And trying to influence Russia's domestic policy is completely useless. The only way out is to recognize for Moscow a number of interests and to agree. And the Kremlin is really getting what it wanted: recognition as a very dangerous enemy
Russia's foreign policy of recent years is often scolded even by those who share its basic postulates. The main complaint is the lack of a strategic calculation, a plan for the next ten years at least. Russia, critics say, operates situationally and tactically, simply reacting to arriving blows of fate and gradually losing strength.

As an example of a "properly" aligned foreign policy, China usually leads, allegedly having a strategy for the next fifty years. This, of course, is not so - the Chinese plans are worked out roughly at the level of "becoming strong by 2035 and rich by 2049". And now, in 2017, China is struggling with several severe crises, from the debt crisis to the "crisis of expectations" of foreign partners who have not received trillions of soft loans within the Belt and the Way.

But in Russia over the past three years there has been a full-fledged foreign policy strategy, which can be conditionally called the "cannibal doctrine" by analogy with the "doctrine of poisonous shrimp" adopted in Singapore during the Cold War. She, I remind you, postulated that Singapore is too small a state to prevent the seizure of its territory by a larger neighbor, but it can make the military and material costs of the occupation so high that no one would even think about it.


Russia is not threatened with the capture of any of the neighbors: in the 21st century, everything has long since passed from the physical occupation of the territory to other forms of enslavement. For example, economic control or the establishment of a puppet government in the target state. This is what the Russian authorities fear, adopting the habits of the African badger-honey-man, who is rightfully considered one of the most intelligent and dangerous animals in the world, in the relations with the West.




The key features of this animal are its incredible strength, vitality and vindictiveness. Thanks to not fully explored abilities for regeneration, the cannabist can recycle even the cobra venom, after lying dead after a deadly bite for only an hour in the outage. Small cannibals attack animals, which at first sight they should not be attacked, given the difference in weight categories: lions, tigers and even alligators. To kill them, of course, it is not possible, but to drive from your territory it turns out almost always, as is easily verified by looking at numerous videos in yutube. Finally, the cannabis has a wonderful memory: people who have offended them remember for a long time and try to spoil their lives with all possible means.

In the behavior of these animals it is not difficult to see the features of Russia's foreign policy of the last three or four years. It performs five basic tasks. The first is to show that Russia in the international arena acts in the superheavy weight category, playing in the same league with the US and the EU and even ahead of, for example, China.

Moscow can form its own trade bloc (Eurasian Union), start a conflict (Ukraine), become a key participant in the already started (Syria) and is not afraid to go to confrontation with the most serious opponents. At the same time, Russia's budget ($ 233 billion in 2016) is ridiculously (14 times) less than the US ($ 3.3 trillion) and inconsiderably (32.3 times) - the total budget of the EU countries (€ 6.4 trillion). The military budget varies not so much, but also by an order of magnitude: according to SIPRI data for 2016, it has $ 611 billion in the USA, € 199 billion in the EU countries (2015 according to EDA data), Russia has $ 69 billion.

All this is not important, the Russian leadership says, we will beat you, if that, not with dollars and euros, but with TOS-1 Buratino charges. Financial indicators do not mean anything, Russia's military-political potential is much higher than the economic one.

The second task is to demonstrate that Russia, if desired, can complicate life for everyone it wants. The US demands to remove Bashar Assad from power? Sorry, but no. The EU wants to resolve the Ukrainian conflict in favor of Kiev? And again not, sorry.

Instead, the ultra-right and ultra-left parties will receive money, which in the conditions of the ongoing crisis and so had a good chance of success. Can they achieve power? Hardly. Do their successes make the traditional politicians nervous? Certainly. Coming into confrontation with us, says Moscow, you are creating a headache for yourself for many years to come. We will complicate your life, exhaust all your initiatives, shake the domestic political situation, taking advantage of the vulnerability of democracy. If you need it, go ahead, but do you really need it?


The third task is to start creating our own agenda in international relations, and Moscow really creates it. Russian foreign policy has long been accused of being passive, that it only reacts to the actions of others, but now it has obviously passed into a counteroffensive.

Moscow's real or perceived interference in the political process of a dozen countries has become the main theme of all media in Europe and North America. And let the practical results of such intervention, where it was in general, are probably minimal, but the hysteria of Western politicians creates the impression of the Kremlin's omnipotence and its ability to influence the political process in much more economically developed countries.

The result is that, at American demonstrations against Donald Trump, the protestors stand with placards in Russian, urging us "to take our Trump back to Russia." Could we have dreamed of this in the 2000s? Is this not the formation of the agenda?

The fourth task is to show that Russia has serious capabilities in the most advanced forms of confrontation: information warfare and confrontation in cyberspace. RT TV budgets against the background of their Western counterparts are simply ridiculous: $ 323 million against, for example, $ 6.6 billion (channel revenues in 2015-2016) from the Air Force. Analysts emphasize the ultra-low coverage of the RT audience (in no EU country it covers more than 2% of the audience), but why are there endless "commissions to combat disinformation" at the level of the European Union and individual European countries?

In cyberspace, it's still worse: all-powerful Russian hackers allegedly broke into the US elections, the Bundestag, the Danish Ministry of Defense, and, judging by the latest statements, helped to arrange a breccia. The names of the allegedly administered GRU and SVR groups of hackers Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear have become a household name. The effect on the resource unit spent by Russia is simply enormous.
Finally, the fifth task. Moscow wants to show that it is completely insensitive to the reaction of the population to their own actions. The conflict with Ukraine made life difficult for businessmen and for those who have relatives and friends living there. Not interested. In Moscow, there are protests against Vladimir Putin? No difference. State companies and many randomly tucked up firms have been blocked by lending? They will break, there is nothing to take the enemy's money.




The Kremlin demonstrates that sanctions as a phenomenon do not work for him: all costs will be shifted to a population that does not take part in the political process. Officials from the sanctions lists will continue to lead the life of the Arab sheiks and buy wine in London from Chichvarkin in London.

This strategy of honey-eating has two ultimate goals. First, to convince all of Moscow's competitors that the benefits of encroaching on its vital interests will be much less than the potential damage. Russia does not forget anything, does not forgive, is extremely skilful with very limited resources and is not at all afraid of counterattacks.

Secondly, trying to influence Russia's domestic policy, especially through "sponsoring democracy," is completely useless. The people in Russia are separated from the state, so it is necessary to negotiate with the elites. They may be unpleasant to you, but "geography is destiny", and the only way out is to recognize a number of interests for Moscow and try to establish constructive relations.


From a foreign policy point of view, the strategy of a honey-thrower is very effective: with extremely modest (by world standards) costs (there is no money, and everyone knows this), it produces a powerful and long-term effect. Moreover, the Western media, greedy for traffic from the "Russian threat", are themselves helping Russia by inflating minor stories (such as buying Russian trolls in face-to-face advertising on the eve of elections or meetings of politicians with the Russian ambassador to the United States) to the scale of the James Bond comics.

As a result, the political class in Russia is gradually getting what it wanted: recognition as a very dangerous enemy. It is easy to threaten the war with Hussein or Gaddafi. Far more difficult is the huge and armed advanced methods of confrontation of Russia, whose authorities are ready to "defend national interests" to the last Russian.

However, there is also a minus in the doctrine of a cannibal. It's a strategy of survival, not development. It has nothing to do with attracting investments, improving the business climate, creating a positive image of Russia, modernizing the economy and other boring things. It allows "to ensure sovereignty", understood as the complete autonomy of the country's elite from external and internal influences.


From the point of view of the Russian economy, cooperation with the West is necessary (it is the only source of modernization in the world), but for this it is necessary to make certain concessions, and thus lose complete autonomy in decision-making. This threatens the position of the Russian elite, and therefore - is unacceptable.

In addition, the success of many components of the cannibal doctrine is based on the effect of the "fog of war", that is, the lack of information on the opponents of Russia about its goals and the actions it takes. Unfortunately, with the passage of time this fog dissipates, opponents learn to recognize and even predict the course of Moscow, the effectiveness of the approach falls. Western intelligence agencies are accustomed to calculate trolls and hackers, and politicians charged with ties to Moscow are eliminated from the race all the earlier and receive fewer and fewer elections.

Finally, the institutional memory of the West plays against Moscow, which for at least 70 years has seen a mortal enemy in Russia. NATO generals reopen bunkers, get the cold war plans from the shelves and breathe out with relief: thank God, you can again fight on maps with Russia, postponing solving real problems for later. Migrants, Islamic terrorism, property stratification, depopulation and political apathy of the population will wait: it is necessary to conduct seminars throughout the EU "counteraction to the TV channel Russia Today" and think about how to protect Poland from Russian tanks.

The doctrine of the cannibal is quite capable of making Russian partners respect her. But it will really bring prosperity to the country only if it is part of a wider strategy. The fear that Russia's current foreign policy is sowing must transform itself into respect, and not in the desire to quarantine around the Russian Federation and to interact as little as possible with the Russians.

[Jimbuna]

This is the translation from Ikalugin's post.



Appreciate your efforts and I also have a website translator on my system but the point I was trying to make was....not everyone has.

[Commander Wallace]

Appreciate your efforts and I also have a website translator on my system but the point I was trying to make was....not everyone has.


Point well made Jim as usual. These are the issues Subsim can run into with being an international forum. It's not a big deal if one of our members can't read something and another member does what they can to help. It's a strength if everyone can participate and weigh in and extending courtesies to other members goes a long way. :)


If anyone has issues reading something, then we can help them find a translator that will work with whatever operating system they have. Other Subsim members may already have that info on translator systems and I'm sure would help if the need arises.

[ikalugin]

In short the point the article was making was that Russia is following a honeybadger doctrine at the moment, which may be very efficient at survival and maintaining soverenity, but by itself is not very efficient at long term growth.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

If anyone has issues reading something, then we can help them find a translator that will work with whatever operating system they have. Other Subsim members may already have that info on translator systems and I'm sure would help if the need arises.There is also the question of reliability of those translators. I haven't checked for awhile but last time when I tried to translate stuff from Finnish to English with Google Translator (about a year ago), the result was barely intelligible nonsense.

My employee commented recently that quality of translation with Google Translator from Finnish and to her native Japanese is still lousy. Her Finnish friend had tried to send polite thank you message using Google Translator. Unfortunately translator chose expressions which were very rude to put it mildly.

I have no idea how reliable translations from Russian to English are as I don't have knowledge to judge them. However I'm still quite skeptical with automated translations. They are better than nothing but way too often not much.

[Commander Wallace]

There is also the question of reliability of those translators. I haven't checked for awhile but last time when I tried to translate stuff from Finnish to English with Google Translator (about a year ago), the result was barely intelligible nonsense.

My employee commented recently that quality of translation with Google Translator from Finnish and to her native Japanese is still lousy. Her Finnish friend had tried to send polite thank you message using Google Translator. Unfortunately translator chose expressions which were very rude to put it mildly.

I have no idea how reliable translations from Russian to English are as I don't have knowledge to judge them. However I'm still quite skeptical with automated translations. They are better than nothing but way too often not much.


Good point. If one doesn't speak the language in question, how does one know the accuracy of the translation. I wasn't aware that some of the translations could be so wrong as to be rude. Hopefully, they are just glitches that are being ironed out but it's definitely something to keep in mind.

Thanks for the information. :salute: