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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: