Does anyone agree with this opinion?

[XabbaRus]

This is a quote from an Alexander Golts opinion piece in the Moscow Times.

"In my opinion, this is an extremely sensible approach. Neither Russia nor the Soviet Union was ever any good at shipbuilding"

Full article here. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinio...le/382453.html

I know he has said in his opinion, but I disagree, I also disgree with quite a lot of what he writes though the general gist in this article I think is spot on.

[FIREWALL]

I never agree with anyone. It's more cost effective.

[antikristuseke]

Am a bit too hung over to comprehend it completely, but the gist of it seems to be spot on, as you said.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

This is a quote from an Alexander Golts opinion piece in the Moscow Times.

"In my opinion, this is an extremely sensible approach. Neither Russia nor the Soviet Union was ever any good at shipbuilding"

Full article here. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinio...le/382453.html

I know he has said in his opinion, but I disagree, I also disgree with quite a lot of what he writes though the general gist in this article I think is spot on.

I don't know what Russians think of him, but to me as an outsider, he's a institunik that actually makes me sympathize with the "old-school" Soviet/Russian generals that hate this lot and call them the West's "means of mass propaganda trying to dismember Russia" ... always overly critical at every opportunity. With people like him, one can understand the historical Russian love for censorship - it is to counter pessimistic morons like Golts...

Here's one of my most memorable quotes from this creep

Originally Posted by THE RUSSIAN VOLUNTEER MILLITARY - A NEW
ATTEMPT? (2004)

Second, it will soon become clear that most of the present officers are not qualified to lead a professional force. The majority of them can execute only the most primitive training. In one incident, Soviet generals were shocked to learn that on American aircraft carriers the
job of a Soviet captain-lieutenant is executed by an American NCO.

The first two sentences may happen to be true, but it'll only be a coincidence, rather than being backed by the example he tries to use. Given that he's a Russian military analyst, he should know enough to understand that the American and the Soviet/Russians systems are different that his comparison in the last sentence has no meaning.

Back to Golt's present spew, the problem is critical mass. Russia's arms industry, for all its travails, is one of very few "full-spectrum" industries, capable of delivering a full range of military hardware. Except of course it is always expensive, and disproportionately so as your needs (buys/year) declines.

So Russia has to make some very hard decisions. But Golts is basically advocating the tradeoff of Russia's long-term military independence forever for short term advantage. The Russian state may make that choice, but it should hardly be as lightly or as short-termed a decision as Golts is trying to make it, as if they can always go back. History suggests otherwise (see Great Britain). That's why instituniks, who never have to take real responsibility, suck.