PDA

View Full Version : Russia revises military doctrine to reflect global changes



Xtoisè
03-05-2007, 02:55 PM
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070305/61594682.html


http://img.rian.ru/images/173/66/1736651.jpg


18:36 | 05/ 03/ 2007



MOSCOW, March 5 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is preparing a new draft of its military doctrine to reflect the growing importance of the use of force in foreign polices conducted by leading global powers, the Security Council said Monday.

"The analysis of the situation on the global arena points to the increasing demand for forcible actions in the policies conducted by the leading countries," the council said in a statement.

"The new revision of the military doctrine should provide answers to the most urgent issues of Russia's national security," the statement said.

The current military doctrine was adopted in 2000. It outlines the role of the country's authorities in ensuring defense and, if necessary, preparing for and waging war, although it stresses that the Russian military doctrine is strictly defensive.

The doctrine lists factors that the Russian Federation perceives as potential threats, both internal and external and states support for a multi-polar world, in preference to a uni-polar world dominated by a single superpower that is quick to resort to military force.

The document also emphasizes Russia's commitment to military reform, with continued use of conscription, but a gradual shift towards a professional army.

But since 2000, drastic changes have occurred in the geopolitical and military situation in the world and in the nature of threats against national security, which makes it necessary to revise the specific tasks facing the Russian Armed Forces and related security agencies, the Security Council said.

Russian national security experts believe that military doctrines adopted by leading global powers emphasize modernization of their military potential and the use of advanced technologies in the development of modern weaponry.

"[They] actively introduce new means of modern warfare, revise "technologies" in the use of armed forces, change "the configuration" of military presence, and strengthen military alliances, especially NATO," the Security Council said.

"Armed forces are still being used as an important instrument in maintaining political and economic interests of states, and Russia cannot ignore these factors in developing its military doctrine," the council said.

Russia has strongly criticized the proposed deployment of the U.S. missile shield in Central Europe and in Central Asia, and further eastward expansion of NATO.

In harsh comments during his address to the Munich conference February 10, the Russian president accused the U.S. of ignoring international law and imposing its own rules on other countries.

Moscow also strongly opposes Georgia and Ukraine's drive to join the Western military alliance, in addition to the setting up of NATO bases on the territory of Russia's former Soviet allies in the Baltic Region and Central Asia.

The chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Yury Baluyevsky, said in an interview with Rossiiskaya Gazeta daily last month that unilateral U.S. action could damage the balance of power in Europe and undermine the Russian nuclear deterrence potential.

The Russian leadership has already reaffirmed its commitment to building and maintaining a strong nuclear deterrent.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said last year that developing Russia's strategic forces is the main priority on the national defense agenda.

"Maintaining a strategic balance will mean that our strategic deterrent forces should be able to guarantee the neutralization of any potential aggressor, no matter what modern weapons systems he possesses," the president told a meeting with top military officials.

Russia is planning to completely overhaul its "nuclear triad" by 2016, equipping strategic nuclear forces with new Topol-M ballistic missile complexes, modernized strategic bombers and new nuclear submarines.

HoweveroweHowHO, Russia has stated on numerous occasions that it will not allow itself to be drawn into an arms race, but will develop an effective response to new challenges and threats to ensure its national security.

Although Russia's military budget is considered to be 25 times less that that of the United States, the country's military expenditure has been steadily growing in the past few years.

The Russian Defense Ministry said in January it would spend over 860 billion rubles ($32.42 billion) of federal budget funds in 2007, 23% more than in 2006. Military spending will account for 16% of overall federal budget expenditure.

SOG
03-05-2007, 05:38 PM
cold war! cold war! cold war! weeeeeee!!!

oh wait:
HoweveroweHowHO, Russia has stated on numerous occasions that it will not allow itself to be drawn into an arms race, but will develop an effective response to new challenges and threats to ensure its national security.

my bad. russia said it so it must be true.

Russia has strongly criticized the proposed deployment of the U.S. missile shield in Central Europe and in Central Asia, and further eastward expansion of NATO.

i dont understand this statement, russia is critical of a missle shield? a shield is used for defense right? why is russia critical of countries protecting themselves when they have this press release talking about national security, professional army, more budget for war and rehauling nukes? a missle shield sounds like national security defense for NATO. whats the big ****in deal.

Xtoisè
03-05-2007, 05:47 PM
becuase MAD effect becomes obsolete, and one side gains an advantage.

GazB
03-06-2007, 02:38 AM
missle shield sounds like national security defense for NATO. whats the big ****in deal.

Hmmm... NATO expands to include all your former stooges, the CFE limits the number of tanks, APCs, and helicopters you can deploy in parts of your own territory and you rely for your defence on missiles. NATO country announces it will build a missile defence system on your doorstep. Yes... it is a bit of a stretch to understand why they don't think a system that undermines their only defence is a good thing that improves security and balance in the region.

But hang on if the Russian missiles are not even going to be threatened by this new whiz bang missile defence system then why would the west care if the Ruskies build a few more missiles... just to be sure.

sferrin
03-06-2007, 09:14 PM
becuase MAD effect becomes obsolete, and one side gains an advantage.

You mean like Russia with those 100 ABMs around Moscow? :roll:

SOG
03-06-2007, 09:25 PM
Hmmm... NATO expands to include all your former stooges, the CFE limits the number of tanks, APCs, and helicopters you can deploy in parts of your own territory and you rely for your defence on missiles. NATO country announces it will build a missile defence system on your doorstep. Yes... it is a bit of a stretch to understand why they don't think a system that undermines their only defence is a good thing that improves security and balance in the region.

But hang on if the Russian missiles are not even going to be threatened by this new whiz bang missile defence system then why would the west care if the Ruskies build a few more missiles... just to be sure.

ah yes, allies of america are stooges, yet russias allies are great persevering countries of integrity. lol. again i dont see what the big deal is. russia is up-arming and complaining of others doing the same. sounds like a big cook off is in the works.

Xtoisè
03-06-2007, 10:19 PM
You mean like Russia with those 100 ABMs around Moscow? :roll:


By 1972 agreement had been reached to limiting strategic offensive weapons and strategic defensive systems. Each country was allowed one site at which it could base a defensive system, Moscow for USSR and Grand Forks, North Dakota for US. The treaty was signed in Moscow on May 26, 1972 and ratified by the US Senate on August 3, 1972.


US also has an abms around its retaliatory forces.

Rictor
03-06-2007, 10:27 PM
Translation:

If America can play empire, so can we. The military intervention pie is going around, and we're damn well going to get our slice. And the best part is that the West can't say a damned thing, 'cause we're only following your shining example.

Gee, that really puts my mind at ease.

Xtoisè
03-06-2007, 10:47 PM
The US never deployed the 100 abm's in N.D. (operation Safeguard), So since 1975 there has been NO Operational abm's in the US while Russia has maintained its 100 abm's around Moscow (which is in compliance with the treaty).

I see. It became inactive only after 5 months after activation. I have no argument here; but who knows, it could be a capitalist trick and the system is covertly operational.

sferrin
03-06-2007, 11:27 PM
US also has an abms around its retaliatory forces.

Actually it doesn't. Safguard was deactivated over 30 years ago. All Sprints and Spartans went to museums, were dismanteled, or in the case of a few Sprints used in tests (HEDI-I think). Even the warheads are gone. The US had kept the 5 Mt W71s from Spartan into the 90s in storage but even those are gone.

sferrin
03-06-2007, 11:30 PM
I see. It became inactive only after 5 months after activation. I have no argument here; but who knows, it could be a capitalist trick and the system is covertly operational.

You'd have to test it periodically and those would be noticed. The US did actually deploy 30 Spartans and 70 Sprints but as the other poster pointed out they deactivated the site shortly thereafter. The irony is they really tested the crap out of Sprint and Spartan, far more than what they do today. In the end though even 100 ABMs wouldn't have done a whole lot except set off a hundred nukes over our own territory. Even if they got a hundred incoming RVs what would have been gained?