Reply With QuoteEveryone please listen to C.Puffs his clearly smarter then Russian general staff and high command and he clearly cares about security and sovereignty of the Russian state .
Thank you .
Wouldn't you be if they had nukes?Originally Posted by Flamming_Python
Everyone please listen to C.Puffs his clearly smarter then Russian general staff and high command and he clearly cares about security and sovereignty of the Russian state .
Thank you .
I think C Puffs can be a neocon douche at times, but maybe you are unfamiliar with what a message board is all about ?
No I am not , please enlighten me into the knowledge of the intricacies pertaining to the message board experience .
It's worrisome given Putin just technically got another 12 years in power. And his recent snub to White House clearly signal he tend to be hard on the issue.
I think Putin sees a 'weaker' US. The US is in the economical shitter, its tired from 10+ years of war and has some minor internal issues.
If Putin was to stand fast this would be the time to do it IMHO.
I can not blame Russia here for being annoyed, the shield is clearly an pre-emptive move aimed at Russia, trying to convince yourself and others it is aimed at the likes of Iran is laughable.
With an economy whose size is in the same league as France, does Russia have the means for such independent defense ambitions?
It should be increasingly difficult for Russia to keep its present rank - inherited from the USSR. Or, at least, line up with China and India in the long run.
And how can they not? France and Russia are different countries altogether. Russia is a resource rich nation and also have the facilities to build every aspect of their armed forces from the ground up. Work force in Russia is cheaper, components are cheaper and labour as well. France on the other hand may develop a lot, but also have to import more materials. Also, their work force is payed very well and so are their engineers. Look at the cost of aircrafts as an example between the two nations. Su-30, Su-35 and Mig-35 are equivelent (or superior) to Rafale, and yet are cheaper per unit. This can be said about a lot of the equipment in Russia (Tanks especially). Also, since Sukhoi is a large company with a ever expanding industrial base and finance, they finance a lot of programs themselves, especially their subsiduaries (Irkut or Knaapo). Also, costs can be offshoot with co-development with countries like Vietnam and India (also helps that defense industry in Russia is very profitable, second most). The corporations are turning into more and more what we have in our western nations though, at least business practice wise: they will develop in terms of what the military requires with maybe little funding from government. Open competition.
In this case, Russia can easily sustain itself as a true independant. But then again, you do not need to be a large and powerful country in order to do that, Finland is an example.
Edit: also, Russia does not even have close to a huge deficit unlike the western world. Their debt is miniscule and only have a few nations that suck at its teet (well, Ukraine and Belarus as an example), while france has a higher debt and have the whole EU to worry about as well.
I did not challenge the idea Russia could remain independent, but that it could keep in the long run its present military rank or even sideline China and India in a more distant future.
France also had an independent defense policy in the past, that made us produce almost all our military hardware both conventional and strategic. But this policy was changed because it was not cost-effective.
The relative advantages you mention are Russia's low cost of manpower in comparison to Western states (the URSS had this same advantage as well). But keeping this advantage should have social costs if Russians wish to raise their standard of living and wealth-care.
Russia strong!!!
Russian salaries are lower however they have much larger issues with corruption and, in some cases, lower productivity.
Their current spend on defence forces is not sustainable in the long run, this will become evident in the next 3-5 years.
Interesting that they are worried about NATO's missile shield in Europe. Why is Finland not worried about powerful NATO? Or Switzerland? Or Austria? Russkies should stop thinking about NATO as an enemy and consider NATO a friend instead, that would remove all irrational fears of the missile shield.
We come in peace.
To an extent. Russia's social costs are high already as it is, and the middle class is slowly increasing as well as living conditions. May not be like it is in Western Europe (especially outside of the major cities) but their way of life is their way of life. Much can be said the same about China and her policies. France's move was also political as well, not just because it was considered the cheaper way out. Russia does not really have the option that France does as well, due to politics in the west and lack of trust in the east. There is such stuff as CSTO and Shanghai Corporation Organization, but those are more or less either Russia dominant or Chinese.
As long as Russia maintains its nuclear forces, China and India are not a problem (India is more of a partner than anything else) and Russia can still develop new and better equipment but maybe not in the numbers it could during the Soviet Union. China can build all the tanks and aircrafts they want, but they need to power these equipment, so they have to rely on someone else for the resources. Not to mention, quality is t question too.
How is this evident? Have people like you not said the same thing in the 90's and early 2000? Their defense spending is only 3% (roughly) of their GDP, nothing to make them go bankrupt.
Corruption is one thing, lower productivity is slowing going the way of the dinasour with the concept of automation. Corruption is everywhere as well. Maybe it isn't hidden in Russia like it is elsewhere, but it does exist, yes. But at 3% of GDP, it won't even come close to bankrupt them.
Also take into account that Russia is under a transition economically as well, with greater emphasis of semiconductor development. Biggest contributor to that is the space industry and the defense industry, so spending in defense industry is more or less what is helping the economy big time, as well as diversifying it. It has created plenty of jobs as well as kept the remaining brain power in the country. Oil and Gas is just pumping with also the account of refining. But the defense industry has a lot of sectors to it, that keep a lot of people employed and a lot of money flowing in the country. It was mentioned in the Russian defense news thread.
This is not much different than the United States. Their large spending in defense is not the problem of the US economy, it is the mismanagement, which sounds pretty familiar.
I was talking about future spend, not what Russia spent in the past.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...uk-france-armsRussia spent nearly $72bn on arms last year, overtaking Britain ($62.7bn) and France ($62.5bn) according to Sipri.
It notes that Russia is planning further increases in its military spending, with draft budgets showing a 53% rise in real terms up to 2014.
"Corruption is everywhere" -- common statement from people that either does not understand or don't want to understand that corruption is much worse in some countries than in others.
Anyway, oil is the main driver behind Russia's economical growth, and as long as Russia still got plenty of oil it's economy should be fine. 3-5 years was probably too pessimistic; it will perhaps take Russia 10-15 years before her economy will run into serious problems.
Everybody listen to the Russian General Staff. They clearly know more than the people who actually designed the missiles, and are crafting the policies for their use.
Here we go again. Which part of "the ABMs can't hit Russian missiles" is causing your hamster to fall off it's wheel? Specifics please.
Posting Permissions
