Putin vows 'arms race' response

[[R_H]]

BBC

Russia's President Vladimir Putin says the world is engaged in a new arms race and Nato is failing to accommodate Russia's concerns.

In a state council address, Mr Putin condemned Nato's expansion and the US plan to include Poland and the Czech Republic in a missile defence shield.

"It is already clear that a new phase in the arms race is unfolding in the world," Mr Putin said.

He said other countries were spending far more than Russia on new weapons.

But Russia would always respond to the challenges of a new arms race by developing more hi-tech weaponry, he said.

Military muscle

Referring to Nato's activities in Central and Eastern Europe, Mr Putin said "there are many discussions on these, but... we have still not seen any real steps towards finding a compromise".

"In effect, we are forced to retaliate, to take corresponding decisions. Russia has, and always will have, responses to these new challenges," he said.

In December, Russia said it was planning naval exercises in the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean.

It has also resumed long-range patrols by its bomber aircraft.

The practice was suspended after the collapse of the Soviet Union and was revived last August, as part of a more assertive foreign policy pursued by President Putin.

Higher oil prices have enabled Russia to reinvest in its armed forces, but its military capabilities remain far below what they were during the Soviet era, correspondents say.

[Darth Wong]

It's funny how alarmed people are by Moscow threatening to increase a military budget that pales in comparison to the current US military budget.

[[R_H]]

It's funny how alarmed people are by Moscow threatening to increase a military budget that pales in comparison to the current US military budget.

It's so that they Repubify (Republican interpretation of justify) increases to the military budget by cutting social programs and simultaneously achieving their goal of small government (TM). Oh, and boosting economic growth of course.

[K. A. Pital]

Hell, the EU combined spends more than Russia. China spends on par. The US... And Russia is "running into the arms race"? With whom? Europe? China? The US? This is populist talk, methinks. The days when Russian arms meant lots have gone by. To ressurect that kind of military might one would require heavy industry as powerful as in 1990, and the will to spend.

Although it's clear that NATO (just as the USA) is unsympathetic to most Russians and I'd even say it's nigh-universally reviled in Russia, so any actions against NATO or US, any strong talk against NATO or US, any talk of "telling NATO to remember it's place in Europe" are going to be met with great support among the Russian population.

[FedRebel]

Russia's President Vladimir Putin says the world is engaged in a new arms race and Nato is failing to accommodate Russia's concerns.

What's the big deal? I mean unless Russia wants to start shit with the west, what the west does is of no concern.

In a state council address, Mr Putin condemned Nato's expansion and the US plan to include Poland and the Czech Republic in a missile defence shield.

Why? If roles were reversed, a dominant Warsaw Pact would probably be doing the same thing. NATO and the US are just taking steps to defend their populations and allies from possible future aggression, not from Russia but from whatever nation develops into a threat to world stability in the future.

"It is already clear that a new phase in the arms race is unfolding in the world," Mr Putin said.

He said other countries were spending far more than Russia on new weapons.

But Russia would always respond to the challenges of a new arms race by developing more hi-tech weaponry, he said.

And Russia would go bankrupt again, remember what happened to the USSR?

Referring to Nato's activities in Central and Eastern Europe, Mr Putin said "there are many discussions on these, but... we have still not seen any real steps towards finding a compromise".

"In effect, we are forced to retaliate, to take corresponding decisions. Russia has, and always will have, responses to these new challenges," he said.

Just let it go, NATO and the US have the money to burn, you don't

[Shroom Man 777]

I'd be much happier if more people bought Russian milspec stuff. It'd proliferate awesome Russian engineering AND bring profit to a once-great country that's in need of cash.

[K. A. Pital]

Why? If roles were reversed, a dominant Warsaw Pact would probably be doing the same thing.

And NATO (US, UK, Germany, whoever) wouldn't bitch about "Russian threat" and not start a military build up?

NATO and the US are just taking steps to defend their populations and allies from possible future aggression, not from Russia but from whatever nation develops into a threat to world stability in the future.

Here's the deal. There's no "whatever nations". In fact, in Europe, there are only the nations which are there. If you build up military in Europe, that means you're getting ready for military action in Europe.

And Russia would go bankrupt again, remember what happened to the USSR?

The USSR didn't go "bankrupt" because of the military alone, but due to many factors. And in any case modern Russia doesn't even have the funds, so it can't "go bankrupt".

Just let it go, NATO and the US have the money to burn, you don't

You're telling a populist leader to stop talking populist talks to Russians? Funny. Ha-ha.

[Simplicius]

It's funny how alarmed people are by Moscow threatening to increase a military budget that pales in comparison to the current US military budget.

A related quote I've run into in a couple of news articles by a Chinese official about sums it up: "If you fear China's military buildup, you haven't got much courage."

It seems that, once again, the US is having a difficult time coming to grips with a revising world order, and prefers to gripe about it rather than sit down and play Risk with everyone else.

(Though it's worth noting that for all our spending, the US MIC is shot through with problems. We're certainly not getting the bang for our buck that we ought, especially because we haven't got a very good handle on strategy.)

[MKSheppard]

In a state council address, Mr Putin condemned Nato's expansion and the US plan to include Poland and the Czech Republic in a missile defence shield.

Oh noes, countries that were pretty much puppeted by the Soviet Union after World War II, are eager to keep it from happening again, and so join NATO!

And how dare the US extend it's ABM shield to it's NATO allies!!!!! Because you know, it's immoral to protect London and Paris, but not New York City!

But Russia would always respond to the challenges of a new arms race by developing more hi-tech weaponry, he said.

Like that hypersonic wave skimming re-eentry vehicle that we just rendered obsolete with an ABM development?

[MKSheppard]

If you build up military in Europe, that means you're getting ready for military action in Europe.

Define "build up". Adding ABM isn't "getting ready for military action" in europe.

And I guess we better keep a watch on Germany, they're planning on introducing an IFV named after a Nazi Scout vehicle (clearly proof of their intention to invade the rest of Europe); and it weighs 43 tons, when clearly their existing Marders are enough!

[MKSheppard]

A related quote I've run into in a couple of news articles by a Chinese official about sums it up: "If you fear China's military buildup, you haven't got much courage."

I've been doing a quite intensive study of the Chinese military for a wargame OOB; and it really is quite remarkable how fast the Chinese military has changed since 1990.

Tanks: They've gone from T-62 clones (Type 69) to very advanced tanks with protection, fire control, and thermal sights (200 x ZTZ-99s); and slightly less advanced tanks which are slowly behing modernized with technology developed from the ZTZ-99 program (1,000 to 2,000 ZTZ-96s). Large part of their tank part still consists of the Type 69 and older tanks; but even these are being upgraded; I've seen photographs of Type 59s (!) with Digital Communications systems similar to the M1A2's IVIS.

APCs: They've gone from pretty much M113 clones (Type 63) to BMP-2 equivalents (Type 86G), and have equipped their airborne forces with specially built IFVs Image.

They've also begun to implement two types of Amphibious capable IFVs:

ZBD-97 - BMP-3 turret mounted on indigeniously developed Chinese Hull. Seems to equip PLA Amphibious Divisions.

ZBD-2000 Advanced Amphibious IFV; using a hydroplaning hull, very very similar to the USMC's EFV in concept; there are two versions of it; one with a 105mm turret to act as a light tank, and one with a 30mm turret to act as an IFV. Is actually in service equipping PLA(N) Marine Units.

ZSL-92 Series
This seems to also be equipping their lighter divisions, replacing trucks and/or older Type 63s. Represents considerable firepower advance over the HMGs of the earlier vehicles.

Fighters: They used to operate basically, a force of MiG-21 knockoffs (J-7) and scaled up MiG-21 knockoffs (J-8)s; but since 1990; they've acquired about 180~ Su-27/Su-30MKK/Su-30MKK2 from Russia, built 96~ J-11s (Su-27SKs); and built 80 to 100~ J-10s.

That makes for a modern front line force of about 350+ fighters, which is nothing to sneeze at.

Navy: They've acquired/built four Sovremennys, and built about 25~ Type 51/Type 52s since the 1990s. This has significantly modernized and bulked out their surface combat fleet. Before, they were just really a brown water navy, with one or two old hand me down ships to show the flag. They've also begun to modernize their amphibious lift capabilities as well.

It also appears they have cloned the LCAC, as well. Link I don't know whether this is the first of a series production class, or a one off to study and integrate technology....

What this means is that the Chinese really have made it much harder for the US to carry out it's stated "two conflict" strategy with present forces, if they ever decide to invade Taiwan when the US is involved elsewhere (this has a 0.05% chance of happening, but planners must take this into account)

[MKSheppard]

It's funny how alarmed people are by Moscow threatening to increase a military budget that pales in comparison to the current US military budget.

I'd like to see the US Military budget increased significantly, so we can you know, get 80 combat aircraft on the decks of each of our CVNs once again, instead of the average of 40-45 we have now....

[Oni Koneko Damien]

It's funny how alarmed people are by Moscow threatening to increase a military budget that pales in comparison to the current US military budget.

I'd like to see the US Military budget increased significantly, so we can you know, get 80 combat aircraft on the decks of each of our CVNs once again, instead of the average of 40-45 we have now....

The question, "Why?" springs immediately to mind, followed by the probably futile hope that the answer does not involve a mad amount of fapping.

[MKSheppard]

The question, "Why?" springs immediately to mind, followed by the probably futile hope that the answer does not involve a mad amount of fapping.

Increased sortie rate; and more combat aircraft; so that we don't need to do multi-carrier forces in order to have parity/superiority in regions which are modernizing their air forces to things more advanced than MiG-21s.

[Admiral Valdemar]

There's a lot of useless pork that can be trimmed from the budget too. The US loves making fancy toys in-house, so no one else can enjoy the benefits of the system in R&D, but this can lead to spiralling costs as native companies take Congress for a ride. I don't know how you can get rid of that, short of rewiring human brains; it just needs to be done, somehow.

[MKSheppard]

To those who say I'm being typical warmongering wankery fappery; I say:

"What if the Argentinians had properly fuzed their bombs in 1982?"

The Falklands is pretty much what happens when you aim for the barest minimum of a military (the Invinicbles IIRC were going to be retired before the Falklands); meaning that you get a fight from a Banana Republic which would have gone the other way if they had fuzed their bombs right....

[Darth Wong]

To those who say I'm being typical warmongering wankery fappery; I say:

"What if the Argentinians had properly fuzed their bombs in 1982?"

The Falklands is pretty much what happens when you aim for the barest minimum of a military (the Invinicbles IIRC were going to be retired before the Falklands); meaning that you get a fight from a Banana Republic which would have gone the other way if they had fuzed their bombs right....

How about a different question?

"What be the economic effects if the UK had spent twice as much money on its military during the entire 20 year period leading up to 1982?"

[MKSheppard]

"What be the economic effects if the UK had spent twice as much money on its military during the entire 20 year period leading up to 1982?"

Oooh good question. Then we have some modicum of a British industrial base surviving; because from that time period you can keep

TSR.2

CVA 01

Type 82 AAW DDGs

In fact, with CVA-01+T82, I don't think the argentinians would have been stupid enough to invade the Falklands, due to the huge overmatch in capabilities.

[Ace Pace]

"What be the economic effects if the UK had spent twice as much money on its military during the entire 20 year period leading up to 1982?"

Oooh good question. Then we have some modicum of a British industrial base surviving; because from that time period you can keep

TSR.2

CVA 01

Type 82 AAW DDGs

In fact, with CVA-01+T82, I don't think the argentinians would have been stupid enough to invade the Falklands, due to the huge overmatch in capabilities.

The question is, again, shep, for what.

Or more precisely,

Increased sortie rate; and more combat aircraft; so that we don't need to do multi-carrier forces in order to have parity/superiority in regions which are modernizing their air forces to things more advanced than MiG-21s.

For what do you need these things. You do not increase military capability in order to increase military capability, you do this in order to serve some sort of goal. Come on, you know this.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Shep does have a point about the Falklands at least. When you have foreign colonies still and those assets have only a bare bones force keeping them in your control, you don't want to then go and cut spending more and sell off the pocket aircraft carriers you have to another, former colony.

On the other hand, the US does seem to be over stretching itself at a time where economic and energetic limitations are starting to clamp on such large powers in the OECD. It may be time to rethink the DoD budget, or else suffer the lesser government programmes.

[Sea Skimmer]

For what do you need these things. You do not increase military capability in order to increase military capability, you do this in order to serve some sort of goal. Come on, you know this.

And you clearly don’t know anything at all about the Falklands War if you question the need for greater British military capability in the 1980s. The British deployed a force of minimal armed and largely obsolete ships which accounted for just thirteen Argentinean aircraft (one of them a freaking Learjet that had been fitted with cameras for reconnaissance, and several more are turboprops or helicopters), including several shot down only by WW2 era 40mm Bofors guns and even lighter machine guns.

In return Argentinean aircraft sank three major warships, one large landing craft and one transport with bombing, one warship and one transport with missile attacks and severally damaged four more ships with bombs and missiles. That’s practically a one to fucking one ratio, and aside from is mere five Exocet missiles Argentina had nothing but WW2 era bombing and strafing from 1950s era jets to work with, with an added anti bonus of unreliable bomb fusing.

RN ships from WW2 would have been for the most part better able to defend themselves.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Indeed. When the RFA Sir Galahad was hit, they lost a good chunk of their mobility and so started the infamous "yomp" that would see many harsh days of fighting and restlessness for a bunch of marines who lost their helos AND Land Rovers. They couldn't do anything but watch their landing ship burn and return fire with GPMGs and SLRs against fucking Etendards and Skyhawks.

Had the public at the time known how close it was to total disaster, heads would've rolled. Fortunately for Maggie, it was won through inferior conscript recruits fighting pissed off and cold Royal Marines. Were it not for determination and a lot of blind luck, the task force could've easily been steaming home minus several ships, a whole lot of lives and one barren island colony.

The US today is in no such position. Anyone who does advocate the bare minimum defence spending only, though, will run into the same drawn out raping of the forces the MoD endured post-war, which many could say is still ongoing.

[Darth Wong]

Shep does have a point about the Falklands at least. When you have foreign colonies still and those assets have only a bare bones force keeping them in your control, you don't want to then go and cut spending more and sell off the pocket aircraft carriers you have to another, former colony.

The UK should have re-evaluated the wisdom of maintaining poorly defended sovereign territories halfway around the world then, because it's totally out of line with their other national priorities to be forced to defend these little shitbag islands in the middle of nowhere. That would make more sense than maintaining island colonies just for the sake of tradition and then debating whether to spend the enormous amounts of money required to maintain the permanent ability to defend them from any aggressor.

Realistically, it would have been much cheaper and easier to quietly send a diplomat to Argentina before the whole situation blew up, and bribe them to settle down.

[Sea Skimmer]

Realistically, it would have been much cheaper and easier to quietly send a diplomat to Argentina before the whole situation blew up, and bribe them to settle down.

Realistically if you know the background to the war you’d know that could not have worked, because Argentinean organized and launched the invasion in a matter of days in response to an internal political crisis, mainly the mob in the street was about ready to rebel and kick the junta out of power. The junta assumed that because of British constant cutbacks, included an announced plan to sell off one of the small aircraft carriers they did have, and the recent withdraw of the British patrol ship (an icebreaker, not a real warship) from the area without replacement that Britain just didn’t care about the place and it would be a quick stabilizing victory. Having ships which cannot be sunk by WW2 bombing attacks is also hardly out of line with British priorities of not being crushed by Soviet Naval Aviation in the first twelve hours of a war.

After the war BTW, the Falklands were given an absolutely absurdly budget crushing garrison of 150 men, while the 1982 garrison was about 20.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The UK should have re-evaluated the wisdom of maintaining poorly defended sovereign territories halfway around the world then, because it's totally out of line with their other national priorities to be forced to defend these little shitbag islands in the middle of nowhere. That would make more sense than maintaining island colonies just for the sake of tradition and then debating whether to spend the enormous amounts of money required to maintain the permanent ability to defend them from any aggressor.

Realistically, it would have been much cheaper and easier to quietly send a diplomat to Argentina before the whole situation blew up, and bribe them to settle down.

The Falklands are strategically quite worthless. The thing to remember is, that while we could have disowned them, the alternative left the inhabitants there with a sour taste in their mouths (and who can blame them when Argentina went and collapsed one day a few years back). Same can be said of Gibraltar, although there's far more precedence for having that little enclave about.

Diplomatic duties were seen to, not that it made much difference. At the time Sec. Haig was trying to get a proper discourse going, the Argies were happy to pay the French a lot of money for Exocets that would be their ace-in-the-hole to win back the islands, which was all about principle rather than economic, geographical or military gain.

Could it have been avoided? No doubt. Do the islands warrant being a part of the Commonwealth that way? I'd say no. At the time, the whole charade did highlight that, even for the UK's less than impressive global reach in the final stages of the Cold War, we didn't have the tools to defend the mainland either. At least, conventionally. I've never been fond of relying on allies for all such defence, which is why I oppose getting rid of our sub-strategic option with Trident and letting the US cover our nuclear aims instead. Too bad we can't make our own reactors or weapons any more thanks to the selling off of Westinghouse to the Japanese and BAE Systems preferring to buy up foreign companies rather than help out the MoD make a case for better funding and systems purchasing.