Red Square Parade Returns

[Kanastrous]

MOSCOW - For the first time in post-Soviet Russia, tanks and nuclear missile launchers are to rumble across Red Square on Friday, in a seemingly fearsome parade of military might.

The message to the world, two days after Dmitry Medvedev succeeds Vladimir Putin as president, should be clear: Russia is again a major military power.

"This isn't saber-rattling," Putin insisted Monday. "We are not threatening anyone."

And indeed, for all the investment in the military — an eightfold increase to an annual $40 billion during Putin's eight years in office — experts say it still has a long way to go to restore its Soviet-era might.

"Our armed forces are merely a bad copy of the Soviet army," said retired Gen. Vladimir Dvorkin, a former arms control expert with the Russian Defense Ministry.

The annual Victory Day parade that marks Nazi Germany's defeat may look impressive, but some Russian commentators think much of the military spending has been squandered through corruption, cronyism and mismanagement.

Although in better shape than in the years immediately after the Soviet Union dissolved, the military remains an example of Russia's inability to use its eight-year oil bonanza to overhaul decrepit infrastructure and institutions.

The Soviet Union was bankrupted two decades ago by centralized planning and state dominance of the economy. After the sale of public assets in the 1990s, the state under Putin has expanded its role, and plans to create huge new government-owned military and technological conglomerates.

But the army, the pension system, public health, secondary education and the road system have all eroded on Putin's watch, former government ministers Boris Nemtsov and Vladimir Milov wrote in a recent report, "Putin: The Bottom Line."

The main cause, they charge, is "Russia's dive into an unprecedented mire of corruption" that flows throughout the government.

INDEM, a Moscow-based research foundation, has reported that the volume of corrupt business conducted in Russia rose from $36 billion in 2001 to around $319 billion in 2005, its latest published data.

The military budget accounts for around 4.6 percent of gross domestic product, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, roughly on a par with China and the U.S.

But the generals don't let cash reach the grass roots where it's most needed, says security analyst Andrei Soldatov, and this "is leaving Russia's rapid-reaction armed forces in particularly bad shape."

The military's problems may be one reason why Medvedev repeatedly sounds the alarm about corruption, calling it "the gravest disease which has struck our society."

Putin's Kremlin has poured $150 billion into its armed services, yet those services remain saddled with old weaponry and facilities.

As part of an effort to reclaim Russia's previous status as a great military power, Putin has resumed long-range bomber patrols, boasted of developing a new strategic missile and threatened to deploy missiles closer to the heart of Europe.

But only a handful of new combat jets and several dozen tanks have been added in recent years. Soviet submarines still frequently need repair and rarely leave their bases.

A new nuclear sub, the Yury Dolgoruky, cannot be deployed because the Bulava ballistic missile it was supposed to carry has failed tests. When the vessel eventually sails, it will likely only make training cruises, according to a report by the Federation of American Scientists.

"Russia no longer maintains a continuous sea-based deterrent patrol posture like that of the United States, Britain and France, but instead has shifted to a new posture where it occasionally deploys a submarine for training purposes," the report said.

Military service is mandatory, but conditions are brutal and less than 10 percent of males end up in uniform, according to a 2007 study for the Swedish Research Institute of National Defense.

Russia's declining population has also left it with a shrinking pool of draftees. According to population expert Murray Feshbach at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, young men being inducted into the military today are neither as healthy nor as educated as they were in the Soviet times.

Military communications also lag. The introduction of Russia's answer to America's GPS satellite navigation system was postponed this year due to equipment shortages. Basics like night-vision goggles, portable radios and satellite phones are scarce.

The bottom line is that "the Russian military forces are in a bad state, and the situation is getting worse," said Alexander Khramchikhin, chief analyst at the Institute of Military and Political Analysis.

So Russia increasingly relies on its nuclear missiles for defense. The weaker its army, the quicker it might resort to atomic weapons in a crisis, some analysts fear.

"It's a very destabilizing concept," said Alexander Pikayev, head of military policy research at the Institute for World Economy and International Relations in Moscow.

Russians, meanwhile, worry that with the Soviet-era missile arsenal aging, Moscow will find it harder to maintain nuclear parity with the U.S.

Still, things are better than in the 1990s. Jets and navy ships are no longer idled for lack of fuel. Wage hikes and better training have made troops more combat-ready.

The return of heavy weapons to the annual celebration is "a demonstration of our growing defense capabilities," Putin said in remarks broadcast on state television Monday. "We are able to defend our people, our citizens, our state, our riches — of which there is quite a lot."

But Putin, who is staying on as prime minister, and President-elect Medvedev, face formidable challenges if they want to do more than parade military hardware in Red Square, and turn Russia's armed services into a modern fighting force.

Unlike 10 years ago, Russia today has the means to pursue these goals. All it needs now is the political will. Pikayev said Friday's parade shows it now has that will.

"It demonstrates that Russia has risen from its knees and is prepared to do everything to make its concerns heard," he said.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24469032/

[Patrick Degan]

Well well, Russian Mardi Gras is back.

[HemlockGrey]

It's actually kind of sad how desperate Russia is to cling to the idea that they're still a great power.

[Darth Wong]

True. Wallowing in pointless affirmations of national pride always looks ridiculous unless it's your own country doing it.

[Illuminatus Primus]

True. Wallowing in pointless affirmations of national pride always looks ridiculous unless it's your own country doing it.

Hemlock is hardly a America is awesome! wanker. I think its particularly sad in Russia's case because its a direct emulation of their days as the Second Superpower, which they pale in comparison to now but maintain a sad pretense.

[Vympel]

This has been posted several times in the past few months.

(Pictures of practice runs in A&P )

I suppose this thread can stay until the actual parade on May 9. I'm sure Stas will have something to say on the comments in the article. The article isn't terribly well written IMO:-

Although in better shape than in the years immediately after the Soviet Union dissolved

But the army... have all eroded on Putin's watch

The bottom line is that "the Russian military forces are in a bad state, and the situation is getting worse," said Alexander Khramchikhin, chief analyst at the Institute of Military and Political Analysis.

Still, things are better than in the 1990s.

Well? Which is it?

"Russia no longer maintains a continuous sea-based deterrent patrol posture like that of the United States, Britain and France, but instead has shifted to a new posture where it occasionally deploys a submarine for training purposes," the report said.

Inaccurate. The USSR never maintained a continuous sea-based deterrent patrol posture like the US, UK and France.

Articles of this nature are often riddled with these sorts of mixed messages - they repeatedly invoke accusations that the Russian Federation wants to emulate the military of the Soviet Union, including it's nuclear forces, where even a cursory look at what's been going on for the past 17 years proves that's just not so.

[Kanastrous]

The USSR never maintained a continuous sea-based deterrent patrol posture like the US, UK and France.

All those Deltas and Typhoons, and there were times when there was nothing at sea?

[Vympel]

All those Deltas and Typhoons, and there were times when there was nothing at sea?

Not nothing at sea, but continuous patrols were not considered necessary. Just like now, with a much reduced SSBN force.

[Rye]

True. Wallowing in pointless affirmations of national pride always looks ridiculous unless it's your own country doing it.

I find it more creepy than ridiculous, and even more so when it's my country doing it. Something about nationalism (I would say the faith-based tribalism) allies itself incredibly well with racism and the authoritarian left and right. Knowing the dire situation in Russia and to a lesser extent Britain has with extreme right wing politics and the association of such nutters to flag waving and violence, I'm always repelled by the horde with their banners and chants.

Everything about it is to inflame the senses and suppress individual thought. All those people who gather to be identified in reference to the mass that surrounds them, no doubt with a desire to enforce conformity for unity and strength. Nothing trustworthy about it at all, but it's all very seductive.

[Adrian Laguna]

Wallowing in pointless affirmations of national pride always looks ridiculous unless it's your own country doing it.

Really? I've always thought military parades were pretty cool, no matter which country is doing it. It's like a Disney parade, but with tanks instead of floats.

[Sidewinder]

But the army, the pension system, public health, secondary education and the road system have all eroded on Putin's watch, former government ministers Boris Nemtsov and Vladimir Milov wrote in a recent report, "Putin: The Bottom Line."

I have to wonder, is this "erosion" merely a continuation of what happened during the Yeltsin administration, and Putin failed to arrest it? Or do Nemtsov and Milov blame Putin himself for these problems?

The main cause, they charge, is "Russia's dive into an unprecedented mire of corruption" that flows throughout the government.

INDEM, a Moscow-based research foundation, has reported that the volume of corrupt business conducted in Russia rose from $36 billion in 2001 to around $319 billion in 2005, its latest published data.

$319 BILLION in corruption?! I have to wonder, where the hell is that money coming from? The Russian oil industry? How is this money getting to the corrupt officials? Skimming profits from state-owned enterprises? Pocketing funds intended for projects like construction and maintenance? Siphoning off certain critical supplies and selling them on the black market? (I'm having trouble imagining which company, or group of companies, is willing and able to pay that much in bribes. If each corrupt official collects $10 million in bribes, there's still enough for 31,900 men and women.)

[Vympel]

Really? I've always thought military parades were pretty cool, no matter which country is doing it. It's like a Disney parade, but with tanks instead of floats.

Same here. I don't find anything at all wrong with military parades, I don't get Cold War/ authoritarian/ militaristic undertones from them at all - France of all places holds a similar parade with their army down the Champs-Elysses every year, on Bastille Day. And it's larger!

And of course I love the Russians starting this again, because it looks awesome and I get to check out all the new hardware.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I cannot help but notice that every time the Russian military is brought up, there are so many negative connotations, and brings up the same o' negative responses from various subsections of Russophobia. Seriously, as much as nationalism in Russia is strong, it is clear that this article was intended to provoke some of the responses in this thread. Manipulated like putty.

[Vympel]

I have to wonder, is this "erosion" merely a continuation of what happened during the Yeltsin administration, and Putin failed to arrest it? Or do Nemtsov and Milov blame Putin himself for these problems?

Its bullshit. Erosion is saying that Russia's military capability is declining as opposed to increasing, and that's plainly nonsensical when you consider the situation in the 1990s, as the article itself notes. It's self-contradictory. Military capability, the effects of corruption (never mind the sheer decreptitude of the institutions/ military-industrial infrastructure that has to be revamped - when a military plant has no orders for over a decade, you can't just pump billions of orders in and expect them to start churning out hundreds of planes a year like in the old days) aside, has still been steadily increasing.

The article acknowledges the increase in funding, training, new equipment, etc. That's simply not an erosion, by definition. Russia's steps to rebuild it's decrepit armed forces are slow and small-scale. Yet every minor increase is touted as the beginning of a new Cold War, while at the same time mocking it because it's not the same as the USSR. It's sheer Russophobia.

[Darth Wong]

True. Wallowing in pointless affirmations of national pride always looks ridiculous unless it's your own country doing it.

Hemlock is hardly a America is awesome! wanker.

He doesn't have to be. He only has to be accustomed to the usual pointless superficial displays of American pseudo-patriotism and national pride, such as the flags and eagles everywhere, or a place like Mount Rushmore, which is perhaps the most obscene monument to national pride on the entire planet. Most Americans are so accustomed to this that it doesn't even register for what it is, but when they see the Russians engaging in a display of national pride, they point and say "Ha ha ha, look at the silly Russkies!"

[Illuminatus Primus]

True. Wallowing in pointless affirmations of national pride always looks ridiculous unless it's your own country doing it.

Hemlock is hardly a America is awesome! wanker.

He doesn't have to be. He only has to be accustomed to the usual pointless superficial displays of American pseudo-patriotism and national pride, such as the flags and eagles everywhere, or a place like Mount Rushmore, which is perhaps the most obscene monument to national pride on the entire planet. Most Americans are so accustomed to this that it doesn't even register for what it is, but when they see the Russians engaging in a display of national pride, they point and say "Ha ha ha, look at the silly Russkies!"

Okay, so if I had said this was stupid, I'm automatically a hypocrite because I exist and was created in the United States? Its not as if you explained how his comment is intriniscally or even implies hypocrisy or a double-standard on his part. Only that he is an American and he dared criticize anything about another country's nationalist wanking.

Must I, having been born and lived most of my life in America, qualify every comment I make on-topic regarding another country - even if it is free of implication of American sacrosanctity - with denounciations of American folly or cultural madness if I do not wish to be berated with claims or insinuations of hypocrisy? How exactly should someone who is American phrase or word their statements about other countries to avoid similar remarks?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ghetto edit:

Basically, I don't see how a pithy tu quoque quip toward any American on a thread about Russia - or any other state - where they simply make a claim about Russian militarism and nationalism (and this is much more overtly militaristic; the U.S. does not parade nuclear weapon delivery systems and goose-steppers) is appropriate or necessary. Including if delivered on the basis that any American is subconsciously, by virtue of having been exposed constantly to American nationalism, a hypocrite.

[Darth Wong]

Okay, so if I had said this was stupid, I'm automatically a hypocrite because I exist and was created in the United States? Its not as if you explained how his comment is intriniscally or even implies hypocrisy or a double-standard on his part. Only that he is an American and he dared criticize anything about another country's nationalist wanking.

Americans do more nationalist wanking before 8:00AM than most countries do all day. Most of it you don't even recognize as nationalist wanking, like the flags, Mount Rushmore, the eagles, saying the Pledge of Allegiance every day in school, etc. Now if you're part of that tiny minority of Americans which is actually sickened by all of that, then I suppose my statement is unfair. But frankly, I find that to be about as likely as flying pigs on the Moon. Basic psychological conditioning theory indicates that a lifetime of exposure to this ubiquitous imagery will make you very accustomed to it, and comfortable with it, in a way that precludes you thinking it's ridiculous until it goes beyond the norm that you are used to. What Americans don't realize is that their norm is already wankery.

Must I, having been born and lived most of my life in America, qualify every comment I make on-topic regarding another country - even if it is free of implication of American sacrosanctity - with denounciations of American folly or cultural madness if I do not wish to be berated with claims or insinuations of hypocrisy? How exactly should someone who is American phrase or word their statements about other countries to avoid similar remarks?

Well, perhaps you could start by not laughing about how some countries are only "second rate" world powers, as if this makes their displays of nationalism any more pathetic or ridiculous. Apparently, you do not even recognize the implication of that statement, which implies that a "first rate" power like the United States is more entitled to such displays.

Ghetto edit:

Basically, I don't see how a pithy tu quoque quip toward any American on a thread about Russia - or any other state - where they simply make a claim about Russian militarism and nationalism (and this is much more overtly militaristic; the U.S. does not parade nuclear weapon delivery systems and goose-steppers) is appropriate or necessary. Including if delivered on the basis that any American is subconsciously, by virtue of having been exposed constantly to American nationalism, a hypocrite.

Yup. It's obvious that you can't see what the fuck was so obviously wrong with laughing at Russia displaying nationalist pride despite not being part of your exclusive club of "real" world powers.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Americans do more nationalist wanking before 8:00AM than most countries do all day. Most of it you don't even recognize as nationalist wanking, like the flags, Mount Rushmore, the eagles, saying the Pledge of Allegiance every day in school, etc. Now if you're part of that tiny minority of Americans which is actually sickened by all of that, then I suppose my statement is unfair.

I've got immigrants in the family. I've been abroad a lot. I was an athiest early enough to feel uncomfortable and out of place with "under God" and "a moment of silence" - especially since they were framed in such a way to make you feel un-American if you did not participate. My house doesn't hold flags, and I always thought it was hypocrisy to fly the flag all the time but not respect the code and leave the goddamn stickers to bleach white.

Judging from quite a few polls and a cursory examination of the board culture and its participants, and the number of athiests particularly, I don't think very many Americans here fit the mold. Being an athiest alone makes you more hated here than blacks in the South and gays in general by a significant margin.

But frankly, I find that to be about as likely as flying pigs on the Moon. Basic psychological conditioning theory indicates that a lifetime of exposure to this ubiquitous imagery will make you very accustomed to it, and comfortable with it, in a way that precludes you thinking it's ridiculous until it goes beyond the norm that you are used to. What Americans don't realize is that their norm is already wankery.

Okay, so you agree this completely ridiculous dickwaving is, in fact, ridiculous, but an American in an agreeing position is somehow worthy of condescension and dimissal as a psychologically brainwashed cretin because you divined that their barometer for when such displays would have become ridiculous is not as sensitive as yours? These quite frankly, hasty generalizations of Freudian psychoanalytical-esque stuff (well I know what you're really saying, and there's no way you can falsify that) are ridiculous when you consider how many Americans are immigrants or children of immigrants, how many of us dwell in liberal cities, etc., etc.

Well, perhaps you could start by not laughing about how some countries are only "second rate" world powers, as if this makes their displays of nationalism any more pathetic or ridiculous.

Except the United States does not display nuclear weapon delivery systems on Pennslyvannia Ave or the National Mall every V-E day or V-J day, some six years on. You act as if making a statement on the basis of degree is somehow fallacious or unfair in of itself, without any reason to suggest they do not think that American displays are ridiculous (if not equally so).

Apparently, you do not even recognize the implication of that statement, which implies that a "first rate" power like the United States is more entitled to such displays.

I don't like muscle men strutting and bragging about fucking girls, but its definitely less odious than braggadoccio coming from a wannabe pant-shitter like the gym-freak Jehovah's Witness you have mentioned before. So I think there is something to that logic. It is definitely stretching logic to have him saying a "second-rate power" (by the way, he said "great power," which hardly in common or historical usage implies inferiority or second-rate status, merely one among the first-rates) somehow means then it would be okay if the U.S. were to have militaristic displays in Washington or the like.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Basically, I don't see how a pithy tu quoque quip toward any American on a thread about Russia - or any other state - where they simply make a claim about Russian militarism and nationalism (and this is much more overtly militaristic; the U.S. does not parade nuclear weapon delivery systems and goose-steppers) is appropriate or necessary. Including if delivered on the basis that any American is subconsciously, by virtue of having been exposed constantly to American nationalism, a hypocrite.

[/quote]
Yup. It's obvious that you can't see what the fuck was so obviously wrong with laughing at Russia displaying nationalist pride despite not being part of your exclusive club of "real" world powers.[/quote]

I never said anything right here about our club. I said that the degree of the Russian wanking is MORE severe than that of the U.S. Is it completely wrong to distinguish on the grounds of degree? Is the overt public militarism of the Red Square parades not creepier and more chauvenistic than the dull conformity and the uniform preachy sing-songy superficiality of American nationalism?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Except the United States does not display nuclear weapon delivery systems on Pennslyvannia Ave or the National Mall every V-E day or V-J day, some six years on. You act as if making a statement on the basis of degree is somehow fallacious or unfair in of itself, without any reason to suggest they do not think that American displays are ridiculous (if not equally so).

Is there anything particularly wrong with displaying nuclear missiles? The Royal Navy themselves have one Vanguard class SSBN on a navy review a few years back attended by the Queen no less, and though it's a long time ago, the US displayed a Pershing missile during Kennedy's inauguration. I won't be surprised an Ohio submarine. Given that the US no long deploys such mobile missiles that could possibly be rolled across the street, this is even moot.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Ghetto Edit: I am not surprised if an Ohio class submarine was on an navy review once, though the US definitely has its carriers on an occasional navy review.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Is there anything particularly wrong with displaying nuclear missiles? The Royal Navy themselves have one Vanguard class SSBN on a navy review a few years back attended by the Queen no less, and though it's a long time ago, the US displayed a Pershing missile during Kennedy's inauguration. I won't be surprised an Ohio submarine. Given that the US no long deploys such mobile missiles that could possibly be rolled across the street, this is even moot.

Okay, fine, overt displays of militarism and armaments in general. I do not think the needless and excessive Russian militarism is characterized only and purely by their ballistic missile launchers. The tanks, artillery, and goosestepping hordes (which I mentioned) certainly help.

[Illuminatus Primus]

8.7% of Americans are immigrants, so to say basically all Americans need be brainwashed hordes is crap. Especially since even second-generation and third can be ostracized and deal with endemic racism.

[Darth Wong]

I never said anything right here about our club.

Bullshit. Both you and HG acted as though this is somehow less acceptable because Russia is not powerful enough, as if more powerful nations have a somehow intrinsically greater right to displays of nationalism.

I said that the degree of the Russian wanking is MORE severe than that of the U.S.

How so?

Is it completely wrong to distinguish on the grounds of degree? Is the overt public militarism of the Red Square parades not creepier and more chauvenistic than the dull conformity and the uniform preachy sing-songy superficiality of American nationalism?

No, it isn't. You only think it's obviously more "creepy and chauvinistic" because it's not the type of nationalistic pride display that you're accustomed to.

8.7% of Americans are immigrants, so to say basically all Americans need be brainwashed hordes is crap.

Oooh, a whole EIGHT POINT SEVEN PERCENT! Wow, you have totally demolished my generalization, sir!! Well DONE, man!!!

Seriously, you're just digging the hole deeper. You're full of shit.